Creationism and Evolution

My opponent incorrectly asserts that my main argument is that debating ‘reinforces' beliefs. This is not my argument at all. Simply that debating ‘challenges' our beliefs. Some will reinforce their views, while some could potentially change their view. Naturally the result of a debate is subjective. That the potential for challenging any held belief is possible by debating is enough reason to hold them, in my opinion. My opponent would like a source for this, and I am unable to provide one. It is simply my opinion. I'd like to point out neither of the links my opponent sourced worked for me. This doesn't seem to be that important however, as this debate is not scientific. It is simply my opponent's opinion versus mine. My opponent seems to assert that having debates lacking in science serves no purpose, does he believe that this debate (the one he and I are having right now) is pointless as well? My opponent does make reasonable arguments, and points to reasons backing up his point of view, however it still remains unscientific. Perhaps my opponent only believes it is foolish to debate when the things being debated are as dissimilar as are evolution and creationism. But since it hasn't been proven that these things are indeed contradictory, or serve no purpose by contrasting, we should conclude that debating them serves at least some purpose. Once again, that purpose is to challenge widely held beliefs that people take for granted. The most interesting debates are often ones that seem unwinnable or don't seem to have any greater goal than the debate itself. I believe this is the case regarding this debate topic, as the two are rarely brought up to be reconciled and instead often exist simply to propagandize or mislead as my opponent asserts. But just like ‘free speech' in the west, it is impossible to single out certain speech or debates that can be characterized as such and denied, because it is entirely a subjective opinion. And it also isn't necessary, these debates do no harm other than, at worst, wasting people's time. If a scientist is concerned with his time being wasted, he will not participate. But perhaps like myself, the scientist believes it is worth taking part in simply because it creates an opportunity to learn, hear various ideas, and most importantly, challenge widely held beliefs, and nothing could be more important in academic, or informal settings, than constantly challenging what people believe. It is only through constant analysis and challenges to our own ideology that we can adjust and modify ourselves. This is as true in philosophy as it is in science, and therefore no institution that facilitates such a thing should be outright dismissed. Finally, I will respond to my opponent's response to the 4th summarization in my last round. I state: "We do not need to stop debating this topic simply because there are those who are misguided or intend to misinform" My opponent's response, "So my opponent would be supporting the spread of lies and false education. " In a sense, my opponent's response is accurate. I would indeed be supporting the spread of lies and false education. This is the unfortunate inevitability of allowing all points of view, without silencing those we disagree with. Yes, I have to allow Nazi's the right to their lies, so that other groups can spread their truth. The only way that truth can be spread, and lies to be exposed, is to allow all speech, all debates, and let people ultimately decide for themselves.