azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Let's assume evolution is fact, and not just a theory. Trust me, spare me your "no its fact" I believe in evolution, all it does is describe a process. EVERYTHING in life has a process. Whether the smallest to the biggest of matter and space and time. There is something exists, and something doesn't exist. Process. It's obviously that there was some sort of process in the Universe. And creationism simply/complexly states that something created/allowed for such a process to happen to begin with. On the other end, they state, nah, it was just chance, and on the other they state, nah, it was not chance and was in fact an existence put/set in place. That's what the argument is here. Lets not talk about crusades and all the fucking wars, what's the point in that?So when science says "they don't know" due to lack of "evidence (physical, ECT)" they also say "until there is evidence to know, we say 'we don't know'" and then when a person comes along and says "I believe in god", they say "well we don't know for sure because we've got no evidence (physical), so we don't know." yet in the same breathe they'll say "We can't prove god does not exist, nor can we prove it does exist, therefore, we don't know/there is no god"... And so evidence is everything for science and the community. And there are scientists whom are believers and obviously scientists whom are not believers. If science says "I do not know" that does not mean there is not something to know. Where does it state on the "Book of The Universe And Beyond" and whatever science does not know, can't be true? This is the argument here. I digress.. Regardless of whether a child is taught in school or not, the concept/fact of belief in a god(s) will always be existent. So long as curiosity is within the DNA, and consciousness, of the human being, people will continue to believe in god. So why separate it? It's inevitable. Whether in schools, in the library, online, books, movies, what the hell ever that curiosity will remain. Science can't claim everything, it took has its flaws.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

There is evidence that I've given in past debates. Go look it up. Later.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

It is a bit strange that you take part in a debate on Creationism and when asked to provide evidence you don't provide any and also don't even provide a link to where you claim you do. Also asserting something doesn't make it evidence, so think before you respond Thanks :)
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

I've put my evidence countless times on the topic. Go search for it if you care. I give 2 shits to give evidence to a zombie like yourself. I did think before I responded... I just don't care to write my evidence down again. You're fucking welcome asshole.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

I've looked through some past debates and cannot find you on them, why don't you provide a link to one where you have provided this evidence. Also it is a bit stupid coming into a debate and then refusing to defend your position, if you won't defend it don't join the debate it is simple. Can I ask how I am a zombie? I've responded to every point you've made whilst you just ignore it or you write something against things I have never said.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

I could care less at this point... Oh well. Fuck it. Have a good one.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

BTW you think you know so much shit. You're fucking barely getting started.ANd that's not saying much. It's saying you're fucking barely getting started to understand yourself.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

You don't seem to understand how science works, science doesn't say hey "yo dog, heres the Iron cage of truth, ooo thought police, put this man in it" (that would be most religions with an external, non-individual source of truth), rather science is like, "yo dawg, here's our experiment, reproduce it if you want, but this is our results, and everytime we do x, we get Y, here is some math to model it so maybe you can use it to engineer stuff, and here is a conceptual model we use to understand the observation and model it, please fund us so life gets better and we can observe more stuff, and please, try to prove us incorrect because if you can't, more grant money!" See science is the most individualized self-deciphering of truth possible. Creationism however is some old guy with a book telling you to accept his narrative or burn in hell, never mind the observations against his narrative. It simply doesn't belong in a classroom which teaches people to discover truth on their own, you know, like a science class room does.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Insults o child one. Do you understand you've once again insulted my intelligence by stating I do not understand science? I understand it CLEARLY, probably more than those that RELY so much on it and I'm one of many whom believe in science and believe in a god. Once again, you ASSUME the creationism I speak of is simply from the bible and you are wrong. It's more than that, it hits deeper levels than that, it hits on levels that are philosophical, rational, and logical with much reason and some and with enough evidence to have sound support. You claim that my claims are somehow not right, or wrong, or illogical simply because YOU cannot see logic or reason in it. This does't mean something isn't truth. ANd if you claim to know about science then perhaps you should realize that science is it's own enemy, that is there are those within the scientific community, you included, that so greatly rely on your science and "physical evidence/tests/experiments/methods" that you claim everything else cannot be considered fact because it has not gone through the FILTERS of science. Am I correct? And so as your last statement says, teaching and teachers are meant to teach discovery of truth on their own, you know, like science does. And so, you're so against the teaching of creationism (NOT specifically that of the bible necessarily..) because you're afraid more people will believe in creationism/the concept and fact that it's possible we were created. And you don't want people to "believe in something like creationism because it teaches falseness, it teaches unreality" yet science is not the ONLY reality. There is more to life than what science knows. This is what you have a problem with. You're afraid more people will believe and you don't want that. You claim you want people to think for themselves, as I do. And so, having a few classes that teach creationism is not going to mess with a child, it'll in fact, help them DECIPHER what is true to them. It would help the process of people getting to know the truth that which suites them.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

