The Instigator
emospongebob527
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Torvald
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Public Schools Should Teach About Creationism.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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 8 votes the winner is...
Torvald
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,312 times Debate No: 26434
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (8)

 

emospongebob527

Pro

Rules:

1. No semantics
2. No trolling
3. No profanity
4. No vulgarity


Structure:

1. Acceptance/Definitions
2. Opening Statement
3. Rebuttals
4. Rebuttals to Rebuttals
5. Closing Arguments/Conclusion

Definitions:

public school- a free tax-supported school controlled by a local governmental authority.

should- used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency.

teach- to cause to know something.

about- with regard to.

creationism- the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic God.

By accepting this debate, you are accepting my definitions.........

If you read this debate and do not accept my definitions, do not accept the debate.

If you accept the debate, and then challenge my definitions later or claim they are unfair, YOU WILL BE ASKED TO CONCEDE THE DEBATE AND THE VOTERS WILL BE URGED TO VOTE FOR ME.

THANK YOU.
Torvald

Con

I accept your debate, but amend your definitions: In the United States, the public schools are controlled by local government, making them, by extent, institutions under the control of the Federal Government. Additionally, teaching is not necessarily the concrete causation of something or someone to know a specific data or set of information, but an attempt at endowing said information in the something or someone. A thing need not necessarily learn what it is taught, and what is taught need not necessarily be what is learned. That much said, I look forward to your opening statement.
Debate Round No. 1
emospongebob527

Pro

How unfortunate it had to end this way:

In my round 1 rules, definitions and terms....... I clearly state:
"If you read this debate and do not accept my definitions, do not accept the debate.

If you accept the debate, and then challenge my definitions later or claim they are unfair, YOU WILL BE ASKED TO CONCEDE THE DEBATE AND THE VOTERS WILL BE URGED TO VOTE FOR ME.

THANK YOU."

My opponent has violated my rules, for he has challenged my definitions.

I would urge the voters to Vote Pro on the premise above.
Torvald

Con

The voters, I think, should vote for the debater able to pose the most convincing argument, not the one who is easily offended by a simple misunderstanding, on their own part, regarding technicalities. You have, of course, inconvenienced yourself, by throwing away an entire round of debate to critique my specificity.

I shall approach the issue from multiple angles, beginning with the notion that it is unconstitutional, by the Constitution of the United States, for Creationism to be taught in the public schools. The Constitution specifically states that there is to be separation of church and state, and freedom of religion. Since the public schools are a government institution, as I specified earlier, it is unconstitutional for them to favor the beliefs of one religion or religious group over another, by teaching only one Creation myth in its classrooms. People are free to believe as they will. By enforcing one specific belief in the classroom, the government would be violating its core establishment. What is currently taught is a purely scientific angle: what can be proven, or is most supported by scientific evidence. There is little, if any, evidence of any form of Creationism, and thus, even if it were constitutionally sound in teaching, it would still be illogical to teach in any government-controlled institution.
Debate Round No. 2
emospongebob527

Pro

My opponents argument is useless, he has already violated the rules.

Vote Pro.

Torvald

Con

I am beginning to agree with the Pro, that the rules have been violated: they specifically state "No trolling," and so far, your histrionic display of indignity at my supposed violation of your rules greatly resembles trolling.

Now, I have made a perfectly valid case for my position in the debate, and you have yet done nothing but complain about my first statement, and insist that my arguments be ignored based on your incredulity that I might have anything to add to your initial definitions.
Debate Round No. 3
emospongebob527

Pro

This debate is over, the voters can decide whether or not you abided by the rules.
Torvald

Con

I am still allotted two rounds to make my case, and whether or not you have anything valid to say, I do, and I shall take advantage of these two rounds to do so.

Now, I have already made the case, with no resistance, that it is unconstitutional for Creationism to be taught as a legitimate science by the American Public School system. I shall now establish that Creationism cannot be taught in such a system, without restructuring the entire system.

There are hundreds of religions and myths throughout the world, not to mention extinct branches, each with its own version of a Creation myth. Even the myths of the five most common world religions, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism, differ fundamentally (although Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have marked similarities). Now, say it takes a single course per year to teach each one of these doctrines, then that would devote over four hours of class time to learning Creation myths, leaving only four hours for students to study science, mathematics, history, English, and a number of electives. This highly limits what students can learn in a school year. This limitation to a student's learning would greatly reduce the quality of the education, thus requiring additional years of education for him/her to learn what he/she would normally learn in four (referring to public schools at a high school level).

Now, if we were to say that only one Creation myth were to be taught, which one? Christianity is the most common world religion, with many denominations, making up the religion of over 30% of the world's population. Perhaps the Christian mythology should be taught? But then what about the conflicts between denominations? And what about the other religions, who, when combined, outnumber Christianity? I maintain that even if Creationism were considered scientifically valid, teaching only one myth would be unfair and biased, but teaching all of them would be impractical.
Debate Round No. 4
emospongebob527

Pro

I guess I will present my argument now:

Why should they teach about Creationism?

