Public schools schould teach Creationism.

-Contention 1- My opponent accuses me of a straw man argument ; This is false. My opponent said, quote, "The whole definition is "to impart knowledge of or skill in; give instruction in. " You will notice that you left out the part that this definition includes imparting skill in this subject, being creationism. " His accusation falls, as I didn't accuse him falsely of making a claim, he accused ME of dropping part of the definition unreasonably. My opponent, in his first point, he says that creationism is still being taught as fact as a majority, just not in school. I acknowledge this. It is being taught as fact. That does NOT mean the school must take the same position. He goes on to say because of it's lack of evidence, it should NOT be taught. This is NOT true. The EVIDENCE that we are searching for here, is a HISTORICAL context, not a RATIONAL one. Historically, people BELIEVED in creationism ; this is what matters. He makes the PURE ASSUMPTION that because it's a common world view, it'd be taught as fact. He provides no evidence ; I've SHOWN HOW to TEACH creationism ; this argument falls as well. He goes on to argue that people pushed for creationism to be taught as a way to put god in school. Who cares? I've already SHOWN HOW it should be TAUGHT in school. He's not arguing against my argument here, only a strawman ; he builds up an argument to tear it down. This should be disregarded. He further says that creationists call it science ; again, this doesn't MATTER. He's not arguing against my contentions ; only his own that he's telling me to take a stance on. His statistic only further supports the straw man ; this should be disregarded. He's ASSUMING TEACHERS WILL TEACH IT AS FACT ; THIS IS SHOWN WITH A STATISTIC that has NO LINK to HOW IT WOULD BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS. What teachers want DOESN'T MATTER. He assumes teachers' choose what to teach ; hence saying they'd teach it as fact. Teachers have to abide by certain regulations to teach. This disproves your entire first point. -CONTENTION 2- He accuses my points as being fuzzy. They are clear cut ; the values of the Puritans who migrated to America during the 16th-17th century. Their values basically were to do the Will of God. Because this factor drove them, they worked hard to ensure this was met, resulting in a successful culture. This is clear cut ; it's not my fault he didn't understand the argument. He ADDS an ARGUMENT IN THE LAST ROUND ; We shouldn't teach it as fact or non-fact because it'll offend people ; Evolution offends people too, and we don't seem to be bothered with that. We don't have to teach it as non-fact ; Only what it is. That it lacks empirical evidence (which my opponent concedes in his closing argument) and that it's valuable throughout history. He says it goes against separation of church and state ; teaching the general 'theory' harms this separation? No. It does not. It shows how it is VITAL IN OUR HISTORY and as an EXAMPLE OF a supported 'theory' WITHOUT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. -OPPONENT'S IMPACTS- 1. He claims it respects religion. I disprove this in my previous argument, that it's not SPECIFICALLY ONE RELIGION, UNLESS IN HISTORY ; IN WHICH CASE, IT'S RELEVANT IN A HISTORIC SENSE ; NOT A RELIGIOUS ONE. This impact falls. 2. "It downplays real science" This is uncredited ; I've shown throughout my arguments that it's being taught as a theory without empirical evidence ; the opposite of this claim is true. It STRENGTHENS real science. 3. He says it'll cause intolerance ; There is ALREADY intolerance, and that VIOLENCE WOULD ENSUE ; He provides ABSOLUTELY NO evidence for this. Children ALREADY are intolerant from it ; the fact of it being taught has no impact. His claim is unsubstantiated of violence ; this falls as well. His conclusion says that 'society we live in wants us to teach creationism in a way that would assume that it is factual (science) ' I've destroyed this point over and over. He's using a straw man, and tearing it down. In addition, he says that if I do not adhere to HIS HAND PICKED RESOLUTION, not the RESOLUTION AT HAND, then he should get the vote. The resolved is : Public Schools should teach creationism ; I've shown WHY, and he attacks straw mans. MY OPPONENT CONCEDES THE RESOLVED : Public schools should teach Creationism with his statement, " I agree, we should teach doctrines in history. " A vote for PRO is a vote to teach children accurate history, to educate them in science as to what is and isn't supported by empirical evidence. A vote for PRO will ensure that it WONT be TAUGHT in a BIASED MANNER ; ONLY WHAT IS FACT. CON argues straw man arguments, re-iterates his points without taking into account my rebuts, and HAS CONCEDED TO THE PRO.