The Instigator
yoda
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

Should there be a balanced curriculum in public school?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 6 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/27/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,697 times Debate No: 18502
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (6)

 

yoda

Pro

In American public schools today there is a tendency to teach a specific view point. The people who are doing this trying to manipulate America's youth to think a specific way and to support a certain political viewpoint. Its common sense that you would teach ,for example, creation and evolution not just creation or evolution. Whether you support either side of the argument you should see the importance of a balanced school curriculum.
Danielle

Con

Many thanks to my opponent for starting this debate.

For clarification, I asked my opponent what he meant by a "balanced curriculum" in the comments section. He mentioned teaching both Evolution and Creationism in class. To be sure this wasn't about balancing the school subjects or political views taught, Pro confirmed that he was referring to religious matters specifically. He adds, "I meant it to pertain only to acts of faith; things that can't be proven scientifically." However he also mentioned "Also balanced means teaching the major arguments of an act of faith - not the far minority." This is something that I think must be challenged, though it's not a major component of my argument.

Pro says "In American public schools today there is a tendency to teach a specific view point. The people who are doing this are trying to manipulate America's youth to think a specific way..." A public school is not responsible for endorsing any particular religious teachings. Instead, they should be teaching something specific - that which we have factual evidence for. There is a plethora of evidence for a concept such as evolution, while there is zero evidence for Creationism. While science is not perfect, it is far more factually based than issues of faith. In fact, a lack of evidence is specifically what makes something faith-based.

Considering the instigator mentioned evolution as a specific example, I'll expand on why it's important to teach that of which we can justify as a true belief with empirical data. In order to be considered a valid scientific theory, the supposition must be internally and externally consistent; parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations); useful (describes and explains observed phenomena); empirically testable and falsifiable; based upon controlled and repeated experience; correctable and dynamic; progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more) and tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty). The theory of evolution meets all of this criteria [1]. Creationism most certainly does not. As such, it will be my opponent's burden to prove why public schools should be expected to teach theories that are rooted in faith but not substantial evidence. How can that be justified?

Pro advocates teaching only popular religious beliefs. While many people in the country may not believe in a concept such as evolution, 99.85% of American earth and life scientists accept biological evolution as a fact [2]. For obvious reasons, a scientific opinion holds more weight than that of your average citizen, just as a doctor's medical opinion holds more weight than that of your average citizen. As such, in matters of science (such as the origins of the universe or biology), it's important to be consistent with so-called expert opinions.

One must also keep in mind why teaching religious concepts in public school is problematic. Because this country is a melting pot of religious diversity, why should only the more popular myths be taught? What if what religious view is prevalent varies by location? In that case, Pro would be admitting that he endorses teaching only what people already believe and/or want to hear, rather than that which we can justify with empirical evidence to be true. I keep making this clarification because technically we cannot really 'know' anything. However, as I've pointed out, it would make far more sense to teach that which has evidence vs. that which does not, i.e., matters of faith.

Here's an example: Before Galileo challenged the idea, the Church taught that the biblical verse from Psalms 104:5 was true - "The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved." Galileo knew that science rejected this faith-based proclomation. The Church tortured and attempted to persecute him for challenging this idea despite the fact that science was on his side. As such, one must wonder why public schools should endorse faith-based concepts (such as those suggested in religious texts) vs. that which we know to be scientifically accurate. It's a sad fact in history that people would prefer to remain loyal to their religous convictions at the expense of ignorance; we should not be advocating that ideal today. Even if Pro mentions that BOTH concepts should be taught, we have yet to hear why it would be useful to teach a falsity, or rather that which stands in opposition of what we know as scientifically true or that of which there is no evidence for.


Considering Pro did not post much of an initial argument, I'll stop here and let him address my points and make a few more of his own. If he has any other examples aside from Evolution vs. Creationism that he would like to discuss, he should bring it up in the next round. Thanks again for starting this debate, Pro, and good luck.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...

Debate Round No. 1
yoda

Pro

This debate is about whether or not there should be balanced school curriculum in public schools. My opponent is trying to turn it into a debate about creation versus evolution. My argument is as follows.

