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

I could say the same about you. I think that you are out of touch with reality. But then, reality is a perspective.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

No, reality is objective.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

I'm pretty sure that I can spot the difference between bronze age fairy tale and peer reviewed research paper.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Kids can learn about mythology just fine. I was taught and read a lot about the greek gods when i was a kid (Hercules was one of my favorite movies, even though know i know it was nothing like the original tales) and yet I never thought those stories to be anything other than stories.you don't even have to go into great detail about creationalsim. A simple definition would suffice. Even though students will recognize evolution as the most likely theory, it doesn't help to completely sensor outdated theories like creationalsim. If we still teach that there was theory that the world was flat, why can't we tell students what creationalism is?
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

I've read Greeks myths as a kid too, problem is that Creationism suppose to taught as a real thing as an alternative to science and it's trying to piss on science.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

It does not have to, just teach the definition of creationalism is in a history class, along with all the other outdated beliefs like the earth being flat, the sun revoling around the earth, or the internal pulleys of the human body.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

Creatards wants to have creatardism taught as an actual thing, not just a paragraph in a text book.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

That is not the point. I am not saying we should replace evolution in textbooks, I just think we should not be trying to censor educatation. By fighting so hard against that one paragraph as you put it, you are acting as stubborn as the creationalist you are fighting against. Don't censor a simple definition just to make a point.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

Goal of Creatards is to replace Evolution in textbooks .
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Well forget them, i am not talking about that. That should never happen. But we should still add the defintion of creationalism to history textbooks.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

It's already there (in least where I am from). It's called mythology.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

All schools should be private so parents can pick and choose the appropriate curriculum. Public schools are beholden to the government for funding, not to the parents. Therefore they have little or no incentive to accede to the parents' wishes, when those wishes conflict with the wishes of the government. If Parents were the direct source of funding (or for choosing funding, such as with voucher programs) the schools would be beholden to the parents, not the government.Students and parents should be able to choose their curriculum.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

So teaching various world mythologies as a real stuff?Like flat Earth from Bible/Quran/Torah as and alternative to Geography?African gods raping each other and giving birth from their foreheads as an alternative to biology?Astrology instead of Astronomy? Your children would laughable idiots without future.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

So, there would be a free market of ideas, right? So long as we make sure we have a free society and let faulty ideas fail on their own merit, the best, and most accurate, ideas will prosper, and foster prosperity. The children of these parents may not go into certain sciences.Maybe they do not prosper and they change their values, choosing differently for their children?At any rate, I would much prefer that parents (including myself) be at liberty to choose those subjects which they believe will benefit their children the most, than the government indoctrinate the children into whatever value system it believes will make good, little worker drones or "entitlement" votes for the state.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

So, there would be a free market of ideas, right?You support a free market of ideas, right? Okay, let's look at what you say.I would much prefer that parents (including myself) be at liberty to choose those subjects which they believe will benefit their children the mostWait, in a free market, the market forces of demand and supply decide which are the best theories and ideas based on their own value. What you are saying here is that parents should decide which ideas are more valuable. That is absolutely hypocritical.than the government indoctrinate the children into whatever value system it believes will make good, little worker drones or "entitlement" votes for the state.Right. If the government choosing what children study is indoctrination, then what does that make parents choosing the subjects their children study? I would think that that is extremely close to indoctrination as well. Again, a conflicting, at least, and hypocritical, at worst, statement.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

Wait, in a free market, the market forces of demand and supply decide which are the best theories and ideas based on their own value. What you are saying here is that parents should decide which ideas are more valuable. That is absolutely hypocritical.The parents are the consumers. The product is the education of the child. The ends which the parents wish to achieve is the success of the child.The consumer expresses a demand for a particular type of product, and the market delivers the various demanded products, to the various consumers. The quality of the various products has an effect on the utility of that product to achieve the ends of the consumer. A superior quality (more useful) product will eventually gain more market share.This is completely consistent with a free market. Right. If the government choosing what children study is indoctrination, then what does that make parents choosing the subjects their children study? I would think that that is extremely close to indoctrination as well. Again, a conflicting, at least, and hypocritical, at worst, statement."The doctrine of obedience to the State was the prime goal of the father of the public school system in North Carolina, Archibald D. Murphey. In 1816, Murphey planned a system of state schools as follows: 'all children will be taught in them...in these schools the precepts of morality and religion should be inculcated, and habits of subordination and obedience be formed....The state, in the warmth of her solicitude for their welfare, must take charge of those children, and place them in school where their minds can be enlightened and their hearts can be trained to virtue.' 15-- Rothbard, 'EducationFree & Compulsory' (p.43-44) link aboveThe parent has a personal and emotional interest in and incentive toward the good of the child. The state has no emotional interest, and an incentive toward the good of the state, not the child. On Hypocritical:
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

