I haven't eaten meat in months.

Completely orthogonal to any of the more interesting points you were trying to make, but: it looks like you might be going vegan in an unsystematic way. I heard this gives people severe permanent disabilities, in ways that are trivial to dodge once you know what they are. (I realize you've probably already addressed this, but thought I'd err on the side of caution and nag you anyway.)

This was super fun to read, thanks for sharing! Hm... your new student seems like an interesting person to talk to. Mind asking if he'd be interested in a chat with someone else his age? I'm also a public form (debate format) debater in high school, and I'm doing prep work for this particular topic on student loans as well. I'd love to get a chance to talk with him a bit, and I feel like he may enjoy it as well. 

On that note, I think I can elaborate a bit on the format a bit in ways others might find helpful. 

Public forum is one of many debate formats with it's own time and argument structure. The general idea goes something like this. You and your partner (this is a 2v2 format) prepare a case about a few weeks to a month in advance for a topic that's disclosed prior to the debate. Each side gets 4 minutes to make their initial speech. From there, each side gets a rebuttal, a cross examination, a summary, etc etc. About an hour later, each side gives their closing statements (final focus) and the judge drops their vote for the side which was more 'persuasive'. 

Now, I think your student is a bit new to the format, because it seems like he hasn't gotten the optimal mindset for the format yet. In public forum, being persuasive almost never means being right. Quite the opposite, actually. You typically be persuasive by being completely damn wrong. 

Let me illustrate with an example. In one of my last debate tournaments the resolution was: "The US military should substantially increase it's military presence in the Artic." Seems pretty clear cut and typically vague, and it could go any direction. A reasonable person might consider future artic trade routes, security obligations to neighbors, defense of strategic chokepoints or resources... 

Fortunately, we were debaters, not reasonable people, so me and my partner ran two main arguments. Climate change and nuclear Armageddon. On the affirmative, the argument was fairly straightforward. Climate change bad, renewables good. To stop climate change we thus need rare earth minerals... but... China has 90% of them. We proceeded to find an evidence card saying how the Artic has a massive deposit of rare earth minerals, and how the US military should deploy forces to maintain security against grayzone operations. On the negative, things were much more fun. We found some instances of Russia sending ships/submarines to the US coast, the range of a nuclear hypersonic missile, and a few buildups of military bases in the Artic. We then proceeded to argue that Russia had a credible first strike capability and if we didn't take the Artic we'd be at risk of nuclear Armageddon (yes, I'm serious, I actually argued that). 

We clean swept that entire tournament without losing a single round. 

For an outsider, I imagine this might seem pretty ludicrous (to be honest I'd think so too) but in the context of the actual format it makes perfect sense. The debaters aren't experts, nor are they proficient in Bayes craft. Their readings are limited, and their prep time even more so. On a regular debate most teams would be scurrying to make counterarguments for common objections opponents might raise, often as late as the night before. We have just enough information and confidence to sound like experts, but only to a layperson. In front of an actual expert I'd imagine we look ridiculous. (I'd love to hear Bryan Caplan's reaction to my argument saying student loan forgiveness boosts the economy). But that's not a relevant concern. Nobody is an expert. 

So what even if they were? You have 4 minutes for the main speech, and 4 minutes for the rebuttal. It takes 5 minutes to make a bullshit claim and a whole debate to prove it wrong. This is part of the reason why scientists typically don't debate flat earthers. Any tinfoil hat theorist worth their salt can spend a minute spinning some wild story an exasperated expert will have to spend hours to disprove. Thus, most debaters can spare themselves the trouble of even trying. 