It has been shown to be unfalsifiable, and hence not to have a place in science classrooms. Creationism and religion are already well taught as they should be in a secular institution in social study courses.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

The standard for being included as course material is that it be factually substantiated, not that it not be proved false. We do not choose to teach something as fact simply because we have not absolutely ruled it out. We choose to teach it because there is a factual and rational basis for thinking that it constitutes actual knowledge.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

there are 12000 different religions and each one of them has it's own creation myth ... so it's no "both"
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

It is both creation and evolution...It is impossible to teach all of the theory's, the main ones must looked at for the sake of efficiency.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

So how many different creation myths should be in curriculum alongside with reality? 20-30? ..just for some overview?
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

The main ones of course. There should really just be an outline and then the students can research the ones that interest them or appeal the most.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

"main ones" ? aren't all religions equal? .
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

The main ones can have a small unit, then like I said, the children can delve further into the ones that they find interesting. There is simply no time to look at each variation. This would be taught in public schools, not Universities of Theology.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Children don't, that's why the have to be forced to go to church and to religious classes. Will they be told that it's just myth or you would prefer pretending that it's reality?
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Chindren don't what??All avenues should be looked at .
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

The only problem is that isn't what people want when they want evolution taught alongside creationism, creationism and intelligent design are already taught in schools across the country, in social study courses, in the way they should be taught by secular institutions(without bias). What they want is a more effective means of indoctrination and combating a mechanism which inherently depends on people actually deciding for themselves by instilling doubt in it's individualized methods of deciding truth, they want social acceptance to be the measure of truth, not personal observation and repeatability. Science says "here are our results and what we did to get them, a conceptual and mathematical model, please try to prove us wrong. " Creationism however says "here is an opinion, accept it or burn in hell"
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Its illegal to teach them in public school systems in the first place. Also, no, children need to be turned off from that mythological bullshit that keeps us from progress. Its a waste of time, money, resources, and intellegent minds. Thats like saying we should offer a bottle of poison with every milk carton we give kids for lunch. Its a stupid idea. If they WANT to learn it they can google it in 10 seconds or read a bible or go to church. Keep it out of our places of EDUCATION.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

You don't sound very intelligent. An intelligent mind looks at all avenues of approach."Knowledge is a one way street, wisdom is knowing to look both ways" -Einstein
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

An intelligent mind considers all options, and then rejects those which are not supported by fact or reason.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

You and I believe the same things. I just don't see a point in making it my mission to worship a simbol for it. I just live it in my everyday life instead.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

I also dislike the way you speak about my beliefs. Those who yell and scream ATHEISM!!! are just as bad as the people who kill in the name of religion...
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

If I understand you correctly you are saying that atheists who vocalize their thoughts and challenge your beliefs are as bad as people who murder other people. Because freedom of speech and willful acts of homicide are totally the same thing. Are you really that insecure in you faith?
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Well, apparently somebody is. Thanks for your downvote with no accompanying rebuttal. I applaud your insightful response.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

I have your back. .
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Why thank you Ismaila!
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Any time. You are such a sweet person. ;)
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

oh shit! i saw this on the public waterfall and was sure you were talking about me!!!
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

You can be sweet too when you want. :)
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

So speaking critically about things one is against is just as bad as KILLING people...riiiiight.... .
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Kill in the name of religion, atheism etc. I should have been more specific...
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Right, so here is the deal. You are still comparing an atheist who proclaims their beliefs to be the same as someone who kills other people. Not at all the same.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Religions are for people from past.... or present idiots..
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Not necessarily. I find your words to be disturbing. I could easily call you an idiot because your beliefs differ from mine. Who is attempting to impose will in this conversation? It is certainly not me. Please at least practice what you preach. Furthermore God cannot be proven or disproven...
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

"Furthermore God cannot be proven or disproven..."Why someone should disprove something that haven't ever been proven in first place?
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

If god can not be proven or disproven, then it is well proven that he has no place in a science class room.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

The burden for proof falls upon those claiming something as a truth, not upon those who refuse to believe in something that is not proven. Regardless, I will rise to your challenge and mention the fact that science has clearly connected faith/belief with a particular part of the brain which indicates that faith is a biological process of the brain and consequentially a human construct. On the flip-side, not one theist I have ever talked to has given me a single piece of evidence.Idiocy implies a lack of common sense, intelligence, or reason - when you believe in something for no reason (and actually against reason) then that becomes an accurate observation rather than an insult.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