The parents are the consumers. The product is the education of the child. The ends which the parents wish to achieve is the success of the child.But what you are doing is using the children's education merely as a means to an end (i.e. your personal feeling of achievement in having a successful child). You are not respecting the child as an end in themselves. In such a free market set up, all you are concerned with the motive of the parents, since they are the consumers, and completely neglecting the children's interests.A superior quality (more useful) product will eventually gain more market share.How is "superior quality" necessarily equivalent to "more useful"?You quoting Murphey does not answer my question. If you were even suggesting that indoctrination by the government (via choosing what the children should and must study) is bad, then isn't it a fact that parents choosing what their children should and must study is also indoctrination, and therefore bad?The parent has a personal and emotional interest in and incentive toward the good of the child. The state has no emotional interest, and an incentive toward the good of the state, not the child.Now, you may say this. But look at your prior statement on the free market. The only form of consumer welfare that your free market was concerned with was that of the parents', when in actual fact, the children are the more direct consumers of the service provided, education.Furthermore, whether or not a "parent has a personal and emotional interest in and incentive toward the good of the child", is utterly inconsequential because this is merely an argument from emotion. Just because you have a vested emotional interest in and toward the good of the child does not mean you necessarily (1) should make decisions for the child and/or (2) make the best decisions for the child.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

You are not respecting the child as an end in themselves. In such a free market set up, all you are concerned with the motive of the parents, since they are the consumers, and completely neglecting the children's interests.And who has (or is most likely to have) the child's best interests at heart? The parents, or the government?How is "superior quality" necessarily equivalent to "more useful"?A market good that has a higher marginal utility (is more useful) is a better available means to achieve the ends desired than some other means. That is an economic definition of superior quality. You quoting Murphey does not answer my question.Not quoting Murphy. Just explaining the way a market works.If you were even suggesting that indoctrination by the government (via choosing what the children should and must study) is bad, then isn't it a fact that parents choosing what their children should and must study is also indoctrination, and therefore bad?It is the parents' responsibility to see to the education of the child. Doing that in a manner that is consistent with the best interests of the child is not bad. The government doing that in a manner that is in the best interest of the state, and not the child, is a bad thing. I stand by my statement.Now, you may say this. But look at your prior statement on the free market. The only form of consumer welfare that your free market was concerned with was that of the parents', when in actual fact, the children are the more direct consumers of the service provided, education.The parents are acting as a proxy for the child, in the absence of the legal right to choose their own education and the child's inability to make a rational decision as to what sort of education is in his own self interest.Furthermore, whether or not a "parent has a personal and emotional interest in and incentive toward the good of the child", is utterly inconsequential because this is merely an argument from emotion.No, it is a criteria for choosing the child's proxy.Just because you have a vested emotional interest in and toward the good of the child does not mean you necessarily (1) should make decisions for the child and/or (2) make the best decisions for the child.Bearing in mind that the government will always make decisions based upon what is good for the government and that no third party would be any more likely to protect the interests of the child, what criteria would you use to choose the child's proxy for deciding what is best for that child?
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

In the free market, how do you prevent all the rich kids from getting a good education and the poor kids getting a sub-par one? Kids should not be "destined to fail" just because their parents did not inherit tons of money?And who has (or is most likely to have) the child's best interests at heart? The parents, or the government?You have to admin that many, many parents in fact don't have their child's best interest at heart. I mean if you did a study what percentage of parents are making overall good decisions for their children (obese children, latch-key kids, disrespectful children, etc)? How many "Walmart shoppers" are going to put their child's education high on the priority list when they can barely put food on the table? You can argue that adults should be a allowed to bring about their own demise, but the demise of innocent children? That's a harder sell. So who will make better education decisions for children, a group of the best education experts in the country, or the half of the parents out there who are not educated themselves, have no resources or time, etc? In a mixed market the rich can still send their children to any school they want. Why create free market for education when clearly one group looses big time (the poor and the middle class to some extent) while the other group (the rich) is in the same good position it was before?
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

In the free market, how do you prevent all the rich kids from getting a good education and the poor kids getting a sub-par one? Kids should not be "destined to fail" just because their parents did not inherit tons of money?This assumes that an education is a right. It is not. This also assumes that people are unable to educate themselves, they can.You have to admin that many, many parents in fact don't have their child's best interest at heart. I mean if you did a study what percentage of parents are making overall good decisions for their children (obese children, latch-key kids, disrespectful children, etc)? How many "Walmart shoppers" are going to put their child's education high on the priority list when they can barely put food on the table? You can argue that adults should be a allowed to bring about their own demise, but the demise of innocent children? That's a harder sell.Argument from emotion: "for the kids". Also beginning the "people are too stupid to know what is best and must have self-styled "experts" to tell them" argument. People have a right to conduct their own affairs, not have others (including and especially government) conduct their affairs for them.So who will make better education decisions for children, a group of the best education experts in the country, or the half of the parents out there who are not educated themselves, have no resources or time, etc? Continuation of the "experts" argument. I say that the parents know the children's needs better than the state. Additionally they would wish better for their children, whereas the state would wish what is better for the state.In a mixed market the rich can still send their children to any school they want. Why create free market for education when clearly one group looses big time (the poor and the middle class to some extent) while the other group (the rich) is in the same good position it was before?Partially true. What would you say to this:-Public school continues as-is.-We continue a mixed market, but...-No compulsory attendance (public or private)-Private schools completely choose their own curriculum and standards, with no mandatory requirements from government.-Middle class parents who choose to send their kids to private school get a tax deduction for the money they spend on private school.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

