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

How much on evolution isn't scientifically verified, yet taught in class?
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

It is also intelligence from nothing. So, not any more sensible. You can call it gold and all it on the corner, but "Intelligent Design" doesn't have any information actually associated with it to be taught in class. Your complete lack of a counter argument proves that.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

yes its their choice if they want to they shouldnt be forced to believe in a false god
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Or visa versa as is the current situation. Right now kids are virtually having Atheism rammed down there throats in science class.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Did you watch God is Not Dead The movie, very good. I'd recommend it to all. Atheism isn't just being spoon speed it is force fed. It is as much of a belief and religion as any other, so why is it allowed to have selective support in schools
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

That movie was horrible. It is the worst possible representation of the atheist argument. I have never once been in a science class where the professor even mentioned God. Not one single science professor ever said anything close to the idea that you have to decide God doesn't exist. Plus, Hercules' motivation for being an atheist was utter garbage.Atheism is on the rise because theists think science doesn't exist and God does.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

I do not believe that students should be allowed to opt into a class about creationism since there is no scientific grounding behind it. The only thing children should learn about in schools are things that have significant evidence to support them.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

There's no scientific grounding for evolution or philosophy, either. Kids should be taught how to manipulate their financial and working life once they are out of school. They should be taught exactly how they are manipulated themselves by the powers that be and how to deal with it. They should learn their multiplication tables, and how to do math on paper and not with a machine. Machines are okay until they break down and render their user unable to think for himself.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Evolution is not science, it's a preferred philosophical model for most people who do not want to believe God rules over them, and should not be taught as science in public schools. There is no need to teach Creation or Evolution in the general curriculum. They should just stick to observational and applied science, math, and technology, language skills, history...evolution has no real value in education and should not be paid for my taxes. It's government controlled religion force in the public schools and should be completely purged from all textbooks except maybe for philosophical/religion studies and I really don't think those things should be taxpayer funded either. It's a waste of time and money.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

In school?No. That's ridiculous. Creationism is proven to be incorrect. Might as well teach the earth is flat or the stars are holes in the sky.You could teach about creationism, in the same context we teach about Greek gods.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Who has proven Creationism false. Creationism is a concept, not a specific story. Everything has their different ideas of what it was. Christians use Adam, Egyptians Ra, Nut, Osiris, Iris, Seth, and Neffie.I find truth in all of them. There is a Mother Eve, though the timing is a little off from the Bible. All living humans can be traced back to Mother Eve. She was a woman who developed the Mitochondria DNA. All though there were other women in her tribe, all of their DNA has been breed out. Eve had two daughter from whom the rest of the human race came from.There is a story that the Creator of Man had a dream, (we won't get into how) and had the desire to create man. He tried several times, but each time he failed, they were all like the other animals and lacked the animation of independent thinking.(Alright, we'll get into a that stuff I wasn't going to get into.) The story says that creator was like a Child God and isolated (for reasons we won't get into) and thought he was the only God. Thus the phrase "I am the Only God." The mother sent in a couple of members of her team to help him. The mother sent the dream to the creator of the Eternal Race of Man. The Creator found them to be beautiful and tied to create them. Anyway, every time he tried, the creation fell short but he kept trying. On the last attempt the Creator was sent another dream and this time it told him to "Breathe Life into Man." And so the Creator did so. Immediately it became apparent He had made a mistake. Man suddenly had the power of creation and was like unto the Gods.The Story says that when God breathed Life in Man, God was concerned. This new found power enable men to do things not before available to them. The agent sent by the "Mother" approached Eve and convinced her to partake of the forbidden fruit. Which she, and then see things that made her afraid, she convinced Adam to as well. Adam did, and when the forbidden knowledge Adam, the Creator saw it and wanted it. He tried to remove the power from Adam. The power left Adam and entered Eve. Thus the story that God took Adams Rib to create Eve.And while these stories couldn't have happened in real time, they do tell a story that can be found in the science. While I don't see God as a bad guy, as I once did, there was a time that people "worshiped in fear" and they knew why. Also, Adam and Eve were placed into a "deep sleep" there is no evidence that we have woken up.Anyway, I don't see Creationism a waste of time.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