Definitions

Evolution – Darwin's original theory of evolution
Creation – the belief that God created the earth in 7 days as proposed in Genesis chapter
Public Schools – schools that are funded by the state, local, or federal government

P1: There is an imbalance in public school curriculum.
P2: During children's younger years (for the purposes of this debate pre-k through 12th grade)
C: Therefore a political party is using the public school curriculum for their own advantage
S: Have a balanced school Curriculum

P1: The Imbalance

In public schools there are a large number of "imbalances" in the curriculum and how the teachers are teaching it. My example is the fact that evolution is taught in public schools as fact. This is incorrect because evolution is not science. The Theory of Evolution in't observation, it can't be observed. The same goes for creation. No one can witness creation and no one can possibly witness evolution. Now I'm not suggesting that religion should be a school subject. No school should have religion as a subject. That is the parent's job to pass on to their children what they believe.

P2: Gullible

In a child's younger years they can very easily be swayed to believe with an extreme certainty that what they heard is the truth. This is probably going to be an accepted truth so I will spend little time debating this point.

Conclusion

If both of these points are correct than the conclusion, that a certain group is using the public school system for their own benefit knowingly or not, is also true. With this conclusion it is easy to see that we need to do something about this issue.

Solution

My solution is that we mandate that there should be a balanced curriculum is public schools, and the theories of creation and evolution should be introduced at the same time in a very impartial way.

I thank my opponent for a challenging first debate, and I wish her good luck.
Danielle

Con

My opponent begins by saying, "My opponent is trying to turn it into a debate about creation versus evolution." That is absolutely not true, even though I did reference that example considering it is the ONLY example my opponent presented in the opening round. My intention was never to debate evolution vs. creationism, but rather advocate that what should be taught in schools is that which we consider to be scientifically valid vs. that which is not. I have explained how and why evolution is scientifically valid and creationism is not, which my opponent has chosen to ignore. While that is just one example, I could easily reference other matters of faith (or things a bible literalist would accept) vs. matters of scientific accuracy.

For example, creationism posits that God created light (and day/night) on the first day, and the sun on the fourth [3]. However, we know that this is not scientifically accurate; the "light" comes from the sun as do the concepts of day and night. As such, I maintain my position that what should be taught in public schools is that which we know to be most likely true with empirical evidence vs. that which religious people accept on faith alone. What reason has Pro given us to teach alongside what we strongly believe to be factually accurate (with evidence) vs. that which people believe with little to no evidence? Keep in mind that if that were the case, one could suggest that public schools be able to teach anything regardless of how absurd it is just because a group of people might believe it. That seems like an exorbitant waste of time and resources, and can in fact be counterproductive.

Now onto Pro's contentions.

P1: The Imbalance

Pro says that evolution is "not science." In the last round I gave a detailed analysis of exactly why evolution qualifies as a scientific theory. You'll notice that Pro completely dropped that argument, meaning he essentially concedes evolution as a valid scientific theory. He can only disqualify it as such if and only if he proves that evolution does not meet the criteria for scientific theory.

Pro posits "The theory of evolution isnt obervation; it can't be observed." That is false. I've explained that in order to constitute as a scientific theory, it must be empirially tested and falsifiable, as well as based upon controlled and repeated experiments. In other words, it must be observed. In terms of testing evolution empirically, organisms have been observed to adapt themselves to better survive in their environment. For instance, cockroaches have adapted to certain pesticides, and virii mutate to become resistant to vaccines and antibiotics [4]. This is observed evolution in nature. Furthermore, innumerable tests and studies done to observe the effects of evolution which prove that this theory has been tested, reviewed and verified [5, 6, 7]. No evidence has been able to disprove evolution. Instead, creationists cite a "lack of evidence" which is a vehemently rejected notion by most scientists [2].

As you can see, evolution DOES meet the criteria for an observed scientific theory. If my opponent challenges this, I have an arsenal of other evidence proving that this is in fact the case. One should also take note in looking at my sources that it is completely FALSE that "no one can possibly witness evolution" as my opponent suggests. Besides, the major test for evolution is keeping consistent with the Fossil Record and it does [4]. However, it is true that one cannot witness creation or have any type of observable evidence for it whatsoever, indicating that it would be far less reasonable to teach that in schools. I don't have evidence of unicorns existing, therefore it should not be taught in schools that they do.

