azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Look at what happened when the Koch Brothers decided they wanted to be "education experts" in the Wake County schools system. Nothing about them wanting to be "education experts". they promoted a system that would "eliminate class, and subsequently race, as a factor for student school assignments". If someone were to use race, or income, as a criteria for barring access to a public resource, the policy would be called discriminatory, and rightly so. Any policy which uses race, or income as a determining factor, is discriminatory , by definition. No government has the authority to implement discriminatory policies, under the 14th amendment "equal protection" clause. How is preventing a government from implementing discriminatory policies bad?The school board was elected democratically, right?We should get some experts to study what the "good" schools are doing and do that everywhere ;)What works for one school (or student) doesn't work for all schools or students. :/---------------------------As a complete aside, I'm thinking of a couple of debates and/or a possible experiment in economics. I would like to see two experiments set up, one with a more statist society, and one with a more libertarian society. We have equal numbers of people participate in each.The libertarians set up the rules and limits of government in the libertarian society, the statists, likewise, for their society. The twist is, the libertarians participate in the statist society, and vice versa. Each side tries to "break" the other's society, following the rules, set down by the other side. :)I may actually put this up as a debate and see if anyone has an idea as to how to implement it online.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

If someone were to use race, or income, as a criteria for barring access to a public resource, the policy would be called discriminatory, and rightly so. Any policy which uses race, or income as a determining factor, is discriminatory , by definition. No government has the authority to implement discriminatory policies, under the 14th amendment "equal protection" clause.Your trying to use your interpretation of the laws over the common sense interpretation of the situation (I think).Lets say poor neighborhood schools are "worse" because the "wealthy" schools attract more resources and better teachers. Should those poor children be given the same "good" education as their neighbors or not?I think poor children should be given the same good education. If not, like in the free market, wealth and power will concentrate (my old argument). If it turned out the government was "breaking the law" by doing this, common sense (if you agree with the premise) says you change the law, not "do nothing".The school board was elected, and quickly re-elected. While momentarily subverted by money, democracy worked. PS. Too much money is used to subvert our democracy in general. The voters should (and will) fix that.What works for one school (or student) doesn't work for all schools or students. :/Individual students, yes, but whats a good example of something that works good for one school but not another?As a complete aside...Yeah, I was thinking about that as well (I'm a software engineer). The problem is the "game" has to be very complex. As soon as the society "failed" the "looser" would say "It's because the game does not have X". This will go on forever... "It failed because the game did not have X, Y, X....." Maybe you can come up with the minimal number of "things" a free market game would have to have to be realistic. I'm thinking resources, businesses, entrepreneurs, laborers, insurance, some sort of contract and arbitration system, property, etc...I think most game theory supports my ideas about the free market. Look at most of the games out there where there is a "free market" and the object of the game is to collect resources. The person who is lucky enough to get the most resources in the begging of the game (maybe even on the first turn), has a huge advantage (Risk, Monopoly, etc). Eventually the wealth concreteness until the "winner" has all the resources. Having a game (society) where the object is to "collect resources", is a very very bad idea. Smart energetic people WILL collect all the resources eventually.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Should those poor children be given the same "good" education as their neighbors or not?What about allocating resources equally, on a per student basis? For example: (small numbers, easy math)for example, allocate $10 per studentschool A has 100 studentsschool B has 50 studentsA gets $1000B gets $500that's fair, right?Individual students, yes, but whats a good example of something that works good for one school but not another?I cannot find the information, but there was an all-black high school (in harlem I think) before desegregation, that consistently turned out high achieving college students and eventual graduates. When the school was forced to integrate (admit whites), the quality of education dropped significantly. Desegregation did not work for this school.As a complete aside...debate here: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Libertarianism_vs_Statism_An_experiment
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

What about allocating resources equally, on a per student basis?That might be better than what we are doing know, but obviously this would not produce equally well prepared students at the end of the day. You have to spend more money on a poor child or child with ADD than another child without those disabilities. Remember the goal is to produce good and equally educated children at the end of the day not to "be fair" to the taxpayers. That said I realize you can't get it "perfect" and probably should not try. I cannot find the information, but there was an all-black high school (in harlem I think) before desegregation, that consistently turned out high achieving college students and eventual graduates.Yeah, but who knows what else went on at the same time (teacher union, teacher changes, rule changes, etc). Lets say the cause was only due to adding white faces what would the lesson be? Should the workplace be segregated so workers are more productive? Should we teach our children that "segregation is good"? I think the "education" of learning to live with different people is more valuable that a few points on a standardized test.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

