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

Overview:I'll respond to my opponent's arguments in the order he presented them in the final round. To my knowledge, I have not smoked anything throughout duration of this debate. Also ad hominem attacks don't bolster a position. Case:1. My opponent argues that he has not conceded that religious education majors should be taught creationism. In round 4 he states that, "This is an awful misrepresentation of my arguments". However, in each previous round my opponent has made no response to my 'religious education major' argument despite the fact that I highlighted it as a key argument for this debate. Since I have given substantial analysis as to why religious education majors should be taught creationism (see round 2-3), and my opponenent has not responded, he has conceded the argument. The resolution states, "This house believes creationism is not a productive form of education in public schools". I have demonstrated one instance where it is a productive form of education, which disproves the resolution. 2. My opponent reasserts that creationism leads to violence. However, I have a response to this argument which he has never refuted. I argue throughout rounds 2 and 3 that creationism does not inherently lead to violence. Rather, it is the methodology through which creationism is taught that leads to violence. I delineate that PBSimmons and Creationtoday have a detrimental methodology while schools offer a beneficial methodology. Thus, creationism taught in shcools allows individuals to remove themselves from violence. This point is not refuted in my opponent's final speech. My opponent's examples are not relevant because they are not examples of creationism being taught in schools. 3. Con argues that creationism is not a productive idea. He says that more people beleiving in creationism does not add to it's validity. In this case it actually does add to my arguments validity. I make analysis throughout the debate arguing that teaching creationism in schools can remove people from a brainwashed state and give them logical awareness. Since so many people already believe in creationism, as taught through religious institutes, there are a great number of people who can be benefited from a scholastic education on the topic. It wouldn't make sense to teach about invisible elephants or Micky Mouse because people are not brain washed to believe those things are true. It makes sense to teach about creationism, and promote the conflict ideas, because so many people are brainwashed into thinking it is true. Finally on this issue my opponent makes a reference to the earth being flat debate. This supports my case. The earth being flat was taught in schools which promoted a conflict of ideas. That conflict lead to people hypothesizing that the earth was indeed round and later proving it so. In much the same way, teaching creationism in schools allows people to reject the theory and hypothesize more plausible alternatives. 4. My opponent makes a brief extension of his argument, "religious belief should not be imposed." I have never once said it should be. I'm advocating that the topic be analyzed and debated in the classroom, not that teachers should force students to believe it. I have made analysis throughout the debate stating that the scholastic environment (especially in college) does not force students into belief systems. This is the reason it is unique from my opponent's examples. Finally my opponent asks me to demonstrate how the creationist curriculum proposed is superior to the current curriculum. I would say that it is not. Creationism is already taught in religious education classes across the nation at the collegiate level. The proper question is, "why is a world where creationism is not covered, more beneficial than the status quo?" I think that I have made a compelling case for it not being more beneficial. Teaching creationism in select college classes is a definite advantage for the conflict of ideas that it promotes. Summary: My opponent has arguments. Those arguments hinge on examples from PBSimmons and Creationtoday. I have informed the viewers that PBSimmons and Creationtoday teach creationism in a way which is not beneficial. I have also argued that schools teach it in a way which is beneficial. This distinction, which my opponent does not refute, is the crux of my case. So while creationism is probably not a productive form of education in religious institutions, it is a productive form of education in public colleges and universites. Thus, I urge a Pro ballot, and thank you for reading this debate.