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

It doesn't hurt for students to learn the differing viewpoints in controversial issues - in fact that could help them learn to think rationally, rather than believe the first thing they're taught.The body of creationism is misinformation designed to undermine biology, physics and chemistry. Teaching it in school alongside science means effectively reducing understanding of that science.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

With a hot topic like evolutionism vs creationism, I think it can only benefit students to hear both sides of the debate. How much teaching varying perspectives "reduces understanding" really depends on the teacher's technique and the students' ability.If you're talking about teaching a group of 4 year olds, I agree that you shouldn't confuse them by giving them incompatible information that their young minds may not be able to handle.But a middle or high school audience is intellectually mature enough to juggle differing points of view and understand that not all arguments are equal in persuasiveness. There is no need for the teacher to present evolutionism and creationism as though they are both scientifically received theories - in fact I specifically said that teachers should add a caveat when explaining creationism.All that needs to be said is, "Just so you know, there is a number of people who reject the theory of evolution. They believe in blah blah blah because blah blah blah and they present this and that as evidence for it, although the scientific community generally doesn't think that evidence holds water because blah blah blah."As a side note, I did argue in another comment on this page that I'd rather see it taught under religious studies than science, because it is based on religion rather than science.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

With a hot topic like evolutionism vs creationism, I think it can only benefit students to hear both sides of the debate. How much teaching varying perspectives "reduces understanding" really depends on the teacher's technique and the students' ability.It benefits them as members of society who need to understand the background of political issues, but high-school children are also much more impressionable and tend to be worse at ambiguous topics. This sounds like something more appropriate for college.If you're talking about teaching a group of 4 year olds, I agree that you shouldn't confuse them by giving them incompatible information that their young minds may not be able to handle.In physics, in Texas, they are trying to make a class that uses no math to explain it. Students have deep trouble reading basic graphs showing velocity versus time, or that "x = 4" is the same as "4 = x." In other words a large portion of students are intellectually lazy and will not be able to process difficult or ambiguous material. Something as nationally contentious as evolution should be presented as purely fact, and creationism should be left alone because they won't even understand why it is wrong. They will only understand that it was given the same footing as evolution in classroom.But a middle or high school audience is intellectually mature enough to juggle differing points of view and understand that not all arguments are equal in persuasiveness. There is no need for the teacher to present evolutionism and creationism as though they are both scientifically received theories - in fact I specifically said that teachers should add a caveat when explaining creationism.I have no such faith in our children any longer. Maybe in Europe or Japan. Not America. The Empire is dying.As a side note, I did argue in another comment on this page that I'd rather see it taught under religious studies than science, because it is based on religion rather than science.My apologies, I did not see it.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

Yeah, it's true that the appropriateness of a such a discussion depends a lot on both the teacher's skill and the students' maturity. I think the modern education system, as a whole, is sadly deficient in many aspects - though that would be an issue for another debate.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

science in itself is pure theory which coencides with what we know. what you choose to believe and not believe is purely up to you. in the same way if i choose to believe in creationism i would expect you to respect that. i think it should be taught, it may not have what you waould call "scientific" evidence but as a wise man once said "Faith consists in believing when it is beyond the power of reason to believe."
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

You are free to believe in whatever explanation you wish.You are not free to attempt to pass your explanation off as actual science, and push for it to be taught as fact in public schools just because you like to believe it. Something actually has to be true in order for that to happen. A quote is no substitute for evidence, and incidentally, that quote is probably poking fun at people like you, as its author is a deist and a proponent of common sense and reason.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

its funny how you argue only fact should be taught, because last time i checked, "the theory of evolution" was a theory. by your logic, neither should be taught. i do not pass my evidence off as scientific because science is questionable. your existance is not. there is justas much an arguement for the creation theory as there is for evolution and while you are biase and disagree with it being taught, i think it should be because it is fair that all views are heardas for the quote, i know it is notevidence for the fact, however i liked it and thought it backed up m point nicely, regardless of its orrigional context
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

