Parents who love their children cannot afford to be intimidated by them

Reasons to agree

1. Your job, as a parent, isn't to let children learn from their own mistakes, but to protect them while they are young from setting bad habits, and to try to get them to learn from other people's mistakes.


2. Children might not be aware they are in danger.


3. Children are stupid adults.


4. Children are children.


5. You can destroy your life, if you get trapped in drugs, alcohol, or unhealthy sexual relationships.


6. People who are intimidated will defer, and you should not defer to children on important things.

Reasons to agree

1. You can't control your children. Children are going to eventually make up their own minds and so you should let them learn from their own mistakes.

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 5

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to disagree with reasons to agree: 0

Total Idea Score: 5

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change.

Sleepovers are bad

Reasons to agree

1. Too many youth try alcohol for the first time at a sleepover.
2. Too many youth try tobacco for the first time at a sleepover.
3. Too many youth have their first exposure to pornography at a sleepover.
4. Peer pressure becomes more powerful when our children are away from our influence.
5. Our defenses are weakened late at night.

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 5

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to disagree with reasons to agree: 0

Total Idea Score: 5

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change.

(+5) Families should spend time together once a week

Reasons to agree

1. Parenting is rewarding if you do a good job.


2. Children need a good relationship with their parent.


3. Families that play together stay together.


4. If you don't make it a goal to do every week, it will not get done.


5. If you have time to watch TV you have time to spend with your family.

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 5

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to disagree with reasons to agree: 0

Total Idea Score: 5

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change.

The Kindle is better than the Nook

Lead Editor: Mike Laub Just tell me your e-mail address, and you can contribute! Reasons to agree: % The Kindle cost $10 less than the Nook. The kindle is 8.7 ounces, the Nook is 11.2 ounces (28% heavier).  The Kindle has new and improved "Pearl" e-ink screen.         R2A(+): 1       R2AA(+): 0       R2DA(-): 0        Reasons to disagree: % The Kindle can not read files in the EPUB format.         R2D(-): 0       R2AD(-): 0       R2DD(+): 0        Total Score: 1 Most Probable interest of those who agree:  % Validating the decision they already made. Most Probable interest of those who disagree: % Validating the decision they already made. Books that can be said to agree: % Books that can be said to disagree: %   People that agree: People that disagree: Webpages that agree: ?  Webpages that disagree: ? Values that agree: Values that disagree:   It is nerdy to analyze issues with this much detail.

America should be a good republic, and not try to be an empire.

Reasons to Agree:

1. We just want to create a good place for our people to live. America should focus on internal prosperity rather than expanding its global influence.
2. Empires historically collapse due to overreach. Rome, Britain, and the Soviet Union all fell when they stretched too far.
3. Military expansion is financially unsustainable. Global military bases and interventions cost trillions of dollars, money that could be used for healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
4. Republican values oppose imperialism. The U.S. was founded on self-governance and democracy, not ruling over other nations.
5. Empire-building creates unnecessary enemies. Intervening in other countries often leads to backlash and long-term instability.

---

Reasons to Disagree:

1. A strong global presence ensures national security. The U.S. deters threats by maintaining military bases and alliances worldwide.
2. Economic dominance benefits Americans. U.S. influence in global trade and financial systems helps maintain a strong economy.
3. Vacuum of power would be filled by rivals. If the U.S. withdraws, China or Russia could take its place as the dominant global power.
4. Soft power requires global leadership. The U.S. spreads democratic values through its influence, diplomacy, and strategic presence.

---

Most Probable Interest of Those Who Agree:

• Prioritizing domestic well-being over foreign intervention.
• Limiting military spending to reinvest in infrastructure, education, and healthcare.
• Supporting non-interventionist foreign policy.

---

Most Probable Interest of Those Who Disagree:

• Protecting national security through global military presence.
• Maintaining economic and political influence worldwide.
• Ensuring the U.S. remains the dominant global power.

---

Books That Agree:

• The Costs of Empire by Andrew Bacevich
• Republic, Not an Empire by Patrick Buchanan
• The Tragedy of Great Power Politics by John Mearsheimer

---

Books That Disagree:

• The Case for American Empire by Max Boot
• The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski

---

Most Likely Benefits:

• Reduced military spending, allowing investment in domestic programs.
• Less global conflict involving the U.S.
• Stronger economic stability with focus on national industries.

