This House believes Creationism is not a productive form of education in public schools (

Overview:My opponent only tries to dispute a few of my arguments while dropping the vast majority of them. I will address his concerns and then extend my conceded arguments. My Opponents Concern's:1. He once again states that creationism is not worthy because it is the equivalent of discussing Micky Mouse. The difference in this case is that large swaths of society believe in creationism while large swaths of society do not believe in Micky Mouse. The advantage to having an academic discussion is via providing students with a non-religious affiliated viewpoint from which to evaluate the matter. My opponent actually agrees that arguing about this is productive, which is an indication that it would also be so in an academic setting. Finally he states that accepting creationism into the curriculum means that we have to accept the most bizarre concepts as well. This is an example of the slippery slope fallacy. Teaching creationism does not at all mandate that we must teach other "bizarre concepts". Keep in mind that I'm arguing that children are brainwashed and need access to the opposite viewpoint. An academic perspective is the ideal way for them to attain a viewpoint from which to think for themselves. 2. Next my opponent argues that creationism promotes discrimination and prejudice but completely ignores my root cause argumentation. I isolate in the previous speech that misunderstandings and otherization lead to discrimination and prejudice. I also mention these things will happen regardless of schools teaching creationism because religious institutions already do so. Which means that we can only hope to combat the misunderstandings and otherization by demonstrating the logic behind each viewpoint. This can occur through academics, in a moderated environment, where all sides of the issue are examined. This has a massive advantage over a purely religious based viewpoint because it is not myopic. 3. Pro returns to the arguments about PPSIMONS and Creationtoday. These arguments are not useful in a world where my root cause arguments remain unaddressed. PPSIMMONS and Creationtoday have no incentive to offer opposing viewpoints. They are attempting to "sell" or convince an audience of a viewpoint. This one sided approach to education is what creates the hatred, discrimination, and prejudice. Meanwhile, schools are academic settings which promote a balanced education. They are ideal at examining multiple sides of an issue and looking at the logic behind disparate viewpoints. Therefore schools can deconstruct the otherization that has occured through the one-sided teaching of creationism. Look, creationism doesn't create hatred. It's the means by which creationism is taught that creates hatred. If a human is raised believing that creationism is the only correct way to look at an issue then they otherize people with conflicting viewpoints. Teaching creationism in schools solves this problem because the methodology teaches the logic behind each conflicting viewpoint. 4. And finally, my opponent says that since creationism is inevitable we should take steps to stop it. I agree completely. When people arrive at college (straight from their private catholic high shcools or home schooling) they should be exposed to creationism in an academic setting. My opponent states, "I agree schools should encourage these life skills to young people to make sure they are not subjected to brainwashing however young people should be aware of the techniques used by these kinds of individuals." Exactly! The best way to prevent this brain washing is by teaching the subject from a non-religious affiliated medium (i.e. colleges and universites). This makes individuals "aware of the techniques" and promotes the conflicting viewpoints which allows them to make an educated decision. In the end it is the difference between a world which blindly believes creationism and a world which has the choice. Since my arguments about critical thought go untouched, I will continue to advocate that having the choice is preferable. Advancing critical thought and removing brainwashing are both productive for our society. Conceded Arguments:1. Creationism should be taught to religioius education majors in college. I give a plethora of reasons why this is true. My opponent concedes the point. This one instance disproves that "creationism is not a productive form of education in public schools". Hence I win this debate. 2. My arguments about the root cause of violence and hatred are not addressed. I'm making causality arguments for why the methodology of educating determines the outcomes. My opponent has not addressed these which indicates that I control the violence debate. 3. My opponent drops a series of arguments about the conflict of ideas promoting logical awareness and personal problem solving skills. This proves that creationism is "productive" in public schools. 4. Finally my opponent concedes my points about reverse violence. I say that non-religious thinkers do not understand the viewpoints of people who believe in creationism. Therefore otherization occurs and violence is inflicted on those thinkers. Teaching creationism through schools reverses this trend by allowing non-religious thinkers to interrogate the logical pathways. Thus creationism in schools reduces violence on two levels. First through creationist advocaters lashing out, and then through secular thinkers responding. Underview:This concludes the constructive sections of this debate. From here on out we enter the rebuttals, where new arguments should be be considered. My opponent has one key argument in this debate. He says that becuase PPSIMONS and Creationtoday teach creationism poorly, public schools will also teach it poorly. I have suggested, and provided substantial logical analysis, that the methodology and intent of the institution is the determining factor in the outcomes. Academic settings are immune to the pitfalls of PPSIMONS and Creationtoday because they endeavor to teach conflicting viewpoints. My opponent has not once addressed this issue and so will face an extremely difficult challenge in his final speech.