The Instigator
Sean_Norbury
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Iredia
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Paul Broun does not belong on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 516 times Debate No: 45091
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Sean_Norbury

Pro

Somebody who believes that the Earth is only a few thousand years old should not be making any decisions related to science no matter what degree they hold. If this is what Democracy gives us, something is wrong. If you believe that someone like him should be on the committee, challenge me. I don't mean constitutionally, I mean logically.
Iredia

Con

Why not ? Even supposing the person is wrong in being a creationist, it hardly calls into question his ability to make good judgements on legislations as they affect the practice of science and technology. Science and Technology are vast and overlapping fields and aren't confined to an evolutionist's fickle over a creationist belief. And let me state this upfront: I don't believe in evolution.
Debate Round No. 1
Sean_Norbury

Pro

I have some personal issues to take care of so I cannot dedicate much time to this site for the time being. I was on here for a few days and learned that I was not prepared for debate on important subjects. Debating is much different than I thought it would be. The outcome of this debate is not important to me anymore. I believe somebody like Paul Broun does not belong on that Committee because if his mind is not capable of realizing that our planet is more than a few thousand years old, his mind is not capable of making science based decisions that will affect this country and the rest of the world. I do not have the time to dedicate right now to make my argument sound valid, so I am basically conceding in every single debate in my list.
Iredia

Con

Administrative skills are more important. Someone can be way more knowledgeable in science but lack the leadership skills to get support for bills which can advance acience and technology in the US. It's safe to say people were more ignorant about science in the 18th century and before; but that didn't stop them from being able administrators. Just because someone makes poor choices or holds false beliefs about acertain aspect of the world hardly means he/she is incapable as an administrator. Neither would it make any sense to assume an eminent scientist would be in a position to rally legislators to pass bills tha will favour science education in the country.

Your view forces one to think in a tiny box wherein belief in evolution is necessary to adjudicate matters on science and technology well. Never mind that politics deals with a wide range of issues and (just as crucial) a coherent dealing with each as they relate to others. It is very possible to effect good policies regardless of a belief (or not) in evolution. That's how evolution gained traction in the first place.
Debate Round No. 2
Sean_Norbury

Pro

Sean_Norbury forfeited this round.
Iredia

Con

It appears my opponenet didn't reply since he was occupied. I'm waiting for his response to my previous argument.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.