The Instigator
Grandzam
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
RonPaulConservative
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Evolution should be taught in public schools

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Grandzam
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 2/7/2017 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 992 times Debate No: 99690
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (29)
Votes (3)

 

Grandzam

Pro

I made this debate because I believe I can beat the user RonPaulConservative's argument on this topic. I hope you accept and good luck.
RonPaulConservative

Con

Schools should not teach false things- so just like a school isn't allowed to teach students that the American Revolution stared in 1957 or that Michelle Obama is a man: it is a given that absurd ideas and baseless speculations should not be allowed to be taught in public schools. This principle should apply to evolution no less, and as has been demonstrated in this essay, {1} that is all evolution is.

{1}. https://docs.google.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Grandzam

Pro

My opponent, to argue that evolution is false, has posted a 16,000 character google doc that I assume he wrote. This is terribly abusive because I cannot possibly respond to all of his arguments if I follow the rules of this debate and only use 8,000 characters. This debate was created with the 8,000 character limit instead of a larger one because I do not have the time to debate that much. This limitation was accepted by my opponent by agreeing to this debate, and he has broken it.

Even worse than the abuse this creates is it undermines the order that underpins this site. This site has been created, probably with time and hard work, to allow my opponent and everyone on this site a excellent debating service. My opponent has shown that he does not respect the very site we debate on by breaking the rules that make sure debaters do not post arguments too long to respond to. The rules of this site are very fair and encourage good debate. Reject those arguments that circumvent this.

The very point of debate is to have a fun, educational, and accessible way to argue opinion and clash mind against mind. My opponent, with his actions, opposes these goals. The traditional role of the voter is to vote who better proved the resolution in order to encourage better debate and maintain these reasons for debate. However, this is faulty when these reasons for debate are destroyed by Con's rule breaking. Fun is removed because I will have to do a lot more work than I allowed for when making this debate. Education is harmed because I must condense my arguments unreasonably small to meet the allowed space and still refute all of my opponent's contentions. Accessibility is damaged due to all the text me and the voters would have to read.

The traditional role of the voter is faulty in a situation where one of the debaters ruins the reasons for debate. Voting Con due to his upholding of the resolution is misguided because it only encourages and perpetuates abusive rule breaking instead of what happens in the usual debate where better debate is encouraged and perpetuated. The only way to reject this unfairness and encourage good debate is to vote Pro.

Do not let my opponent get away with this by claiming that his doc is merely a source. Good sources encourage fun and accessible debate by providing the warrant for facts that would be impractical to prove on one's own. Rejecting a proper source can be done quickly and easily if it is indeed faulty, and so allows bad facts to be revealed and the truth known. This is a huge plus for education.

This source, however, is just a long argument against evolution. To refute it, I must refute each and every point in it which is impossible for me to do with the allowed word count. It does not help education in any way, because Con can and should have just posted his own shorter argument in the allowed space. There would be no difference except this way Con gets to dodge the limits that I chose when making this debate.

That is all.
RonPaulConservative

Con

Actually that doc wasn't my argument, it was a source. My argument was that evolution is false and therefore shouldn't be taught. My opponent it seems is making a form of a Strawman fallicy. He should respond to my actual argument not somethng that is not my argument.
Debate Round No. 2
Grandzam

Pro

In round two, I have both explained why your "source" should not be considered a source and why voters should vote for me even if I don't respond to your argument. Extend everything.
RonPaulConservative

Con

My argument was that schools shouldn't teach false things, and that evolution is false, and therefore shouldn't be taught in schools. You have to disprove this logic to win, and thus far my opponent has failed to do so. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
Grandzam

Pro

My opponent has not addressed my argument that voters should vote for me on principle. Since posting a new argument in the last round would also be unfair as I have no chance to respond, there is no way for my opponent to win the debate.

Vote for me to uphold the standards of fair debate.
RonPaulConservative

Con

What argument? You made none, and therefore I win.
Debate Round No. 4
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: DStallman// Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Clearly, Con violated the rules of the debate by attempting to use a long source as the primary basis for an otherwise unstated argument.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Voters are allowed to award points based on rule violations as long as the voter clearly explains what the violation was. While this could be clearer, it is clear what the voter intends, and as such, the RFD is sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Mharman// Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Pro made no argument, only attacked con's source, thinking it was an argument. When con pointed out that the Google Document was his source, pro insisted it violated the rules and made no argument for the entire debate.Meanwhile, con did make one measly argument, stating that it should not be taught because it is false.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter clearly assesses both sides of the debate and explains his view on the rule issue. That is sufficient analysis.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: squonk// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: PRO made no argument as to why evolution should be taught in public schools. CON at least made an argument: evolution is false and therefore shouldn't be taught. PRO is wrong to think that "to refute it [CON's argument] I must refute each and every point in it..." Rather than attempting to refute each point in CON's lengthy essay, (s)he could have delivered a counter-argument. Unfortunately, there was no counter-argument. Therefore, CON won the debate.