This assumes that an education is a right. It is not.Lets not go down that path again. You have a different view of rights than most people. People in most civil societies do think children do have a right to a decent education. They are wiling to sacrifice some of their individual wealth to preserve that group right.Argument from emotion: "for the kids". Also beginning the "people are too stupid to know what is best and must have self-styled "experts" to tell them" argument. People have a right to conduct their own affairs, not have others (including and especially government) conduct their affairs for them.In a mixed market people are free to home school their children if they think they can do a better job than the experts.You can argue about the expertise of a particular expert, but it seems like you think the very idea of the existence of "an expert body" does not exist? What decisions would you leave to yourself over an expert body? Please limit the argument to large important decisions, not which candy bar you want to buy.I say that the parents know the children's needs better than the state. Additionally they would wish better for their children, whereas the state would wish what is better for the state.Can you offer any proof of this in the worse case scenario (poor single mom)? Present a reasonable argument that the when it comes to education, the state somehow is more concerned with itself than educating children.Partially true. What would you say to this:...- I think children should be forced to go to school- Curriculum: As far as I know in most states the only "requirement" for private schools is they produce students that can pass basic standardized tests. I think this is a good idea.- Tax deduction: this is an interesting topic. I'm for that idea, as long as it does not lead to the destruction of decent schools for disadvantaged children. I think what will happen is there will be an economic line drawn. Those which can afford the good private school (which is more expensive than the deduction alone) and those that can't. When you remove half the money for the "disadvantaged schools" they will get worse.School boards and parents have a lot of say in local schools. One of the reasons is the parents with school aged children are the ones doing voting on school issues so this concentrates the knowledge/will of those involved. If it's easy to design a "good school" in the free market, why don't we just do it once and have everyone go to that school? In a business, you don't let every branch of the company create it's own ethics training, you get a few experts to design the ethics training classes for the entire company then "share" those classes. This is obviously the right way to do things. Why is that not the right way to do things for public education? Schools are a place to learn the basics (reading, writing, etc). There is plenty of time and mechanisms for special interest groups to get their own niche ideas in to children outside of the "core" education process.
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

OK, this debate has grown too big. If there is an important point form the last post feel free to bring it up again but I think were boiling down to the same "value system differences". So:You keep using the idea of "individual right" as if it has no common sense limit. Is there any case in a society (baby dumped on the street, mentally ill person with no family, old senial person with no family, stopping a rape or murder, etc) that you think individuals should be required to "help" another member of that society? Surely there must be something so heinous that basic "membership in the society" requires dues to try and prevent/help it?
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: No

You keep using the idea of "individual right" as if it has no common sense limit.The only limit is the rights of another."My right to swing my fist, ends where your nose begins."Is there any case in a society (baby dumped on the street, mentally ill person with no family, old senial person with no family, stopping a rape or murder, etc) that you think individuals should be required to "help" another member of that society?Required? No. That is where compassion, charity, and basic human decency come in (moral obligation, not legal). You have a right to be as unfeeling an ass as you choose, just don't expect that others will go out of their way to help you, or to treat you with anything but contempt. Would I help, if I could? Yes. Should anyone have the authority to compel another to do so? no. Bearing that in mind, I do believe that each has a right to protect the rights of others, just as they have a right to protect their own rights. I cannot justify this, logically, but it just seems right, morally.another aside, requiring no answer:I'm reading Atlas Shrugged again. The first chapters, where the businessmen were meeting in the bar, reminded me of some of your posts. Just an observation. :)
Debate: Should students be allowed to choose to be taught creationism?
Side: Yes

Required? No. That is where compassion, charity, and basic human decency come in (moral obligation, not legal). You have a right to be as unfeeling an ass as you choose, just don't expect that others will go out of their way to help you, or to treat you with anything but contempt.I think this is probably the "bottom line" in many of our debates. Society is not stable with "good will" alone. The pillars of society require X dollars whether you "feel" you can contribute at the moment or not. Every modern civilized society has required "dues" and they always will because the point of society is collective good which costs "collective money".Lets say you make your society and there is not enough charity to prevent the worst of the worst from happening to people? What happens to those people?I don't think you have answered any of my questions along the way about how you would feel when you or your loved ones are "crushed" financially, emotionally and physically when, through no fault of your own, you fail to compete at a high enough level in the free market?