its funny how you argue only fact should be taught, because last time i checked, "the theory of evolution" was a theory. by your logic, neither should be taught. A tired argument that shows you have a lot to learn about evolution and science in general.In science, the label 'theory' does not necessarily entail anything but token uncertainty. Do the terms gravitational theory, cell theory, or heliocentric theory ring a bell? there is justas much an arguement for the creation theory as there is for evolution Not at all true. All evidence that is currently available supports evolution and refutes creationism. and while you are biase and disagree with it being taught, i think it should be because it is fair that all views are heardI do not think the existence of creationism should be ignored, in the proper venues such a religion class, but I am strongly opposed to any false information being presented to children as true. Creationism falls under this umbrella.Also, the point that quote is making is that people who believe things on faith rather than evidence are not reasonable people.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

i will agree with you on the point that it should be in a religion class, however the insinuatio that it is untrue purely based on your own beliefs is astounding. the fact tha you are so narrow minded about this isabsolutely unbelievable, how can you possibly try to make such an arguement that it is false information, you have absolutely no evidence to back this assumption up other than your own belief and so i revert back to my previous arguementand while you are biase and disagree with it being taught, i think it should be because it is fair that all views are heard
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

however the insinuatio that it is untrue purely based on your own beliefs is astounding.My conclusion is based on the available evidence.the fact tha you are so narrow minded about this isabsolutely unbelievable, how can you possibly try to make such an arguement that it is false information,Because it is false information. There is literally no 'evidence' for creationism that had yet withstood scientific scrutiny. I'm sorry this is offensive to you or whatever, but unfortunately for you, it is true. you have absolutely no evidence to back this assumption up other than your own belief and so i revert back to my previous arguementThis statement leads me to wonder if you have bothered to invest a second of research into the claims of creationism and the evidence that refutes it. It seems unlikely.and while you are biase and disagree with it being taught, i think it should be because it is fair that all views are heard'Heard' is very different from 'being taught as truth'. The former is fine, but when it comes to creationism, the latter is unacceptable.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

exactly, YOUR conclusion based on the circumstances, that doen not mean everyone, the last time i checked the world doesnt revolve around you (as a scientific man you should realise that it revolves around the sun)agian my comment stands "the fact tha you are so narrow minded about this isabsolutely unbelievable, how can you possibly try to make such an arguement that it is false information" you have remained a narowminded the entire concept of god works on faith. if you want evidance on the creation theory google it. i had a quick look through and there ar tons of arguements for it.what you believe to be the truth is not necessarily the truth. if you want to base your life on scientific evidance thats fine. i on the other hand think that the children would benifit from a veriety of views including the creation theory which i believe. and i refuse to have an arrogant imbecile tell me im wrong based on the fact that he cannotopen his mind for two seconds to think about the bigger picture here. i am not trying to argue with you which is right, i think at this point we just have to accept that you have your views and i have mine but i do not think that you by any means have the slightest argument to say that it should not be taught in schools
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

im not going to lie, i think you are an arroggant, snobish twit.i see no reason for your arguement to stand and while you argue of mine being wrong, i see no reason why yours being better,yes i do believe in the creation theory and do not expect to be insulted by you like this and have only maintained that my system is faorer ars it will give he chidren more of an insite.now i dont know where you are but where i am it is very late, so i shall wish you good dayi hope you show people more respectin the futuregood day
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

im not going to lie, i think you are an arroggant, snobish twit.This is typical anti-intellectualism fostered by your lobby. The user zombee presents very rational, cogent arguments which fall upon your deaf ears.i see no reason for your arguement to stand and while you argue of mine being wrong, i see no reason why yours being better,Of course you see no reason. You are ignorant. Do you expect that a typical person should argue with an aerospace engineer about the physics of engines and mechanics of flight? You know nothing about biology, and have instead filled your head with specious arguments against evolution. That is what creationism is. It isn't a theory, it is an ideology designed to facilitate the denial of evolution. A theory explains how a system works. Creationism makes no explanation for how life was created (it invokes magic, instead of science).yes i do believe in the creation theory and do not expect to be insulted by you like this and have only maintained that my system is faorer ars it will give he chidren more of an insite.You earned your insult by coming here ignorant of basic science. Now you should learn from this insult, and read a college biology textbook.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