P2: Gullible

I agree that young children tend to believe in falsities. I don't see why this is relevant at all, and in fact may even be a contention in my favor. It proves that young children will likey believe things that they are presented as true, even if there is little to no evidence. For instance, young children often accept that Santa's reindeer really fly on Christmas Eve. Some children do not believe it. Should it be taught in school that reindeer can actually fly just because the majority of kids believe that this is true? Or should the actual facts regarding gravity and reindeer anatomy be endorsed because it is a school (i.e., place of learning - not faith) after all?

Re: Conclusion

Pro says that a "political party" is therefore using the school system as a platform to endorse their own beliefs. However, he makes no mention of what this alleged political party is nor what they actually endorse. As such, we have absolutely no reason to accept it as true. We must also keep in mind the concept of a separation between chuch and state.

Re: Solution

Pro writes, "My solution is that we mandate that there should be a balanced curriculum is public schools, and the theories of creation and evolution should be introduced at the same time in a very impartial way."

First, you'll notice that Pro once again ONLY mentions the problem of teaching creationism and evolution in schools, even though he complained in the beginning of his round that I was the one limiting the discussion to this speific topic. In fact, I concluded my previous round by inviting Pro to bring up other science vs. faith topics that he would like to address. He has chosen not to do so, thus he cannot complain about me only responding to the single topic he has introduced. I am the one who actually brought up other examples (such as Christians being wrong about the earth revolving around the sun, problems with the creation myth pertaining to day and night, etc.).

Pro's solution is insufficient because the only solution he advocates is teaching something for which there is no evidence. That is essentially just repeating the resolution but does not give a valid argument as for why that should be the case. Meanwhile, in the last round I've detailed why that would be extremely problematic. Pro has chosen to ignore the vast majority of my arguments, including the fact that he essentially advocates teaching what people want to hear (already believe) vs. that which we know is probably true.

Please extend all of my arguments from the first round.

I maintain that it is more reasonable to utilize public schools to teach that for which there is evidence instead of that of which there is no evidence (i.e., faith-based). This is because evidence can be used to prove the validity of a theory whereas there is no evidence for faith-based teachings. Otherwise, it would not be based on "faith" but science or facts (which I endorse).

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.daltonator.net...
[5] http://www.hhmi.org...
[6] http://www.dinosauria.com...
[7] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Debate Round No. 2
yoda

Pro

Parts of evolution have been proven to be true. Micro evolution is true because it can be proven by observation. For example, we can watch insects become immune to the chemicals that we spray to kill them. What parts of evolution aren't true is macro evolution. There is no and absolutely no evidence for a dog becoming a horse. Also in genetics: 1. in order for an organism to become a different species it must add information to it's genetic code, 2. it is impossible for a creature to add genetic information, so the conclusion is that it must be impossible for evolution to be true.

About the impossibility that God could of created light: 1. God is God he can do whatever he pleases, 2. how do you know that he jest created the sun and called it light, and finally 3. The bible was originally written in Hebrew and then translated to Greek which a completely different language and then translated to English. The point therein is that much would be lost in translation. I'm not suggesting that schools teach something just because people believe it, but only if a large group of people believe it (similar to creation v. evolution).

When evolution was published it was a valid scientific theory and it would be but for the evidence that I put in the above paragraph. The formal definition of theory is a group of tested propositions that imply considerable evidence to support a certain phenomenon. By that evolution isn't a theory for the reasons I listed above. My final point in this paragraph I am going to question the absurdity of this statement "it is completely FALSE that "no one can possibly witness evolution"". This is absurd because in order for there to be observable evidence for Darwin's evolution there would have to be someone that watched a dog over "millions of years" becomes a horse. Last I checked no one is immortal other than God.

