Intelligent Design should be taught in mandatory education in the appropriate science classrooms.

Merriam-Webster -- "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method" Aristotle had a philosophical way to understanding "science", that is why he had a different idea of what it is to other at the time, for example, Plato. He was also referring to the scientific method in that statement. "Aristotle's approach to science differed from Plato's. He agreed that the highest human faculty was reason, and its supreme activity was contemplation. However, in addition to studying what he called "first philosophy" - metaphysics and mathematics, the things Plato had worked on, Aristotle thought it also very important to study "second philosophy": the world around us, from physics and mechanics to biology. Perhaps being raised in the house of a physician had given him an interest in living things." (http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu...). Using the philosophical definition to what science is holds no merit. On top of this, a resounding majority of those in a purer scientific topic would, when pressed for a technical definition (as opposed to common usage, meaning a short quick definition, not entirely accurate but easy to remember), would use the phrase (or equivalent of) "scientific method" in their statement. "Science consists simply of the formulation and testing of hypotheses based on observational evidence; experiments are important where applicable, but their function is merely to simplify observation by imposing controlled conditions." -- Robert H. Dott, Jr., and Henry L. Batten 1. the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. 2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation. 3. any specific branch of this general body of knowledge, such as biology, physics, geology, or astronomy. -- Academic Press Dictionary of Science & Technology "Science is both a body of knowledge and the process for building that knowledge." And NOT " ... a collection of facts." -- http://undsci.berkeley.edu... Berkely education institute Now, you stated that "philosophy" as a science. I would like an elaboration, with citation. Also, you failed to address any of my points due to the idea that "you'd be hard pressed to find on this forum or anywhere else someone who will actually defend that Intelligent Design is a SCIENCE class in the way you explained it. This is not a legitimate concern, this is not something people debate about." OK, if you did not know, this is a topic that is brought up repeatedly in American Law and education, whether it should be taught. The video reference to "A flock of Dodos" shows this, you but play the first few minutes. 40 seconds in refers to the situation that took place in Kansas, which makes me feel as if you didn't even bother to even skim through the citations. Finally, the reference to Danth's law is simple, I think : If you are going out of your way to claim victory in as many words, and literally start insisting that you've won, I think that is just bad conduct, and, personally, makes you sound a bit whiny. No offence. At your 4 points though: "You will get a mark out of 40 for matter, 40 for manner and 20 for method" is the general marking method in debates (http://www.actdu.org.au...). The manner would be equal to conduct. Yes, if you don't say anything of substance, yet manage to convince a crowd, then you should get a point, if not win the debate in itself, no matter how you do it. Of course, in conduct/manner, you get down-marked for insults, and fallacies, and tone. Point two refers to method. If you spell technical terms correctly, clearly give across your issues well, and give grammatically correct statements, it makes it easier for everyone to read; specifically to non-native speakers, as these small errors can make people think you are using a word they've never heard before (I've been in that situation). Also, saying things as "you cares" lowers general netiquette, as well as formality and civility. Point 3 -- I agree that point 3 comes down to the most important, but not the "only". In fact, it contradicts your point made in your first problem : If you convince everyone else, but you don't have any substance, then it is a pointless for an educational "debate", and rather just a test of ability to convince others. If you do not understand the difference, I will happily discuss the philosophy behind "debating". In fact, the idea that you brought across makes it seem like debating is but an argument with rules. Point 4 -- If I make a claim that I can float, I need citation, yes? If I cite it with a link to my blog, which says me saying I can float, does this mean it's true? You seem very focused also about achieving "points", and the meaning behind this, the motive, seems rather plain: you don't want to provide any reliable sources, because either a) you can't find them or b) you are not bothering to. If it is either, then the debate instantly swings into the opposition's favour. And finally, at your last statement, I do not state my opinion out loud, and state is as an absolute fact, as you seemed to have. Nor am I going to insist it, as you may still refute some of what I have said. However, as time drags on, i feel this is unlikely, as you have just dug a deeper whole, especially with statements such as "THIS DEBATE IS OVER" and "NO NEW ARGUMENTS later in the debate against arguments I presented in round 1 - that would be utterly unfair.", as well as the fact that you seemed to have been misinformed of what a framework is (you seem to give across the idea only an affirmer can state the framework, and I am confused where this idea came from: watch a TOC debate or a LD debate, and tell me whether there is only 1 framework. Both sides always posit a framework. If you do not, you can only refute, deny, and ignore, meaning you cannot bring up any flaws, as that would be breaking the somewhat unheard of rule that is " NO NEW ARGUMENTS later in the debate against arguments I presented in round 1". Again, http://www.actdu.org.au... explains the flaw in this idea).