im not going to lie, i think you are an arroggant, snobish twit.This does not do much to bolster your argument, and your opinion is not worth anything to me.i see no reason for your arguement to stand and while you argue of mine being wrong, i see no reason why yours being better,Let's pretend we are arguing the color of the sky. You are saying it's blue, and I am trying to say it's not blue, it's neon green with orange spots, and everyone who thinks its blue is wrong. I'm getting all indignant and offended and trying to say that my belief is just as good as yours, and I can't see why you think yours is better than mine just because observable reality supports your statement and not mine. If I was acting like this, I would rightfully be called crazy, and the only difference between this debate, and my hypothetical debate, is that evolution requires more education to understand than the color of the sky. Oh, and that the Bible doesn't say you should believe the sky is green and orange.yes i do believe in the creation theory and do not expect to be insulted by you like this and have only maintained that my system is faorer ars it will give he chidren more of an insite.Like I said, it fits in perfectly with the syllabus of a religion class. It does not belong in a science class and it should not be presented as true.It is not 'fair' to treat false theories the same as supported ones; it's foolish.i hope you show people more respectin the futureSorry, sensitive and easily offended people are not afforded special treatment on this website. If you want to make good use of your time here, I sincerely recommend toughening up, educating yourself a little on a topic before engaging in a debate about it, and directly responding to opposing points rather than avoiding them and complaining when you feel like someone is not being nice enough to you. This is how one might actually go about learning something.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

"i think it should be because it is fair that all views are heard"Then, in His name, why hasn't the good word of the Flying Spaghetti Monster reached the ears of our schoolchildren yet?
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

because obviously you cantcover all of them ad it would be immiture to argue that you could, however there is easily roome for one or two more theories
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

your absolutely right, it is beyond the power of reason, in other words it is unreasonable. Creationism is founded on faith, so it belongs in a church not in schools
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

what you choose to believe and not believe is purely up to you. in the same way if i choose to believe in creationism i would expect you to respect that.There is nothing respectable about a man who chooses to believe something which is contradicted by plain reality. If you have to couch your reasoning in non sequiturs which place no value on evidence-based reasoning in order to assert that imaginings are equally weighty as research, then you have betrayed your motivations as the defense of a fragile belief system and have rightfully earned scorn.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

i just googled it andthe quote was from voltaire, (just in case you wer interested)
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

When I see your comments I laugh, with reason.Science (and Religion)was designed to help the world, and yet Science made up for the people it saved by bombing up the whole damn place (Pearl Harbor,9/11, etc),while Religion destroyed people(Crusades,Witch Hunts), because people used religion as their justification to do evil. The difference between the two is, Those who used science for evil did it on their own hatred,greed and lust for power.Those who did evil with religion in mind, did it AGAINST the guidelines of their specific Holy Book ( Pretty much the same as The scientific mishaps). Bible, Quran etc.Science ( AND Religion, which is made up of ethics in the first place, Those who conveniently interpret strangely, simply to justify their wrongs are a whole other matter) without ethics is fruitless and not beneficial in any way whatsoever. And that is what destroys the world. Power without moral or ethical guidelines. In the 1930's who would have thought that promiscuity of one person,or many people depending on the case, could cause the death of millions of people? (Aids ,Herpes etc) and all goes back to what dreaded Religion was saying from the beginning.THOU SHALL NOT KILL, STEAL, LIE, SLEEP WITH ANYONE BUT YOUR WIFE.The first commandment, "Thou shall not have any other god But Me' is yet to show its repercussions when disobeyed.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