Oh, I just found this. "Experts" brought in for anti-bullying training for school kids. "Please note: this class teaching moment was brought to you under the "it's not ok to bully." They decided to teach students that it's ok for boys to be girls and girls to be boys.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5OfA8Y6xm8
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Some "experts" in iceland have decided what they can name their children, to "prevent embarrassment".http://tinyurl.com/a4eglrn"Like a handful of other countries, including Germany and Denmark, Iceland has official rules about what a baby can be named. In a country comfortable with a firm state role, most people don't question the Personal Names Register, a list of 1,712 male names and 1,853 female names that fit Icelandic grammar and pronunciation rules and that officials maintain will protect children from embarrassment. Parents can take from the list or apply to a special committee that has the power to say yea or nay."
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5OfA8Y6xm8 Seems like they presented facts about nature? I don't see the harm, but the list of benefits is quite long.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Seems like they presented facts about nature? There are people who literally have both sex equipment. This is not a "normal" thing, it is a condition. Equating it with fish who change sex due to environmental pressures, is intellectually dishonest. It is the equivalent of saying that since some animals must subdue their mates before mating, it is a natural state of affairs for people to rape.But that's not even my point. They used a bullying program to promote a "gay is normal" agenda. This is promotion of a particular morality. If you allow the active promotion of a particular morality, you run the risk of allowing a morality to be promoted, with which you disagree.The program was supposed to be anti-bullying. Bullying is about violation of rights. The theme should be "if you bully, you will be punished, because people have a right to be free from bullying". It should not be "anything another person does (or is) is normal, and should be understood and embraced as normal". There is a difference. I consider homosexuality to be wrong, and I teach my kids that it is wrong. I also teach them that to actively bully anyone for any reason is wrong. People have a right to do whatever they are comfortable doing, as long as they hurt no one else. Homosexuality (if there is harm) only harms the participants.I don't see the harm, but the list of benefits is quite long.What benefits are there to potentially undermining the moral teaching of parents? I see much harm.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

LOL, i think i got tangled up. I have no problem with a child choosing to learn about creationism or "intelligent design" in school, as a theory. We may actually be on the same side of this argument. :D
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Haha. I think so too. I was always writing to answer the motion. That was why I was confused as to why you seemed to have a similar point of view as mine.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

How will kids benefit from Creationism as alternative to biology, geography, history, physics and chemistry? What they will be good for?
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

You don't have to know where a person came from, to understand chemistry, or to study practical biology or physics. Most of the history we study is covered, relatively accurately, in many religious texts, if you read them from a secular viewpoint. Anything pre-history, that would fall under creation, is of limited practical use. The only thing is geography (or geology) which has pre-historic roots linked to practical applications. So, you have children of "secular education" parents doing better in those fields. So what? The competition for the best ideas will improve the system, much more than "creationist" students would diminish it.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

So we should censore science classes to make it fit into various myths instead dismissing those myths as a nonsense?Do you know why some some history in religious stories fits with reality? becase they were copmared to already known secular sources, so they do not even brigh any new valuable info.Creationism means teaching children that world was created i 7 days by magic, women made from rib, talking animals, magical trees, earth is flat, impossible floods, 700 years old Noah and many other idiotic blobs as an actual things, telling them that houdreds of thousands highly educated exepers says differently because they are possed by devil and that their "professor" with Ph.D in Chrisian truthology from online degree mill knows the truth.This will completely destroy US in just two generation.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

No one said it would be taught in science class, or that it would be mandatory. Only that the students (or imho parents) should be able to choose, for their own child. In your opinion, the "evolutionist" children would do more poorly. Not all children would do as poorly. And in a free society, the less "sophisticated" students could not prevent the more sophisticated students from excelling. The better philosophy would win out, and those who clung to the inferior one could choose to educate themselves in the other, or continue in their failure/ignorance.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

you are still missing one important thing, evolution is based on longterm researh and experiments.Creationism is based on mythsThese two things are not equal.just because kid is dumb should be taught a bullshit just because it's easier?
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

They are not equal, and could be taught in different classes. They are also not mutually exclusive. Regardless, what is the practical difference, in everyday life, for Joe Average, in whether he believes one or the other?
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

not taught in science classes ?so in physics they will be taught that stars forms in nebulae and in Creatards class they will be told that it was done by magic?what that will be even godd for?
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

They can treat it like my phy sci professor did. He said that this is our best scientific evidence. It did not diminish the quality or the relevance of the material.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

so then there is no point to teach something that has no evidence for itself or any potential use.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

lol, are you arguing against liberal arts degrees? I don't see much use for "early cambodian literature", or "OWS studies", but there are classes for that. Not to mention all the "Green" nonsense. "Gay" history? Ebonics??? Shold parents have the choice whether their child is exposed to these, including "Intelligent Design"? Imho, yes.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

Liberal arts are useless but do no harm. Creatards tents to spread they BS on children and that does harm. Well brainwashed kids will start refusing standard science, that will lead to decrease in science research, in other word primitivization. Check for Westboro Baptist Church, these are how it will look like.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

"Furthermore, it is inevitable that the State would impose uniformity on the teaching of charges. Not only is uniformity more congenial to the bureaucratic temper and easier to enforce; this would be almost inevitable where collectivism has supplanted individualism. With collective State ownership of the children replacing individual ownership and rights, it is clear that the collective principle would be enforced in teaching as well. Above all, what would be taught is the doctrine of obedience to the State itself. For tyranny is not really congenial to the spirit of man, who requires freedom for his full development." --Rothbard "Education: Free and Compulsory" Source: ( http://mises.org/daily/2226#4) including full text.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

so kids should be offered any random BS? it does not matter that it' completely irrational...?
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