[*Reason for removal*] Considering that the debate included discussion of a rule violation, the voter is required to at least provide some view on the matter and include that as part of their decision. As the voter doesn"t discuss it, this makes the vote insufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Canada98// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Pro made absolutely no argument to back up the claim. Con won.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter is required to assess specific arguments made by both sides. While noting a lack of argumentation may suffice for Pro, the voter is still required to either explain why he has the burden of proof, or examine Con"s arguments to explain why he is being awarded points. (2) Considering that the debate included discussion of a rule violation, the voter is required to at least provide some view on the matter and include that as part of their decision. As the voter doesn"t discuss it, this also makes the vote insufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Evolution is false

1. Name the sentient animal created by evolutionists during experimentation:

Answer #1 here:__________________________________.

2: Must have EVOLVED from microbe to a sentient living air breathing, crawling, walking, flying ,egg producing, reproductive animal :

Answer #2 here:__________________________________.

.... because Sentient creatures ARE the recognized Life on earth. Otherwise it's a bacteria, and while they may be a form of life, not a single example of one ever becoming a creature sentient OR otherwise exists in the History of Science.

Medical Definition of Microbe
Microbe: A minute organism typically visible under a microscope. Microbes include bacteria, fungi, and protozoan parasites.

Not excuses please.

3. Name the scientist and the experiment that SUCCESSFULLY produced that specific sentient Life form.

Answer #3 here:__________________________________.

4. Name a single animal that changed from one species to a completely different species in history that IS 100% proveable!

Answer #4 here:__________________________________.

Like dog to fish, bird to lizard, elephant to flea, ape to Man, pig to dog, must be 100% factual OR it CANNOT BE CALLED TRUE as defined by dictionary.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: famousdebater// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: All 3 of the current votes on this debate seem to somewhat misunderstand the debate and think that pro also misunderstood what Con was arguing. Con made a clear assertion of his view on the topic with a weak argument (but an argument nevertheless). He then used a source to back up his view. What Pro failed to understand was that was a source. When your opponent uses a source, you aren't expected to refute the source (and this was a key misunderstanding made on Pro's behalf). He just used that source to validate the facts used in his argument. Con didn't violate the character limit as he simply used the source to affirm and validate the arguments that he wrote in his round. If the source had been used as his argument, then it would have succeeded. However, it was ultimately con who made the only argument and due to the validity of this argument, I must vote Con.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to specifically analyze arguments made by both debaters. If one of the debaters didn"t make an argument, it still must be clarified why Con"s argument was at all successful in affirming his position. Merely explaining why the voter chose not to award it on other bases is not sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: socialpinko// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Con resorted to an abusive tactic wherein he posted a link to an exterior argument over the truth value of evolutionary theory. If he had made this argument within the confines of the character limit than points would go to him if Pro had been unable to refute his arg (that given the falsity of evolutionary theory it should not be taught in schools). Con's claim that the exterior argument counts as a source is false given that he himself wrote and simply sourced his claims at the bottom of the doc. Poor conduct and lack of a form-ready argument gives Pro the automatic win.

[*Reason for removal*] While a perceived violation of conduct and the lack of an argument may play into a decision, on a select winner debate, the voter is still required to specifically assess arguments made by both debaters. If the voter wishes to dismiss Con"s argument on the basis of how it was posted, that is fine, but they must still assess Pro"s argument. Lacking that, the vote is insufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
The use of debate theory was good by Pro but ultimately it was a misunderstanding that Con pointed out.
Posted by Grandzam 1 year ago
Grandzam
Don't, answer that, I'm sending a debate challenge to you now.
Posted by Grandzam 1 year ago
Grandzam
Should tell you why my argument was the same as Zaradi's or nah? I have a lot more
I could say but not sure I should.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by SolonKR 1 year ago
SolonKR
GrandzamRonPaulConservative
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con argues that evolution is false, and we shouldn't teach false things in public schools. Pro makes no argument against this within the debate itself. However, Pro is correct that Con's attempt to circumvent the rules of debate is detestable. He argues that for me to vote Con is to destroy the very purpose of debate. To "encourage good debate", I'm voting Pro. *Addendum: The "this Google doc is a source" argument fails. Con didn't make any arguments outside of the source; he basically said "evolution is false because Google Doc". This is a clear attempt to circumvent the rules. It's like if I started out a debate on epistemology by saying "synthetic a priori judgments are possible because https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4280/4280-h/4280-h.htm". That's an abusive case.
Vote Placed by Mharman 1 year ago
Mharman
GrandzamRonPaulConservative
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made no argument, only attacked con's source, thinking it was an argument. When con pointed out that the Google Document was his source, pro insisted it violated the rules and made no argument for the entire debate.Meanwhile, con did make one measly argument, stating that it should not be taught because it is false.
Vote Placed by DStallman 1 year ago
DStallman
GrandzamRonPaulConservative
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Clearly, Con violated the rules of the debate by attempting to use a long source as the primary basis for an otherwise unstated argument.