azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

I suppose if you had to have creationism/evolution then you would also have to incude homeopathy when training as a doctor
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

There is not a spec of evidence of creationism. By your logic you should not have a problem with taxpayer dollars paying to teach kids that the earth is flat, or that gravity doesn't exist it's just god holding our shoulders, or let's teach them Cthula built the moon out of cheese and the tides are cause by sea monsters. Let's start offering physics-of-how-Santa-fits-through-chimneys 101.It's silly. The religious are in the midst of trying to create a false equivelency. School teaches varying theories when there is support for a theory. Was the moon created when an Asteroid hit the earth and separated part of it? Or was it a large asteroid that became caught in our gravity?Those are theories with scientific backing.Creationism is one religion trying to surpress actual knowledge in favor of their superstitions. Nothing more.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

Were you there when the world began? Were any of the scientific theorists alive when the world began? I think not. Are you suggesting because things don't make sense in science that God is completely dis proven? He is God. He doesn't have to obey the rules of science because he is beyond them. Would you say there is purpose in the universe? Do you have a theory that explains what happen after you die? Do you fear it? Does believing in science give you comfort? There is so much support for creationism. I encourage you to look for it. You are working so hard to dis prove creationism that you take little time to see anything else. There is science behind creationism as well. If you were to look you could find a debate for anything you want. There are always two sides. You are neglecting to remember that evolution itself is still a theory. Why in the world should not only creation, but many other theory's be taught in school. Teaching only evolution makes children ignorant robots who blindly believe the first thing they hear. I am a devout Christian. I was not always this way. I was the blind ignorant kid who believed what I was told, researched it and would have been on the other side of this debate very quickly. I encourage you to present any topic and I will gladly make you doubt what you believe.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Were you there when the world began? Were any of the scientific theorists alive when the world began?No, neither were you. Which is why I trust people who actually try to figure it out instead of spew whatever fairytale they had been told or that makes them feel warm and fuzzy.Are you suggesting because things don't make sense in science that God is completely dis proven?No, I'm suggesting because god doesn't make sense god is disproven.Do you have a theory that explains what happen after you die?Yeah, it's called dying. You're dead. There is not "after." Mark Twain said it better, not that I'd expect you to understand but, "I was dead for millions of years before I was ever alive, why should dying again be any different." Basically, there's no more "afterlife" than there was a beforelife.Would you say there is purpose in the universe?No, I wouldn't. What's your point?There is so much support for creationism.The only support for creationism comes from the religious. Not a non religious source supports this silly theory. A third grader with a child's understanding of fossils could disprove creationism.You are working so hard to dis prove creationism that you take little time to see anything else. You sound stupid. This is the easiest thing in the world. You might as well be telling me the earth is flat as much thought as I have to put into disproving your retarded theory.Teaching only evolution makes children ignorant robots who blindly believe the first thing they hear. I am a devout Christian.No, blindly believing the first thing you hear is called indoctination. Which Christians have a monopoly on.I was not always this way. I was the blind ignorant kid who believed what I was told, researched it and would have been on the other side of this debate very quickly. I encourage you to present any topic and I will gladly make you doubt what you believe.I don't care what you were or were not. Right now you are delusional and annoying. Your manifest destiny attitude about your silly religion is why I hate your religion.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

ap0110 raised a very similar point to yours, which I replied to. I'll link rather than repeat myself: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ If_evolution_is_taught_in_schools_shouldn_t_creationism#arg147144 The examples you gave are the same as ap0110's alchemy vs chemistry example. They do not generate debate anywhere near what you see with creationism vs evolutionism, so they're not exactly urgent topics.In a country where 40% of the population believes in young earth creationism ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx  ), it would be rather nonsensical to completely ignore this theory in school, as if it didn't exist. Like sex, children will learn about it one way or another. But schools can control where they first hear this theory from and how it is presented to them.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