The reason that I put in that children are gullible is because if you say to a child that farmers kill baby eagles (sounds kind of familiar). They will hate farmers because they don't realize that a pesticide may weaken the eagle's egg. They will believe it because the mental picture formed is farmers smashing eagle's eggs. So if you tell them that Republicans are driving up a huge debt which they will have to pay for (also sounds familiar) they will believe it.

In my Conclusion I never said that a "political party" was using the school system for their own benefits. Instead I said a "certain group". I didn't think this would be a debated point but since it is being debated I will list the groups that are manipulating the system. These groups are the evolutionist, the environmentalist, and by extension the liberals.

The reasons that I said only Creation and Evolution are as follows: everyone knows about these debates and so that there can be a definition of how to deal with these cases. I never complained about her not introducing additional points. In the middle ages Christians weren't the only people who believed in the sun revolving around the Earth, the Earth being flat, etc. My final point on that is that I have read a large amount of the bible and never does it mention anything remotely close to the mistakes listed arguments above. That completely invalidates her argument about the flaws with Christianity.

I have saved my best points for last. One of her source isn't legitimate (Wikipedia). Finally in her round she said that ‘Public Schools should only teach things that can be proven with scientific evidence'. I made a list of some things that can't be proven scientifically proven, and it is as follows:
1. Art
2. Sports
3. Philosophy and Ethics
4. Language
5. Cross-Cultural ethics
6. Transgender and Homosexual studies.
If we did what she said none of these subjects would exist in public schools. Good luck in your last round.
Danielle

Con

Thank you again to yoda for engaging with me in this debate.

Right off the bat my opponent begins by discrediting evolution. This ignores the vast majority of evidence and sources I have included in previous rounds. It is obvious that my opponent does not have a good grasp on evolution by his statement, "There is no and absolutely no evidence for a dog becoming a horse." Of course EVOLUTION DOES NOT SAY THAT DOGS EVOLVED INTO HORSES. Instead, evolution deals with the concept of sharing and evolving from common ancestors -- not one species morphing into another. Therefore, his criticism is completely irrelevant and entirely invalid.

My opponent then goes on to explain how or why God could make certain things happen that we know to be entirely scientifically inaccurate (i.e., create light or the concept of day without the sun). However, this is useless as it pertains to his argument. For one thing, it presupposes the existence of God. He's repeated that he does not advocate teaching religion or the idea that God exists in schools. Furthermore, considering there is no empirical evidence for God's existence, then it does not fall within the framework of what I have been arguing for. In order for this to be pertinent, my opponent would have had to explain what I have been saying that he needs to justify all along: teaching something for which there is no empirical data.

Pro writes, "I'm not suggesting that schools teach something just because people believe it, but only if a large group of people believe it." I have already addressed this throughout the debate. First, I pointed out that what a "large group" believes will vary by location. For instance, a place that is densely populated with Jews will have a large group of people who believe one thing, whereas a heavy populated Muslim area might have a large group who believes something entirely different. In that case, I noted that Pro then endorses teaching only what people already believe and/or want to hear, rather than that which we can justify with empirical evidence to be true. Pro never responded to this and hasn't justified it or explained why it would be helpful or useful.

In a further attack on evolution, Pro says "The formal definition of theory is a group of tested propositions that imply considerable evidence to support a certain phenomenon." In the last round I have given examples of 'considerable evidence' supporting the phenomenon of both micro and macro evolution. However, I will include a few more [8, 9, 10].

Additionally, Pro again demonstrates his complete ignorance over what evolution actually implies when he writes "This is absurd because in order for there to be observable evidence for Darwin's evolution there would have to be someone that watched a dog over 'millions of years' becomes a horse." First, evolution HAS been witnessed in a laboratory setting [11, 12]. Second, even without these direct observations, evidence for evolution isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over [13]. Pro keeps saying that evolution is about one species evolving into another, but that is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a dog turn into a horse, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

Regarding the issue of gullible children, Pro has completely dropped every one of my points. I asked him whether or not we should teach AGAINST what science tells us about flying reindeer just because a large group of children might believe that. He's ignored this question which is of paramount importance to my case. Instead, he goes on to talk about why young children are likely to believe whatever they are told. That does not negate any of my points on children's gullibility and why that is probably even a contention in my favor to not endorse things for which there is zero proof.

