Reasonable and reasonably intelligent people should not debate with creationists.

So it seems that I was about the definition of "debate" in this context. Instead of a simple exchange of arguments, it's the same thing except in a formal and presumably public manner. Taking this into account, I agree that examples of debating people on the street are irrelevant, and retract those arguments. However, this doesn't do much to remove from my position. My opponent seems to ignore several of my argument, though I do grant they aren't as important. However, I'll list them again to remind the audience: 1. It helps the one who debates with a creationist to know more about evolution/Big Bang It seems my opponent does nothing to refute this - he submits that in one form or another, debating with a creationist will usually grant one more knowledge on evolution and the Big Bang. 2. It can change the creationist's mind He also presumably agrees to this, though what the success rate is neither of us can truly claim to know - though we can claim to know that it DOES happen. 3. Others can read the debate and hopefully be influenced by the evolutionist An obvious trademark of public/formal debates is that it can be read/seen/heard by other people, thus influencing their ideas. If the creationists were to be allowed to constantly blab about their belief, then it would leave one side out of the discussion. It's like having only the Republicans speak on radio shows, TV's, and internet pages - eventually the public will start turning towards a particular side; this is the nature of information technology. And now for the main meat of this debate: ==================== Not debating with creationists could potentially be risky ==================== My opponent argues that I should at least provide some statistical evidence that acceptance of evolution by Americans have been declining over the past 20 years. Fair enough, I can offer at least two sources[1][2]. "Over the last two decades, the percentage of Americans who are uncertain about the merits of evolutionary theory has increased from seven percent to twenty-one percent; a three fold increase. " The only change for the better is just the amount of people who OVERTLY reject evolution - however, they still reject in some shape or form. As you can see, Creationism is definitely on the rise, due to what the report says "poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians. " As you can see, the politics involved with Creationism, coupled with religion and a poor understanding of biology, have lead to such an increase in anti-evolution. This brings me to my next point, as to why debating with creationists can counter this. ==================== Debating with creationists can lead more people to believe in evolution ==================== My opponent states that the approach I'm advocating is currently being employed but hasn't made any noticeable difference. Perhaps this is so, but really we can't tell - since statistically speaking the numbers of people who reject evolution can be MUCH more, but through the debates it's only lessened. Since, unfortunately, the overall statistic is a negative correlation, we can't tell how much effect debating has done in numbers for us to see. However, let's just think about it. Why in the world would NOT debating about it adversely affect the evolution side? I saw your video, but it did nothing but say the obvious - creationism is many times fueled with religious belief. In fact, the study I presented shows this as one of the common factors: religious fundamentalism. Also, another major fact for the increase in creationism is politicization of it. Creationist pundits are bringing it to the political realm, where it can have larger effects (making public schools teach creationism alongside evolution) and larger attention (garner the attention of news channel, etc. ). This spike in attention means more people will buy into creationism UNLESS there's an opposing side to it. For example, if it were just social conservatives constantly mouthing off their beliefs, with NO opposition, then eventually many of their beliefs will get accepted. This is the nature of politics - if there's no opposing side then the acceptance of creationism will become much more ridiculously easy. We can't force every American adult right now to read high school biology again, but we can capture their attention by telling them the evolutionary side of the debate. If we allow the creationists to just constantly feed their own side, then we shouldn't be surprised at the average American's response. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent states that the goal of intellectual discourse is not merely to "get people to accept the truth of evolution (or any other scientific theory); the goal is to get them to value the principles of reasoning and educated discourse that now make acceptance of evolution obligatory. " And I COMPLETELY agree! But I ask of him - how would you have someone to value the principles of reasoning without convincing them of such? And how the hell else would you convince them besides using arguments? And what's a great place to host arguments but a debate? I also find it intriguing you would say "debates are only worth having if there are two legitimate sides to any issue. " Exactly what would make a side an issue? Because it seems complicated, or maybe if it's a new topic? You see, calling a debate legitimate or not is purely arbitrary; it's legitimate or not in the eyes of the beholder. I argue that any topic should be entertained if brought up, after all that is the attitude of a philosopher is it not? My opponent's last criticism is a good one, but it's easily circumvented. For the biologists who aren't great rhetoricians, then an online debate will be just fine - as spoken words won't be such an issue. They can concentrate on the much more technical stuff, not get washed away by rhetoric, and hit points with pinpoint accuracy (in spoken debates, it's hard to keep track of every argument and every detail without a great memory). And if we keep up this "movement" of refuting creationism in the public eye, then no doubt we can garner several people who are adept at debating in person - such as Kenneth Miller. Refuting the claims of creationists does not require a Ph. D. In fact, I'm sure if we got several people on this website to do it they'll probably do it justice (RoyLatham, Kleptin, etc. ). ---References--- 1. . http://uprisingradio.org... 2. . http://www.livescience.com...