And how many kids do you expect to Google it ?
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

The ones who sincerely want to WILL google it or probably already have learned it in their church. The rest probably wont google it and thats fine because its useless knowledge that nobody needs to posess.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Since schools teach evolution why not creationism and let them decide which suites them best, or maybe even both would suite them best? Who knows?I myself believe in evolution and creationism and have learned through teachers, parents, friends, family, books, literature, and I've come to my own conclusions over the years. I see no problem at all with teaching both, however it's obvious many do. Evolution states there was a form of progress throughout history and here we are now and it is "ongoing". Creationism states there was a form of progress [set] throughout history (by some deity) and here we are now and it is "ongoing". So the only difference is the "deity" aspects of it, and then everyone who's against it goes "OH NO! Not deities!" As if the people in all grades won't eventually learn about such a thing as "deities", especially in America.And so yes creationism and intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution since it is a huge part of this world, especially in America.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

Since schools teach evolution why not creationism and let them decide which suites them best, or maybe even both would suite them best?The reason they shouldn't teach creationism is because there is no evidence to support it. Science class isn't about teaching what a lot of people believe. It's about teaching things that are backed up by evidence. If no evidence is required then we might as well teach kids that the universe was created by a giant cosmic bunny that poops out planets. Lets take a look at another example. Science teaches us that illness is caused by things like viruses and bacteria. Many religions teach that illness is caused by evil spirits. Should we teach both of those things as well?What's funny is that evolution is still but a theory, and is taken by fact (me including) by many people.There is a big difference between a scientific theory and the layman's usage of the word theory. A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." The layman's usage of the word theory equates to a hypothesis in the scientific community, which is just a best guess.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

You are making science seem like a stagnant thing, like a thing based on evidence that never changes. When science changes all of the time and tosses away old shit and "discovers new shit". That is, look at a textbook 20 years ago on X, Y, Z subject and you'll either not see something in there that was before or you'll see some changes due to newer discoveries. And so, teaching people science is not the only source of truth we've got to teach people, that is the misconception by many people. Why should knowledge be limited to simply science? I'm a huge fan of science and I believe science is ONE way to understanding the world around us. And so, children and adults BOTH ought to be given a chance to study multiple ranges of truths, so that they can decipher for themselves, like I did and many others, to what's true to them and so forth. Many people, like yourselves, are "scared, frustrated, disturbed" that creationism will "brainwash" or "teach wrong knowledge" to a person. Why is that? Does the possibility of something existing beyond what science can detect scare you? Simply saying "there is no physical evidence of these theories", is not a good enough to not allow people to want to broaden their horizon and learn, via multiple sources, finding out which one(s) suite them best. It is limiting a persons knowledge to not allow them to study various topics and truths.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should NOT be taught

You have not even come close to refuting Misfits counter-argument. Certainly, science continues to develop and there is nothing in the preceding comment which would suggest otherwise. While science develops, however, that does not make all of our current knowledge or understanding irrelevant (you believe in gravity, yes?), nor does it make total ignorance or superstition preferable. If I am given the choice between thinking something is true because there is a body of fact and reason to support it or believing in something simply because I was taught to, I will choose the former over the latter every time. This is not because I am "afraid" of something beyond what science has thus far proven or understood. It is because I refuse to live my life according to unsubstantiated and dogmatic superstition.If someone wants to believe in a religious view, they are perfectly within their rights to do so. No one here is saying that people should not be allowed to study various topics, but rather that academics subjects should be limited to actual fact and truth. Schools are places of learning, and thus of knowledge and reason not of unsubstantiated belief. I am not afraid of children being exposed to theology, I am concerned by their being taught that it is factual or supported by reason.
Debate: Should creationism and intelligent design be taught alongside evolution?
Side: Should be taught

Schools are for academics and understanding and learning, right? And so, why should science be the ONLY source of understanding and learning? That's absurd. There is always room for other sources, and it should be that way. Why? Because as we all know, regardless of whether we were born into religion or not, we're all wanting to understand the "truth". And so to say creationism, or something OTHER THAN "SCIENCE", cannot be taught in schools. What the fuck is school and learning for then if not to be SINGULAR to science; and everything else is obsolete? So if people have a right to believe in particular religions, why can't the schools teach the students (if the students WANT to be taught/parents want their children learning it)? Give the parents the option. What the fuck is the problem.