Next, my opponent writes, "In my Conclusion I never said that a 'political party' was using the school system for their own benefits." However, we can see that this is entirely false. At the round's opening, he gave a short list of his contentions. His conclusion excerpt clearly reads, "C: Therefore a political party is using the public school curriculum for their own advantage." As such, extend my point about him needing to justify a political connotation to his argument. Pro then goes on to specifically state that evolutionists, environmentalist and by extension the liberals are the ones who are trying to impose specific ideals. Once again, I do not see a problem with what environmentalists or evolutionists advocate so long as there is factual evidence to back it up. Similarly, if a conservative perspective was being taught, I would expect factual-based arguments to be used in support of the endorsement. One example is using economic charts to explain why the minimum wage is not beneficial. This is a fundamentally Republican ideal that has factual merit which is why I do not think it is problematic to teach in public schools.

Pro insists that he never complained about me only talking about evolution specifically. However, clearly in R2 he opened his argument by claiming "My opponent is trying to turn it into a debate about creation versus evolution." Indeed that was never my intention which I have already explained (and Pro never denied). He then goes on to make an irrelevant point about how Christians were not the only group in the Middle Ages who believed that the earth did not revolve around the sun. This does not remotely address what I said about this example, insofar as my point was that we should not teach things just because religious people might believe it.

Pro concludes, "My final point on that is that I have read a large amount of the bible and never does it mention anything remotely close to the mistakes listed arguments above. That completely invalidates her argument about the flaws with Christianity." This is literally entirely irrelevant to the debate at hand. It was never intended to bash Christianity but rather examine the merit of teaching things based on facts or faith. My opponent has completely ignored his burden in this debate to advocate the latter.

Finally, my opponent attempts to conclude with an abusive tactic in bringing up an entirely new argument in the last round. This is bad conduct from a debate standard. However, I will nonetheless address his concern. He claims that art, gym, philosophy, language, ethics and sex studies are taught in school without a factual basis. First, that is not accurate as the vast majority of those examples indeed are rooted in facts - ESPECIALLY philosophy, ethics and language. Classes on sexuality and transgender are not taught in public schools, but nonetheless they are rooted in facts too. As for the examples of art and gym, I do not even have to address these because this falls outside of the parameters that my opponent has set up for the debate in dealing with teachings based on faith. These have nothing to do with teaching based on faith, so they do not support his argument.

- Voting -

I have used 13 sources; my opponent has used zero. He's dropped nearly all of my arguments and did not even present a first round argument. In fact he failed to make a case for his side at all. He's also exhibited poor conduct in terms of abusive debate standards.

[8] http://tinyurl.com...
[9] http://tinyurl.com...
[10] http://tinyurl.com...
[11] http://tinyurl.com...
[12] Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220)
[13] http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kogline 5 years ago
kogline
just tried to vote and couldn't because i havent participated in any debates. my vote was ccttcc. my point in the comment was that yoda never said instant change from a specific dog to a horse, he mentioned over a million years and said that we havent witnessed macroevolution, while admitting to witnessing microevolution.

i brought it up because i think you strawmanned yoda on that point. he never mentioned instant morphing, that was you. it was not a big enough deal to me to vote pro since your other arguments were enough to win the debate on their own.
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
F16, in that regard the only thing that should be considered is what my opponent presented in the debate. He was completely unable to discredit fact-based evidence in support of evolution (or the fact that it was a valid scientific theory by scientific standards), so even if he were right - which he isn't anyway - it wouldn't matter. People ought to judge on what was presented in the debate, not their own POV. That's why I don't see the point in arguing about evolution in the comments section.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
I think it is relevant to understand what evolution really is since that is the only way we can prove that is based on facts as opposed to a theory not based on facts.
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
I notice that kogline has apparently read this debate, even quoting me from the last round... yet has chosen not to vote on this debate. That's interesting. It's also interesting that we're perpetuating a debate in the comments section about what evolution posits when that is in fact entirely irrelevant to this debate. We're not debating the merit of evolution but rather if fact-based information is superior to faith-based presumptions in terms of being taught in school.