Christianity, is an important part of history.

So if one wanted to teach Creationism in a mythology class or ancient history class they may wish to do so.

As biblical studies and mythology are advanced social doctrines (although not necessarily true) in today's advanced society.

On the other hand, Creationism is so much more minuscule theory in scientific doctrines, teaching it in Biology would be a failure.

In conclusion, Creationism is fit in classes such as theological studies, biblical studies, mythology, and perhaps social history. But it is not applicable in Biology or any other form of Science.
Torvald

Con

I may be mistaken, but is the first rule you list not "No semantics"? I find it remarkably ironic that you presume to lecture me about breaking the rules, then base your entire argument upon a technicality? Either your title should have been more clear, or some part of your argument beside your final statement, in round five, should have mentioned the meaning of your title, which gives the default impression that Creationism being taught at public schools is a reference to teaching of its doctrine as truth, not as mythology.

Your point is ambiguous, weak, and based on a technicality. Now, I happen to agree with your point, that it is not wrong to teach Creationism as a historical chapter, or an aspect of mythology. However, an entire class dedicated it is ill-placed in the basic teachings of high school. When you saw that my argument was based from the perspective that Creationism should not be taught as a legitimate philosophy, it would have been polite of you to make some note of the ambiguous meaning of your title, which was not at all clear.

Now, it has been an interesting debate, to say the least. Not altogether unlike some of the more famous ones of late. You start the debate by harping on the value of the rules, which you do not honor, then finish the debate by making only one statement supporting your case, by the merit of a technicality, which is, questionably, in violation to the rules you have so vehemently advocated. You lack focus, detail, and sincerity. It has been a pleasure debating you.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Torvald 5 years ago
Torvald
No, the results of the debate would be up to the voters. Not whether or not I violated your rules.
Posted by emospongebob527 5 years ago
emospongebob527
That's up to the voters.
Posted by Torvald 5 years ago
Torvald
And haplessly claiming that there has been a violation of rules will not manufacture one.
Posted by emospongebob527 5 years ago
emospongebob527
Arguing this isn't gonna revert the rule violation.
Posted by Torvald 5 years ago
Torvald
I have not disputed your statement, I have not labelled it as unjust, nor invalid, no outmoded. I have made a further specification of it. Like saying that a horse is also an animal, rather than just an equus.
Posted by emospongebob527 5 years ago
emospongebob527
Challenge- to dispute especially as being unjust, invalid, or outmoded.

You claimed my definitions aren't necessarily so as I presented..............

You have broken the rules, so I ask that you concede the debate.
Posted by Torvald 5 years ago
Torvald
I made an amendment, not a correction or challenge. I simply expanded upon them. Your statement was that the Public Schools are controlled by local governments. I simply embellished upon that that, since local governments are controlled by the Federal Government, Public Schools are controlled by the Federal Government.
Posted by davemark07 5 years ago
davemark07
Why don't you actually debate the topic, rather than bitch about the definitions?
Posted by emospongebob527 5 years ago
emospongebob527
You did not add to them, you challenged them.

Hopefully the voters have enough sense to recognize this.
Posted by Torvald 5 years ago
Torvald
Actually, I added to them. I did not contradict any principle held by them. Building upon a house is improvement, not demolition. I'm sure you can relate this metaphor.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 5 years ago
Smithereens
emospongebob527TorvaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Con pm'd me and threatened to vote bomb my debates if I didn't take back my vote for Pro, so, I have re-configured my points to form a tie.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
InVinoVeritas
emospongebob527TorvaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: "If you accept the debate, and then challenge my definitions later or claim they are unfair, YOU WILL BE ASKED TO CONCEDE THE DEBATE AND THE VOTERS WILL BE URGED TO VOTE FOR ME." Con was "asked to concede the debate," and he politely refused. And although I, as a voter, am being "urged to vote for [Pro]," I will vote for Con, because he actually formed an argument that remained unrefuted.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
emospongebob527TorvaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for Pro's ... behavior. Arguments to Con for actually presenting an argument with substance.
Vote Placed by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
emospongebob527TorvaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not break the rules.
Vote Placed by JorgeLucas 5 years ago
JorgeLucas
emospongebob527TorvaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not break the rules, and Pro did not specify what he meant by teaching about creationism.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
emospongebob527TorvaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not change any definitions but merely expanded upon them. However, had he violated the rule, it is no excuse to refuse to debate under the pre-established rules and demand and automatic win. I feel that I should make the conduct a tie for such behavior, however, I will give it to Pro, since Con may have stepped out of line to begin with. Con presented and argument and Pro did not address it and did not present his own argument until the final round.
Vote Placed by Koopin 5 years ago
Koopin
emospongebob527TorvaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Not reading the rest of this, however PRO gets conduct. He stated the rules and CON ignored them. I hate rule breakers.
Vote Placed by Rayze 5 years ago
Rayze
emospongebob527TorvaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro lost conduct by refusing to be flexible. Pro also did not present adequate arguments, and instead opted to "throw away" the debate. Sources and s/g were tied though