That's dumb, literally.Sex is real, creationism is not.By your logic they should have continued to teach the earth was flat for decades after it was known for fact it was round.That there are a lot of idiots isn't reason to teach more people to be idiots.And your defense of idiocy with quasi and easily disprove logic is becoming boring.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

Whether something is real or not makes no material difference - the fact is that evolutionism is a very hotly contested topic, a lot of people disagree with it, and all over the place people are putting forth arguments against it.In a world like that, should teachers cover their ears and pretend that the theory of creationism doesn't exist? Or should they address the issue in a rational, sensible way?That is what I mean when I raise sex as an example. Sex and sexually charged imagery is all around us, so it is silly for conservatives to say that teachers should pretend sex doesn't exist and try to keep children "innocent". They have to explain sex to them, or kids will learn it anyway, and they might learn a distorted view from porn sites.If teachers don't address creationism in class, children will learn it from their religious parents or fundamentalist pastors instead. Do you think that would be the better alternative?As for the flat earth theory, I am unable to reply adequately to that, since I don't know when the earth was discovered to be round or the views of society at that time and shortly afterwards. But assuming it is similar to our current evolutionism/creationism debate, then yes. It would not have been wrong to teach children that quite a lot of people believed the earth was flat, because that was the truth. It would also not have been wrong to teach them why these people believed the earth was flat, because that was an important sociological issue at the time, and would have helped them better understand their world and evaluate alternate perspectives.Finally, in what ways have I used quasi-logic or easily disproven logic?
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Whether something is real or not makes no material difference And that is the failure of the school system. People actually believe, "Whether something is real or not makes no material difference."The more more reason not to teach this inane cult superstition.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

If you had looked up the word "material" in a dictionary, you would not have made this response. You have copied and pasted my phrase and claimed that it is something capable of being believed, without regard to the fact that, taken out of context, it has no meaning. A sentence without meaning cannot be believed or disbelieved, as it does not hold a truth value.It is nonsensical to simply speak of a condition making or not making a material difference, period; you can only speak of a condition making or not making a material difference in a particular matter / to a particular end / etc.Now, it is true that people frequently say simply "x makes no material difference", but they are not saying it as a general, unrestricted claim as you have done; they are implying that x makes no material difference in a particular matter that they have mentioned previously. This is what I had done; implicit in my use of the phrase is that the matter referred to is the similarity of sex and evolution/creation in that children will inevitably learn about it at some point.You had thought that it was possible to quote my claim, shed it of the implicit but necessary restriction, and still make a meaningful comment on it :/Whether or not something is real does not make a material difference to everything. It always makes at least one difference, of course - the difference between being real or not. But not all differences are material to the argument.On another note, I see that you have not provided an adequate response to most of the arguments I had advanced:(1) That there are differences between the evolution vs creation debate and the analogies you cited which make your analogies inappropriate (i.e. material differences!)(2) That it is unreasonable for teachers to have to pretend that a theory believed by 40% of the US population does not exist(3) That, for a theory which children will inevitably be exposed to, it is better that this theory be first taught to them by a rational, knowledgeable teacher, than by parents or religious educators who may be less rationalAlso, you have not answered my question: In what ways have I used quasi-logic or easily disproven logic? You made the accusation; please either provide evidence in support of it, or else withdraw it.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

If 40% believes in young earth creationism, Then I wonder how many have already heard about it but do not believe. Considering such characteristics it seems unfair to teach it in school, since science fails to be passed down though the family and fails to have multiple active clubs open to all in small areas though out the nation where people can come and learn about it. Yes, with 40% believing in young earth creationism, and I would guess quite a few in creationism generally it seems fairer to not take from science its classroom time, because then it would be even further underrepresented in comparison to creationism.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

