Reasonable and reasonably intelligent people should not debate with creationists.

======= Case Con ======= "If someone were to confront me and tell me that they believe Elvis exists, then I'll gladly entertain their thought! I'd engage them in a debate right on the spot, and ask for their reasons why. To simply bat one's eyes and ignore them is counteractive to an intellectual community. " My opponent seems to be confusing the terms engage and debate. This is unfortunate considering they are the first two definitions in my first round and I have not strayed from those definitions since. For those who have forgotten let me list them again. Engage- prosecute: carry out or participate in an activity; be involved in; "She pursued many activities"; "They engaged in a discussion" Debate- the formal presentation of a stated proposition and the opposition to it (usually followed by a vote) Unless my opponent is so famous that he draws crowds of people whenever he speaks it is very unlikely he would "engage" in a "debate" shortly after he just met someone that believes Elvis is still alive. This type of conversation would be more aptly titled- a casual exchange of ideas- rather than a "debate". One does not debate in a completely informal setting. I am not now nor have I ever been opposed to speaking with creationists or Conspiracy theorists in an informal manner. Claim #1 "Creationism is spreading fast through other mediums. It's true that it has barely any traction among universities, but in public highschools and lower, it's getting quite rampant. The vast majority of Americans don't believe in evolution[1] because they've been told the "truth" of creationism when they are young without having a substantive counterargument from the sides of evolution. Sure, they were taught evolution in high school biology, but most people take that less seriously. Unless someone confronts them, they'll simply ignore the textbooks as being wrong - an unfortunate but common mistake. " My opponent asserts that creationism is spreading in the United States. To claim that something is spreading is to claim that it is increasing compared to a previous relative state. So, unless he has hard statistical evidence to back up this claim I will continue to view this assertion as unsubstantiated. Anything that can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. One or two credible polls that charted American acceptance of evolution over time would be enough to settle this issue. It's true that many Americans don't accept evolution but to the best of my knowledge acceptance in evolution has remained more or less stagnant for the past 20 years or so. Even if belief in creationism were increasing it would not directly follow that debating with creationists is the best remedy for this problem. Claim #2 "As I have argued, by effectively arguing against creationism in front of many people we can easily lower the amount of support. " I have never seen any evidence that would lead me to conclude that this is true. The approach your advocating is currently being employed as we speak and it hasn't made any noticeable differences in the overall acceptance of evolution in the United States. Jerry Coyne had some good statistics in a lecture he gave that related to exactly what were talking about now. Unfortunately the resolution of the video isn't high enough for me to make out what the titles of those statistics were. But I will still post the lecture in case you're interested in seeing it. ======= Case Pro ======= 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. Disbelief in evolution is symptomatic of a larger problem; the problem is faith itself- conviction without reason, hope mistaken for knowledge, bad ideas protected from good ones, good ideas occluded by bad ones, wishful thinking elevated to the point of salivation etc. Debates are only worth having if there are two legitimate sides to any issue. Did the stimulus package actually improve the economy? Is Sarah Palin qualified to run for president? Is infanticide morally acceptable? Was the war in Iraq justified? Is Christianity objectively likely to be true etc? Evolution can explain the diversity and complexity of life we see on Earth; creationism can't. Evolution by natural selection can explain why humans and Chimpanzees share 98% of their DNA. It also explains why nearly 99% of every species that has ever lived on Earth has gone extinct. These facts are exquisitely difficult to explain if one postulates that there may be a loving omnipotent hand that sculpted the Earths various animals. Could you imagine someone like Richard Dawkins or Robert Trivers debating with someone like Kent Hovind? It would be a joke. Such a debate would be debauching to the very idea of intellectual discourse. It would constitute an academic disgrace on par with debating whether or not the Holocaust had ever taken place. Here is one of my major concerns. Some biologists don't have the necessary public speaking skills to debate with certain creationists. Often times they get outmatched in terms of charisma and presentation style, which are completely irrelevant to whether or not their arguments are valid. Any person that is persuaded by peripheral issues like this may even leave one of these debates concluding that the creationist presented the more reasonable case. This has happened many times in the past and it will continue to happen in the future. All of this can be avoided simply by refusing to debate with them. Even if the debate were in print then other problems would still arise. Creationists, more often than not, don't have the necessary understanding of science to appreciate the debate. Consequentially the debate will fall on deaf ears. Biologists and scientists generally, in my experience, aren't always the most charismatic people- Carl Sagan is a truly rare exception. It isn't really their fault. They just didn't go to school to become excellent public speakers. Sources . http://www.scientificamerican.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.youtube.com...