It is irrational to you. What kids are "offered" should be decided by the parents, whose interests are the good of the child and not by the state, whose interests are the good of the state.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Public schools are really propaganda factories for state power.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

I don't see why not, just as long as they understand that creationism won't help them become anything other than a priest or a theologian.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

Then there is no reason to introduce it in non specialized schools.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

The main point of school is to prepare people for their future careers. Learning creationism does not help anyone for their career except future priests and theologians.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

What careers does learning evolution prepare one for?Should an individual have any less right to choose to enter theology than those careers?
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

Theology is a hobby, it has no rational backing and relevant use, Evolution is core part of biology, it's applied in Pharmacology, agriculture and many other real life discipline.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Evolution is core part of biology, it's applied in Pharmacology, agriculture and many other real life discipline.Can you give specific examples, in pharmacology, for instance?
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

Development of Antibiotics .
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

And evolution only helps you if you want to go into gene mapping or archeology or genealogy. Im going to be a cop tell me how knowing the theory of evolution is going to help me with that.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Although creationism isn't really something that I believe, it should be part of the freely flowing ideas circulating all curriculum because people should be able to choose as to what they wish to believe. This is why government should get out of education and allow the market to determine where money should be allocated, so if creationists want to teach, learn and research creationism, the market of ideas will provide the funding, the same goes for evolution.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

What about Islamic Sunday schools? Teaching boys that how to cut off leg to thief, that they should hate non Muslims, teaching girls that they are not equal to men... are these things OK too?
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Congratulations on pointing out the extreme nonsensical irrelevant to the debate.As for the outlandish statement, Islamic religion is a peaceful religion except for the extreme. Why would that be tolerated anyway, they can go to a different school or establish new one.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

It's not really peaceful religion, it's like Christianity of 1400. You haven't lived nearly any Muslim community....
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

As for the outlandish statement, Islamic religion is a peaceful religion except for the extreme.I'm actually with Slug on this one. Islam is not an inherently peaceful religion. It can be used peacefully, it can be used violently, but when you examine the religious texts, from the Quran to the Hadith to Sharia Law, you see you don't have to stretch or alter the meanings of anything to support or justify religious violence. Jainism is a religion of peace. Islam is not. Islam is a religion of violence in certain circumstances, and thus you cannot make the claim Islam is a religion of peace, even if many or most of the followers practice it peacefully. You could make the claim most Muslims are peaceful, but that's not because Islam itself is peaceful.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

If Islamic religion is violent, then quotes from scriptures will be needed to prove it.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

I don't agree with this sites interpretation of all of the quotes, but this site offers a pretty comprehensive list of potentially violent verses.http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/ 023-violence.htm But come on. You know there is violence in the Quran as surely as you know there is violence in the Bible or the Torah; sometimes acted out by god, sometimes condoned, supported, or called on by god or his prophets, sometimes just stories of violence. These are books that came out of a violent and primitive culture; I would be surprised if these books weren't barbaric in nature.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

The key term is potential, violence is not required in Islam or Christianity as a means for act of passage. Nothing says violence must be acted upon.True, religion can be violent with barbaric notations, plus these books were written in response to other religions and their hatred to others' beliefs.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

The key term is potential, violence is not required in Islam or Christianity as a means for act of passage. Nothing says violence must be acted upon.Ahahahaha did you read the site I linked? If "nothing says violence must be acted upon" in the Quran, the Quran says nothing at all, because it's prescriptions for violence are laid out as clearly as it's tenants or stories on anything else. I know there's something to be said for verses being vague and ambiguous enough to interpret pretty much any way you want, but if we can play word games to the point where the Quran doesn't condone violence, words kind of cease to have any meaning, at all. It should also be noted that when it comes to the religious interpreting scripture they need very little substance to make comprehensive moral judgements. Homosexuality, for example, is mentioned once as being bad in the Bible, and that's enough for the whole religion to base it's position on the social issue of homosexuality. Abortion is never technically mentioned, but Christians still manage to pull verses to support the "Christian" pro-life position. Scripture is flexible; scripture it versatile. But notice how little we have to warp or bend or misinterpret verses like, Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." Bukhari (52:177) to glean violent intent from them. Pretty much not at all. It's not a matter of reading some verse about life or slavery and finding some way to make that fit in with the religious morality against abortion; violence is explicitly commanded and condoned regularly and in plain English. True, religion can be violent with barbaric notations, plus these books were written in response to other religions and their hatred to others' beliefs.Right, so why wouldn't you expect to see violence described, condoned, and commanded in these books?
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

As much as I hate creationism, I think it should be a basic right that people can choose to be taught it or choose not the be taught it. However, I would also argue that everyone should be taught about evolution. That should be mandatory.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

I have a friend who is very religious and also homeschools her kids. She Teaches both "intelligent design" and evolution as theories.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

I think that you would always need to be presented with both sides of the argument.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

That's the thing there are no two sides... There's Evolution vs. thousands of different stone/bronze age myths...It's like forcing into studies about horses made up study about unicorns, simply because there is no evidence for them BUT they were mentioned in many myths...