That is true - by the time many children learn about evolution at school, they've already heard about it (and its alternatives) elsewhere. I think partly that is schools' fault, since they should teach a matter to children at an age when that matter is relevant to them.But does that mean teachers don't need to, or shouldn't, teach children about creationism? Even teaching children about creationism after they've already heard of it can be helpful.Say a bunch of fundamentalist Christians are shoving pamphlets into my hand, telling me about what lies Darwin has spread and how evolutionists will all go to hell. What would be more likely to convince me that evolutionism isn't wrong: When my school completely ignores creationists? Or when my school rationally explains to me what creationism is, why some people believe it, and what scientific evidence has to say about it?
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Some form of Creationalism is usually taught from birth, since before most of us are in school. Thus them hearing about it first from someone other then a school can not be the school's fault, unless you think children should be schooled from birth?The school should teach children to be rational on their own, teach them what they need to know to support themselves, and minimize how much the children are indoctrinated into believing any ideology.l I do think that teaching creationalism as a optional elective as part of a religious studies class or such in the social studies department in a school where the students are interested should be allowable, although to be honest I do not believe it would benefit creationalism. A formal and honest analysis of creationalism from an unbiased position would teach it as it is: empirically unverifiable,logically pushes problems it "solves" up another level of abstraction or confounds and complicates them into an average person's disinterest, and useful only as emotional support if as that. I do not believe that time should be token out of science classes to address creationalism. I do believe science should be presented in a logical way which would make any logical flaws obvious, and in my experience it is especially so when compared to other subjects; we often times would repeat simple experiments and be asked to imploy the scientific method (which was taught well) and to use our knowledge from them to guess results of experiments we were unable to preform. Science was taught in a manner that the scientific evidence for creationalism was obvious to me the first time I heard the word creationism, and thus the scientific consensus and the reasons why it was believed was also immediately known.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

Well, that is why I hedged by saying it is only partly the school's fault. Children born to religious parents are indeed likely to have heard the story of creation from a very young age, possibly before they even go to preschool, so it's hard to fault the school for not being the first to teach them. But the children of secular or less religious parents are often not bombarded with Christian tales nearly so soon - for example, I didn't hear the stories of Genesis until I had been in school for years - so schools have the opportunity to step in.Your second paragraph I wholly agree with. It is why I say creationism can be taught alongside evolutionism. When I say "taught", I don't mean it in the sense of "this is the eternal and infallible truth, you must believe it". That is not education, that's brainwashing. I mean it in the sense of explaining to children that there are different sides to a debate, and hence provoking them to think for themselves.And I did mention elsewhere that (1) teachers should be clear that evolutionism has basis in science, creationism in religion, and (2) I'd prefer seeing creationism taught in a religious studies class.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

I have big problem with "intelligent design" I dont think design was intelligent. Let's name it "stupid design"?
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

I suppose that evolution will be taught in church as well, right?
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

Well, I don't have a problem with creationism or intelligent design being taught in schools, and similarly I don't have a problem with evolution being taught in church.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

so you recognize that creationism is in fact a product of religion?in which case it falls under the same categories as prayerit is religiousand it is not part of school curriculumif people choose to pray at school on their own, or preach Darwin at their own church, they are allowed to do so.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

Definitely - while it's theoretically possible for someone to take a creationist stance for non-religious reasons, I've yet to see someone like that. It's fair to say that pretty much every creationist ultimately bases their conviction upon religious beliefs.You may have misunderstood my stance - contrary to the debate title, I don't think that creationism should be taught in schools. I only think that it should be allowed to be taught in schools. If a teacher wants to let students know that a lot of people reject the theory of evolution for religious reasons and believe in something else instead, they should be allowed to. Firstly, you're teaching facts when you say "so and so believes this and that"; secondly, it's useful for students to learn about their society; thirdly, discussing opposing viewpoints could hone students' critical thinking skills and deepen their understanding of an issue.The caveat is that students must not be told that creationism is the academically received stance, and teachers must not introduce dishonest information in order to sway students' opinions (e.g. alleging that Darwin recanted on his deathbed and presenting that as evidence against evolution, when Darwin did no such thing and this has no impact on the strength of a scientific theory anyway).
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