Case in point: my evidence card for Russian nuclear threats was the range of the Kinzhal hypersonic missile, about 1000 miles. Coincidentally, around the same distance from the Artic to the US mainland. Thus the argument for why control of the Artic is important. You can hit the mainland US with a first strike from the Artic, but not from Moscow. If my opponents spent 2 minutes to read the card they would've discovered another missile I neglected to mention, the Avantgarde, which has a range of 3000 miles. Even if they didn't know this, the argument is obviously bogus. Hypersonics are not a credible first strike capability unless Russia has the ISR to identify and destroy ALL of our nuclear submarines, silos, and aircraft at the same time. But of course, my opponents never read much material on nuclear doctrine, so they repeated the claims about mutually assured destruction which I was able to shoot down with ease. (What mutually assured destruction? We'd be dead before we could react). 

Likewise with rare earth minerals. I neglected to mention the US is not fully mining it's stockpiles. I neglected to mention other mineral reserves. I also neglected to mention that China has no military forces in the Artic, and there's no credible threat to defend against. Even if there was, I had no evidence of any US mining interests in the Artic. (I actually pointed this out against a team that stole the case and tried to run it against us. 'Why are you sending the military? What are they going to do, mine the minerals with tanks? Bomb the deposits with HIGHMARS?)

Now, all of this is obvious in hindsight, but in an hour long debate a team only has 2 minutes of prep time, so there's basically no room for anybody except the fastest readers to credibly review all the evidence carefully. (Hell, I read at 1000wpm and I still have trouble). Thus, most of the time you can safely get away with the most egregious bullshit. In a setting where all claims are purportedly from 'experts' or 'reliable sources', where each word comes with complete confidence even when the speaker is lying through their teeth, it's rarely an efficent strategy to actually pursue the truth. Rhetorical flourishes, appeals to fear, ridiculously outsized impacts, and weak arguments are the name of the day. 

 In that sense, I think I've illustrated that there isn't such a thing as a truly 'indefensible' argument, only overly scrupulous debaters. With my four years of experience in the format I have reasonable confidence I can beat an novice in a fair public forum debate, even while taking a completely ridiculous stance like flat eartherism. Much the same with student loans, though the problem is less acute. Your student could do the same. Say with a straight face that student loans help the economy, and the power of social cognition will make it so. 

To conclude, never argue with a public forum debater. They will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience. 

(Note: This was an argumentative piece by a debater. Realities explained are not necessarily endorsed, and arguments made typically do not reflect my opinion or that of any sane person. I disavow responsibility for anyone who takes my arguments seriously :P) 

It takes $10,000,000 for the US government to save an Amerian life.

I'm pretty sure the right number is much, much lower. For example:

• Sommers 2016 found that Medicaid expansion saved a life for ~$600k 
• Barro 2022 found that COVID vaccines saved a life for $55k
• The EPA estimates that the Clean Air Act saved a life for $280k

I take it your $10m number is from Value of a Statistical Life. But VSL measures typical willingness to pay to avert risk to one's own life. The best-targeted interventions will be much cheaper.

I enjoyed this a lot. 
The interactions seem very kind/patient (I'm looking for a word with more nuance, but English isn't exactly my strong suit) , in a good way. The humor is also great, reminds me of someone, maybe Scott? Unsure.
 

Mr. Lsusr, I thoroughly appreciated the post. It was very didactic and I feel like I could teach way better if I were to.

But that said, I feel like I should warn you of something.

It’s clear you are very knowledgeable. Your video on finance 101 was quite interesting, and you seem to question what most people don’t. A quality I find most valuable. Nonetheless, I find the manner with which you portray yourself to be lacking. I’m not sure if it was due to excitement, joy, or if it was the genre of communication of your choice, but I could feel a tinge of arrogance behind your words. It’s a problem I face constantly as well, so I can guess what you might feel about this comment. Perhaps you could share your take on this?

Aside from that, I feel like you could become way more credible if you fixed your posture and/or your wardrobe? Not that you dress terribly, but, you know… (I’m aware it the video wasn’t supposed to be formal. It’s just something to keep in mind)

Looking forward to other posts from you.

Regards,

This isn't related to the post directly, but do you think that public transportation being free would be a good or bad decision for any reasonably large city (Chicago, Boston, New York, etc)?

Good meaning 'good for people, good for the city's local economy generally (via other benefits besides income from fares)'