I think we agree that Creationism is not taught is science class. I mean you can mention it in a few sentences but that's about it.So if science class is out, where do you teach it? It does not seem to fit in a history class or a literature class. Seems like the only place it could fit is in a "religions studies" class. Such a class would explore all religions in a historical and social context, but even there it seems like overkill to go in to great detail about one theory from one religion? There is only so much time in a semester and "Creationism" is just a tiny tiny blip when looking at the entire history of religion.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

There is one problem with what you suggest. (Well, actually there are a lot, but we won't get into them.)Theology (I think) is the study of God. I'm not sure if Catholic Theology Universities teach the Egyptian God story.But lets use me as an example: I have studied many different religions. I have my own opinions about God. I believe in God, but I don't believe in any of the religions. I used to fantasize about getting all of the people from the different religions and showing how they weren't so different and such.But now I realized how wrong that would be. The Intent of Creator is to develops souls with personalities. God has all of the power he could possibly need. What he wants more of is independent souls.Religions and cults give a person a sense of feeling special, feeling right, feeling righteous, and feeling like God's chosen people. This sense of identity is important to the soul. God is like any other parent to some degree. I tell my little girl she is a princess, that she is the most beautiful, smartest, best runner, etc. (And she is) She has a lot of confidence, as least if I'm there. I think I'm little over protective. (But what parent and afford not to be these days?) I have a grand daughter, about the same age, (don't ask) and when my daughter isn't near, my granddaughter hears the same thing.Feeling special is important for developing consciousness. Religions can give this, not only to kids, but to adults. It also gives them something to fight for.Religions has many benefits that not really noticed. And granted, even the priests don't see what is actually important, but are just trying to fill the seats any way they can.Anyway, if a person learns about all of the religions, it sort of kills the benefit of them. While I promote religion, I cannot think of a single one that I would want to join.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

Creationism is the idea that humans were created out of nothing. This is false. It doesn't matter which version one talks about. That is a dishonest argument though because you know that it is the Christian version which Christians wish to indoctrinate, and it is meant to replace the proven theory of evolution. Your dishonesty aside, you are still incorrect. Creationism is false, and I did not say as much, but yes, a waste of time if it is taken seriously.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Wow, David, you are calling me a liar. That's sort of new. I thought it was just assume everyone on the Internet was falsely representing themselves. Like I don't believe your name is IAM. Anyway.So if humans weren't created out of nothing, what created them? How has evolution proven creationism wrong?
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

Wow, David, you are calling me a liar.Sure. You are presenting an argument from an angle which is not in line with the ultimate goal of that thing being promoted within your argument. In this case teaching creationism. The goal is not and never was another "option" or just teaching it like we teach about Greek gods. It is religion trying to increase its power within the state, to indoctrinate not only their own children but the children of anyone no matter their religion or lack of religion. Its religious hubris "we know better so we should teach all kids." They do not and they should not. So yes, sorry, but you are being dishonest in your representation. If you are not make it clear from what angle you would like that this silly story be taught.So if humans weren't created out of nothing, what created them? How has evolution proven creationism wrong?I am glad you asked. Over millions and millions of years cells split and multiplied making all of the life on earth. Nothing was created though. All of the ingredients were there. It is a matter of consuming what is around these cells, changing, growing by consuming what is already there, changing again, etc. No thing that was not there suddenly appeared. Nothing has ever been created I believe, and I, unlike creationists, have observable examples. Plants grow, animals like us are born and develop, but it requires oxygen, food etc. Stuff that is there that is changed, into part of us, into part of plants, etc. You cannot point to a single thing coming from nothing, but every single thing in the Universe we see is the result of changing, shifting, the addition of and the subtraction of stuff that is already there.So why then assume that something must have been created? Why, when we see nothing created?Creation is a myth we made up because our conscious has a beginning and an end. But it is false. There is no beginning and end to stuff. We die, the stuff that has made us doesn't disappear but turns into something else. Likewise nothing is created. Stuff that is already there changes and becomes something else.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