Pretty much all of the skeptics annotated Bible has huge fallacies, simply because the culture it was directed to and what was believed at the time( and what was going on that time, who was in control) are exaggerated by it. "adhering to his wife'. This statement is in no way wrong as you neglect to say who he was adhering his wife over- God.It is not adhering to his wife so to speak, but adhering to his wife over the Person that made him. If the Biblical author is of a patriarchal belief(highly likely), or better yet, the translation amplified his patriarchal beliefs ( which everyone had then) it does not change the story's moral. Saying that science does not concern itself with morals simply leads me to say that power in the hands of extremists/immoral is dangerous and stupid.The Bible also says this Read Proverbs.That is why I have a problems with conservative pastors. ( I agree with with everything the Bible says- mind you) I just put the reality of the time in to consideration. Abraham marrying his half sister is a definite example of culture.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Pretty much all of the skeptics annotated Bible has huge fallacies, simply because the culture it was directed to and what was believed at the time( and what was going on that time, who was in control) are exaggerated by it. "adhering to his wife'. This statement is in no way wrong as you neglect to say who he was adhering his wife over- God.Listen, if you're going to simply ignore vast portions of your supposed holy book because your morality tells you that they are wrong, then you already have admitted that the bible is superfluous to morality and ethics, that your judgment is better than the god you claim to believe in.A large segment of the population treats those texts as authoritative still, and that is why we see so many efforts to bring back sexual repression, misogyny, and traditional (read: ancient) family values.It is not adhering to his wife so to speak, but adhering to his wife over the Person that made him. If the Biblical author is of a patriarchal belief(highly likely), or better yet, the translation amplified his patriarchal beliefs ( which everyone had then) it does not change the story's moral. Of course the biblical authors were patriarchal. That was the era they lived in, an era when women were property. It is why the Bible and Quran treat women as inferior. These are the values you support every time you spread Christianity. They are the authoritative beliefs.Saying that science does not concern itself with morals simply leads me to say that power in the hands of extremists/immoral is dangerous and stupid.You're missing the point. Science isn't a church, it is a method.The Bible also says this Read Proverbs.That is why I have a problems with conservative pastors. ( I agree with with everything the Bible says- mind you) I just put the reality of the time in to consideration. Abraham marrying his half sister is a definite example of culture.That culture is what the bible holds as ideal. It is a slice of ancient culture, and Christians are a part of it. The only way we got to where we are now, where women and other races could be equals, was by ignoring biblical values.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

In all your arguments you continue to prove yourself wrong.And I admit the wrongs I emphasized in my arguments.You must now do this.Scientific enough for you?
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

In all your arguments you continue to prove yourself wrong.Without stating how or clarifying where, I cannot address your comment and can only regard it as bunkum.And I admit the wrongs I emphasized in my arguments.You must now do this.Scientific enough for you?Same as above.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: Not on my watch!

Let's see, if we're going with the "teach the controversy idea", then let's throw a few more topics in. We should teach Astrology as an alternative to Astronomy, and Alchemy alongside Chemistry. Of course this is pretty ridiculous, and these other viewpoints have no place in a science classroom, just like creationism/intelligent design doesn't.
Debate: If evolution is taught in schools shouldn't creationism?
Side: It's only fair...

Note that I said "controversial issues". Is astrology vs astronomy a hot topic debate that gets people fired up whenever it is mentioned? Is alchemy vs chemistry?Yes, astrology has its supporters. But every astrologist I have come across or read has also accepted standard astronomical theories in addition to their astrological beliefs - for example, they don't genuinely believe that the Sun and planets revolve around the Earth when they use geocentric measurements; in fact they provide scientifically supported explanation as to why retrograde occurs (e.g. http://www.astrologycom.com/retroframe.html  ). Astrologists do not provide scientific evidence to disprove astronomy; the few who provide evidence at all do so only to supplement it. And because they tend to view astrology as a purely spiritual or occult hobby rather than as an eternal truth that they are obliged to teach, astrologists aren't actively running around the place trying to "convert" people into believing astrology, unlike creationists. Creationists believe evolutionism is false; that is why some lobby for creationism to be taught alongside it. Astrologists do not have a problem with general astronomical theories, so an astrology debate doesn't even exist when a teacher explains astronomy.Alchemy the ancient science is so thoroughly disproven to the point where you'd be very hard pressed to find someone who still believes they can magically turn lead into gold. Alchemy as a set of spiritual or psychological theories has a number of adherents, but spiritual or psychological matters are properly placed in either religious studies or psychology class, as these alchemists themselves would tell you. And again, modern alchemists do not actively oppose chemistry.So is there still any mystery as to why astrology or alchemy aren't taught side by side with astronomy or chemistry?Not that I am opposed to it - astrological geocentric assumptions could be an interesting side dish to append to an astronomy lesson, and ancient alchemical theories an interesting introduction to modern chemistry. ("In the olden days it was believed that physical matter had this and that property, and by doing this and that you could transmute them into other substances. Now we know better...") But they are fundamentally different from the creationism vs evolutionism debate.