---

Local, Federal, and International Laws That Agree:

• U.S. Constitution emphasizes limited government and non-aggression.
• International sovereignty laws support non-interventionism.

---

Evidence Scores:

• High evidence linking overreach to collapse in past empires.
• Economic studies on the cost of maintaining global military presence.

---

Songs That Agree:

• Born in the U.S.A. – Bruce Springsteen
• Fortunate Son – Creedence Clearwater Revival

---

People Who Agree:

• Ron Paul – Advocate of non-interventionism.
• Tulsi Gabbard – Critic of American military overreach.

---

People Who Disagree:

• John Bolton – Former National Security Advisor, supports interventionist policies.
• Henry Kissinger – Advocate of U.S. global leadership.

---

Images That Can Be Said to Agree:

• Image of the Founding Fathers drafting the Constitution.
• Political cartoons showing the dangers of imperial overreach.

---

Videos That Agree:

• YouTube video: The Fall of Empires
• Lecture by John Mearsheimer on great power politics.

---

Objective Criteria for Assessing This Belief:

• Economic cost-benefit analysis of empire vs. republic.
• Historical case studies of successful vs. failed superpowers.

---

Media That Supports This Belief:

• Documentaries on the decline of empires.
• News articles on the cost of U.S. foreign policy.

---

Interests & Motivations Template:

• Template for analyzing why people support or oppose this belief.

Value Validity: Equality

The numbering system below describes a system that scores groups of people within a range of 1 to 10 by how much they value equality.

1. These people undervalue equality. People who value equality at a 1, do not value equality very much. These people are willing to accept inhuman, or even unnatural cruelty to others, or specific groups of people. They do not value all life equally. People from their group (family, race, nationality) are acceptable, however they give little or no concern to those from other groups, or actively seek to harm those from other groups. 


2.  


3.  


4.  


5.  


6.  


7.   


8.  


9.  


10. These people over value equality. Someone who overvalues an otherwise positive value like equality would be willing to sacrifice other good values in order to satisfy equality. These people not only are willing to steel from Peter to give to Paul, but are willing to trample all over such concepts as "freedom of choice", the "law of the harvest", justice, or reasonable application of mercy in order to ensure that Peter does not have anything more than Paul. An example of someone who is overly concerned with equality hate the strong, powerful, or beautiful. These people are not just concerned about equality of opportunity, but also equality of outcome. They are willing to sacrifice freedom, and require massive amounts of power in order to guarantee the outcome that they see fit. They don't care if anyone is happy, just that no one is more happy than others. They are so concerned with equality, that they can not accept that truly evil might be sad, or noble people to experience any happiness. They feel bad for Hitler. These people would say that no tradition, no norm, no action is wrong, or worse than other actions. It is wrong to say that someone is bad, and another person is good. We are all equal, and therefore everyone can be whatever they want as long as it is not better than someone else.

Clearing the Fog: A Call for Organized, Meaningful Information Exchange

Let's face it - we are inundated with information. The problem is, much of it isn't organized in a way that helps us make better decisions or gain deeper understanding. In the current landscape, we have a situation that I like to call "manufacturing confusion".

Imagine a system where each reason to agree or disagree is tagged, organized, and classified. You could trace the genesis of an argument, finding the first person who made that claim, or discover more eloquent ways it has been expressed.

Each post would carry a wealth of associated information: better or more succinct ways of expressing the same idea, the inception of the argument, and references to books, songs, and statistics that support or challenge this perspective.

To cut through the noise and make real progress, we need not just more, but better organized information. We should be brainstorming common interests and opposing viewpoints, and generating alternative solutions.

I've been toiling away at this concept since 1998, and it's been quite frustrating to see that no one else seems to be advocating for or trying to build the web forum of my dreams. On the surface, it seems simple - a platform that promotes meaningful information exchange, instead of cluttering the web with more noise. I've started some work on this project at Group Intel and Idea Stock Exchange, but I would love to brainstorm with others about the features of this forum and how to bring it to fruition.

Thank you for taking the time to read this post. If you're as passionate as I am about making the internet a platform that promotes good information, I would love to talk about it with you. Let's start a conversation today to build a better tomorrow.