I'm going to stop at This is the 3rd incarnation of the sun. Each time the Sun dies, it creates elements such as iron, lead, gold, platinum, etc. These things are created.Because it means your entire premise is incorrect and you are not understanding my point.iron, lead, gold, platinum, etc. are not created at all. Creation is from nothing. The "stuff" needed for iron, lead, gold, platinum, etc is already there, has always been there, and will forever be there.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

It was a good place to stop. ........................................................
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

If you're talking about the creationism of the Bible, it does not hold that humans or any other life form were created out of nothing. Your statement is false.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

When was creationism proven incorrect? You need to define your definition of what qualifies something to be "proven incorrect". Regardless, your logic is flawed. Based on your logic, no scientific theories should be taught in school either.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Any proof that creationism is proven incorrect? Your claims are insufficient since there is no valid explanation on why you disproved the said belief.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

Creationism is the idea that humans were created from nothing. We know for a fact that we were not created from nothing. Therefore my claims are sufficient and there is a valid explanation on why said belief has been disproved.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Your incorrect again, the bible doesn't say God created man from nothing. In fact, the bible says this...26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.He just says he made man, he doesn't say what from, what process or how. He doesn't even mention HOW LONG it took to make man. The origonal hebrew word used was "yowm" which can be translated to mean two things literal day, or as a figurative day for a period of time to be defined by associated words.This is supported with other verses that state ""... that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years,and a thousand years as one day."So the truth of the matter is that God did not explain how he made man, or how long it took him. Evolution, could very well be the manner in which he created. To a God who lives out side the laws of time, creating something with a process that takes a million years, is the same as creating it in an instant. Because humans are confinded by the rules of time, you commit a fallacy of anthropomorphism if you project that human qualitity onto a God and force him to be concerned with time as well.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

1. Okay assuming you take the position that god "creating" man just means he set in motion evolution, I'm sure you as vehemently argue against your religion's proclivity to deny science in this respect.2. Let's look at your position then, that man was a planned creation and in god's image. So then you accept that god is a 1-celled organism that lives in the sea I assume, since that is what man was? Or was he man when we had fins and swam around in the ocean? Or when we were hairy and had a mind of a chimp? Or did he have the forethought to create something which would eventually be in his image? If so then are we there now or do we still need to evolve more before we are in his image? At what point in evolution are we "in his image"?but uhoh, you accept evolution and in such must know it is not a finite process. So then for something to be in the image of something which evolves, it would have to evolve If god evolves then he cannot be infallible though because evolution is a series of mutations and random passing of genes. Okay, let's move away from that paradox. I mean, there are enough god paradoxes to go around, it doesn't seem to slow your ilk down a bit.3. The subject of this debate is whether creationism should be taught. Tell me if creationism is evolution, what would be taught in this case? Do you teach the whole of evolution, then with an asterisk say "But god did stuff too, and stuff. But we don't know what or how since all of evolution is pretty much known, but just remember to include god on all test answers"? How is your version of creationism to be taught?4. More to the point; if god used what was present to create humans without the literal definition of creation, if he used evolution, then why is he necessary? If the the stuff was there, if it were possible to evolve anyway as you yourself are claiming (since god used evolution to do such), then what is god's role? This god you describe is an unnecessary and unobserved, inexplicable in fact, addition to an equation which works fine on its own. Why do you include an unknown force if you accept that all of the essential ingredients are still there without a god?---So what you would like is of all of the infinite possibilities imaginable, that what you have imagined, a god in this case, is the one thing taught next to known fact. Why not teach, say 5+5 = 10 but then also that "someone may believe that 5+5=11." I mean, if enough people believe it, and you cannot prove that is not the case, your logic deems it should be taught.If something which has no backing but the faith of a group of people must be taught next to science, which does not require faith, you introduce an endless black hole of stupidity where nothing is ever learned because every crackhead idea must be taught equally.I have an idea instead. Let's keep church and faith separate from school. That way we don't devolve into a bunch of primitive cave-dwelling zealots who hate knowledge and advancement.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