Anyway, evolution doesn't say that one animal will abruptly or rapidly change into a radically different species, such as a dog turning into a horse within one lifetime like my opponent suggested. Instead, speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise, and that in fact has to do with one species deriving from the same source as another species. That upholds what I said about common ancestry.

Living things evolve through changes in their DNA. The genetic material of an animal can only change as a zygote. Zygotes are the first cells of an organism. So suppose we consider a lizard. As a zygote, that lizard would contain all of the genetic traits applicable to lizards. Lizards have evolved from non-lizard reptiles through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA, or by mutations to the DNA that produced the lizard zygote. In other words, prior to the first zygote that contained lizard DNA, all that existed were two non-lizards... whose DNA morphed into the DNA that makes up lizards. In other words, in order for a lizard to exist, it must have had lizard DNA as a zygote created by mutations from the DNA of two non-lizards. Ergo, this explains how one species "morphs" into another, but those species are NOT radically different and these changes do NOT happen abruptly.
Posted by yoda 5 years ago
yoda
As defined in my debate evolution is one species changing to another. That is what Darwin postulated.
Posted by kogline 5 years ago
kogline
"Pro keeps saying that evolution is about one species evolving into another, but that is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that."

yes, it is called speciation.

" evolution deals with the concept of sharing and evolving from common ancestors -- not one species morphing into another"

toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe? unless by morph you mean instantly like pokemon, but i think he said over a long period of time.
Posted by nonentity 5 years ago
nonentity
"There is no and absolutely no evidence for a dog becoming a horse."

That's the funniest statement I've ever read in my life. I fully agree with Kinesis' comment below mine.
Posted by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
Umm, I'm going to assume Myrant's vote was a mistake, since only a moron could believe Pro won arguments OR sources, nevermind both.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Pro says evolution can't be observed. He also says that children are gullible but this alone can't win him the debate as he needs to prove that evolution is false and that politicians are using the public school system for their own benefit, becuase if what they are teaching is true, then it wouldn't affirm the resolution. Con gives definitive empirical evidence that evolution is factually accurate which Pro doesn't refute. He never attempts to poke holes in evolution at all where as Con shows that Creationism isn't factually accurate.

Pro also misrepresents macro-evolution as a "dog becoming a horse", a statement Con dismantled.
He restates that schools should teach something that a large group of people believe without even refuting Con's argument about empirical evidence. Pro did not use any sources at all, just his statements. I highly suspect that Pro does not even know what evolution is. This was a landslide in favor of Con.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Unfortunately, yoda's points were either illogical or entirely refuted by Danielle: his stance that macro-evolution has not been observed is irrelevant since, as Con showed, that direct observation is not a necessary standard for justifying a scientific theory, and so on. Pro went against his own words (contention C and his claim of not speaking of a political party are contradictions) and tried to introduce a new argument in the final round, whihc lost him a point for conduct. Furthermore, Danielle did refute Pro's arguments, one of which was teaching religious beliefs [creationism] and Pro dropped many of his own arguments while ignoring some of hers...
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by nonentity 5 years ago
nonentity
yodaDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Do I really need to explain? lol With Pro's arguments, I can't even---Okay *deep breath*. Pro's only argument, really, was that different points of views should be taught in school, regardless of evidence to support it. Pro does not adequately explain why schools should not teach every ridiculous far-fetched and unlikely theory known to man.
Vote Placed by dappleshade 5 years ago
dappleshade
yodaDanielleTied
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: Flying Spaghetti Monster (sigh) yoda failed to source and failed to adequately respond to Danielle's well-written arguments. Also, Pro tried to add a new argument in the last round.
Vote Placed by Myrant 5 years ago
Myrant
yodaDanielleTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Good work Pro
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
yodaDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro grossly misrepresents evolution and does not address Con's point about empirical evidence at all. More in comments.
Vote Placed by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
yodaDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Predictably, this devolved quickly into an evolution vs creation debate. Con did a good job burying Pro under some of the colossal amounts of evidence for evolution.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
yodaDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: See RFD in the comments page...Danielle, I salute you for another battle in the debate won...