Pastafarian creation should be taught in schools.
Debate Rounds (4)
First round is acceptance.
My opponent shall be fighting for the stance that if Cristian Creation was taught in school, Pastafarianism should not be taught as well.
Should con have any problems with the rules, or would like to add new rules, he must do so during round one
The real question is " If Christian creation was to be taught in schools under the theory of "teach the controversy", should Pastafarianism be included as well?".
Neither me, nor my opponent can introduce new arguments during round four. Round four is only for rebuttal, conclusion, overview of previous arguments, and why someone should vote for them.
This is not a debate over whether or not Christian creation is true, though we may reference whether or not there is evidence, it cannot be the basis of our arguments.
Pastafarianism is the belief that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything, that gravity is caused by the Flying Spaghetti Monster pushing down on everyone with his noodle appendages. If you wish to learn more, I have posted a link below.
No. Why? Because there is no "controversy" over Pastafarianism. It is a satire, a comedy meant to mock other religions. Nobody genuinely believes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, and if there are people who do then they are not a large enough group for Pastafarianism to be considered a "controversy".
(Note: For the record, I think "teaching the controversy" is a ridiculous idea. However, even if I did accept it, Pastafarianism still would not fall under the category of a "controversy".)
Why does this matter at all? The number of bible literalists isn't that high. Anyway it is not meant to "mock" religions. It I a way of grouping together a people who do not wish creation to be taught in schools. The Flying Spaghetti Monster theory has as much evidence as creation. If we're talking about validity of a belief as science, then why do numbers matter? The theory of creation has a book to back it up. Pastafarianism has the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster to back it up.
A controversy in this situation means it has as much validity. Numbers don't affect the truth of evolution, or the falsehoods of creation, so why should they factor in another belief set?
But it's high enough that it's actually a topic of much debate. There is little-to-no actual debate over whether or not the FSM is real, because it's not intended to be interpreted as real.
"Anyway it is not meant to "mock" religions. It I a way of grouping together a people who do not wish creation to be taught in schools."
Of course it is meant to mock religions. Or at least, it is meant to mock arguments in favor of religion.
"If we're talking about validity of a belief as science, then why do numbers matter?"
But we aren't. We are talking about whether it falls under "teach the controversy".
Controversy, n. 1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion 2. contention, strife, or argument. 
Pastafarianism is a fairly recent religion, and even compared to creationism not enough people genuinely believe in its truth for it to have become a public dispute or debate. Pastafarianism also discourages arguments or strife over its validity, as the FSM said in the 8 I'd Rather You Didnt's that he's fine if some people don't believe in him.
"A controversy in this situation means it has as much validity."
Given that you did not provide any definitions in your opening, I am to assume we are discussing using the actual definitions. I have provided the actual definition above-"validity" has nothing to do with it.
"Numbers don't affect the truth of evolution, or the falsehoods of creation, so why should they factor in another belief set?"
The debate is not "Are creation and Pastafarianism both equally valid?" Numbers don't effect whether or not a belief system is true, but they do effect whether or not it's controversial.
I accept this definition as valid, because I'm not an obnoxious person (I tried to swear here, please pretend that I did) who distrusts Wikipedia and Dictionary.com and other sites like that.
You have selected the definition most suited to you though. The second definition gives the meaning for any argument or contention. So, any argument counts as a controversy. Prolonged is a relative term and has no application to any setting. Schools have only been fighting this for a while, so relatively Pastafarianism has been around for quite some time. The fact that there are many people posing this question and many people pushing Pastafarianism, means that there is a debate, whether or not the other side is actively engaged.
Nonsense. I covered both definitions in my original post. I repeat:
"Pastafarianism also discourages arguments or strife over its validity, as the FSM said in the 8 I'd Rather You Didnt's that he's fine if some people don't believe in him."
"Prolonged is a relative term and has no application to any setting."
"The fact that there are many people posing this question and many people pushing Pastafarianism,"
Examples? I mean something that proclaims Pastafarianism is actually true, not that it is "as valid as creationism" or anything like that.
"means that there is a debate, whether or not the other side is actively engaged."
A debate needs to have two engaged sides. If one side is not engaged in it then it's just preaching.
I found out Wednesday. I cede this debate. Please vote for con.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.