1) I find the conflict paradigm to be more insightful.
2)
A)Theoretical arguments:
The fact is that those who have money and power can do just about anything in this society. The same does not hold true for people with fewer means. The is always conflict involved when trying to climb the social ladder.
B)Empirical evidence:
I look at the Kennedy family as a prime example of the conflict paradigm. Their money and power has helped them gain everything they have while harming many in their way. I know this is controversial, but the patriarch of the family obtained many of his funds by illegal means. He was willing to step on everyone to get what he wanted. In our society today the people who hold the power aren't always honest with the American people. If they were the tobacco companies wouldn't have been able to hold such strong influence in the rules passed regarding their issues.
3)
A)Theoretical arguments:
I think the order paradigm is a rosy and wonderful idea of how we should operate, but it doesn't work. People aren't willing to treat each other equally.
B)Empirical evidence:
There is no way we can support the idea of the "organism" things are happening around us which we cannot control. The loss of jobs, the levels of education, and the desires of people to further themselves are just a few examples. No one can tell a low income person to stay where they are for the population as a whole. We can't control the growth, reproduction, and the freedoms of our people in order to achieve equality.
4) This country has always been a fight for your right country, I don't necessarily agree with it, but I don't see any change in the near future.