No. Creationism is not the idea that humans were created from nothing. False.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

Then it's not creation. Christians want it both ways. When you're at your cult meetings god made stuff from nothing. When the absurdity of it is brought to light outside of your cult meetings you change your mind. Creationism taught in school is an obvious and dumb tactic Christians support which has the sole goal of indoctrinating kids at a young age into a ridiculous notion.That's it. There's no other reason.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

What is the idea of education? It is to make the population more intelligent and able people. Does the current subject matter do this? Yes, it does. The average person in the United States is more knowledgeable than the average person in most other times. What is creationism? It is the idea that existence is God's creation. How can understanding this theory and it's implications make a student more intelligent and more able? Perhaps you would say that understanding such an abstract concept could yield positive results for the all around intelligence of the student. To this I say that if we want our future to be more familiar with abstract ideas we may as well give them a well rounded curriculum of it so Philosophy would probably be a more appropriate subject. This subject has no reason in American education, so students should not even have the choice. If they want to learn about it they can and will look it up themselves.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

There is no scientific basis for creationism, while there is a large amount of evidence for evolution. All of the evidence we have points to the earth being 4.5 billion years old, and forming from natural processes.Most issues that people have with evolution have been explained, and I have never seen a person who actually understands evolution argue against it. Evloution is accepted as a fact by the vast majority of biologists, while 46% of the American public believes that the earth was created by God some time in the last 10000 years as described by Genesis.Finally, there are simply too many creation myths to teach. It seems hypocritical to me to only teach the Christian/Jewish/Muslim Genesis story. Even if only the top 10 religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, Sikhism, Baha'i, Jainism, and Shinto) were taught, there would still be six creation myths to teach: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Baiha'i all share a creation story, and there is none in Buddhism.This question is whether a student can opt in to learning creationism. That should also not be allowed, because I do not think that children should learn anything other than objective, scientifically supported facts, and creationism is neither of those.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

If they do, then they should also allow them to choose to be taugh the FSM version. you know, is as valid.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

What about teaching Nazi or communist ideology as a compulsory subject?
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

LOL, aside from the fact that much of the school system is set up to tacitly promote socialism, this is an excellent point.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

No since it is just for the sake of informing them of religious beliefs. It is not necessary that they will believe it or not. Plus creationism is not about facts but relies on faith. Men are given the right to be informed.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

But it is taking up time which need to be used for other content. If someone is interested in religion, they have their priest to go to (and he would be far better imformed than a "mere" teacher).
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

No, creationism is already part of History and literature curriculum, it's called mythology.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

Just ignore "Lordchallen", lol, he is new and hasn't learn to make valid and sounds arguments based on reason or logic. He just rants, to even respond to him would only encourage him.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

It's not the newness that causes the ranting.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

Like, "prayerfails" talked about leaving the site the other day, I feel like the people who are very obnoxious and rude r chasing away all the really good debaters that we all can learn from.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

Well, Whatever it is, I wouldn't encourage it, lol. I did the the same thing at first, as well. However, not to that extent and I wasn't as rude either. A lot of people have put a lot of work into trying to keep the site cordial, just trying to help... I may be wrong, just my opinion.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

No, students should not be able to choose to be taught creationism, this is assuming that you mean specific classes on creationism. Creationism comes from religious roots and religious teachings should not be taught in public schools. If students are interested in creationism they can certainly study it on their own time, the internet is a wonderful tool for self-teaching. It is also certainly wrong to teach creationism as fact, since there is clearly no evidence to support that it actually happened.