I suppose creationism could be taught in school from a historical standpoint rather than a truly scientific one.We do, in fact, learn various models of atoms that have since then been discredited based on later scientific inquiries.In this manner, however, there would be no debate as to whether or not creationism is correct or not- it would simply be a historical idea.After all, I think it is generally agreed upon that atoms are formed of positive centers and negative surrounding clouds rather. It may be of historical merit to discuss the erroneous and archaic belief of platonic atomism- in which earth, fire, water, and air are the primary building blocks- but it is not offered as an alternative to the current science.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

1. Of course it should -but not in the same class and creationism should never be aligned with science.  2. Isn't there already a specific class for that? Like "religion"? We have one where I live.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: What is right is right

Evolution is all a lie.Genesis proves everything.That being said evolution shouldn't even be taught in schools, and creationism alone should.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

I wonder what is going to happen when they find a gene that triggers homosexuality ... are the religious extremists going to cover their ears and go about picketing?
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

rather, continue to cover their ears and go about picketing?
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Actually, Harry Potter clearly disprobes the bible.Since both are nothing more than books without scholarly evidence, yet both have a cultish following, perhaps muggles should be informed of the magical arts as well?
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

If you watch the video "Icons of Evolution" you will see that Evolution is no longer the popular choice among scientists. The more schools and institutions try and prove evolution the more they end up disproving it. Topics like Irreducible complexity, the Cambrian explosion and Schaeffer's embryo drawings are biting evolutionists in the butt because they refute themselves. I have found that the only reason that evolutionists get up in arms about teaching Creationism in schools is because they are afraid of evolution being disproved. Evolutionists know that if they are losing the argument over evolution and intelligent design. I think that it is only fair to teach ALL creation theories because here in America we are trying our best to promote equality. In order to do that we must teach the creation story of all the major world religions, not JUST Christianity or JUST Evolution. Another issue with evolution being taught in schools is that people love to glorify the "Separation of Church and State". However, Secular Humanism is a recognized religion that believes in evolution, therefore we have just crossed the Church/State boundary. The other issue is that we are brainwashing our students when we don't teach other creation theories. Students won't ask those key questions about evolution when they don't know anything different than evolution. We aren't showing them all of the options and we are shutting down those who want to question the theory of evolution (religious motivation or not). It is blatantly going against the 1st amendment of freedom of speech and expression. It is impossible to claim that the government is taking a neutral stance by only teaching one creation theory. One must teach every single theory with an unbiased approach to be neutral. We are denying students the knowledge that they deserve. School textbooks are using outdated and unreliable information, teachers are fired for raising debates in class and teaching kids that evolution is just a theory and not fact, and the evolutionists are scrambling to shut down anyone who opposes evolution.To sum this all up:If Evolutionists believe that Evolution is a rock-solid, irrefutable theory then there should be no problem in teaching other creation theories since they must all fall short of evolution if Evolution is as irrefutable as people like to think.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

If you watch the video "Icons of Evolution" you will see that Evolution is no longer the popular choice among scientists.According to a 1997 gallup poll about 95% of scientists accept evolution. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publia.htm The number is even higher amongst researchers in the natural sciences. Which one studied found to be at about 99.85%Creationists have been making such claims since I entered the debate, and the figures have remained largely constant.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

I personally don't believe in a god or any super natural being. When you bring up religion in debate it usually results in opposing sides becoming defensive and not listening and reasoning. They end up talking AT each other and not TO each other.Evolution and Creationism are both theories. Each one requires a leap of faith to beilieve in and stand for. If one is accpetable to be taught in schools, then other thoeries should have that same privelage.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

Evolution is pure religion, but creationism is based upon scientific facts and historic records.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Evolution is pure religion, but creationism is based upon scientific facts and historic records.Oh, the irony, it's blinding...You have it backwards. Literally every piece of evidence for creationism has been refuted by the scientific community. It is a falsified religious theory and unless something new is presented, it will rightfully remain as such and thus is the realm of religious education classes, not science classes.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

Give me one good piece of evidence that evolution has. Since, this is always your claim of about your religion. Creation has theirs evolution doesn't.