Instigator / Pro
15
1597
rating
22
debates
65.91%
won
Topic
#3381
Creationism should be taught in schools.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
6
4
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
2
After 3 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
It's a tie!
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
15
1774
rating
98
debates
77.55%
won
Description
Creationism refers to the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.
Kritiks are banned.
Round 1
Pro
#1
resolved: creationism should be taught in schools.
- Creationism "refers to the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution" -Oxford Languages
- Taught: give information about or instruction in (a subject or skill).
overview
- I believe creationism should be taught in schools, and in many ways it already is. I am willing to defend many of these cases.
- It is apparent that the biggest critique of creationism is that it is unscientific; or that it is religious or fictional in nature, and thus not aligned with reality as we perceive it.
- I won't be discussing whether creationism is true, false, justified, or not because I don't believe that is the most productive aspect of the debate.
- For all purposes, it is an essential part of history, religion, culture, and science, and by that metric, it has a place in any education system.
o1. history
- Creationism should be taught in history because it is an important aspect of history. In history, we study change over time in every aspect of human society. Theories, overviews, and arguments are all significant parts of history and should all be taught.
- Creationism is a strong aspect of human society in theory, culture, and religion.
- Creationism has been the subject of many debates and legal cases such as Segraves v. the State of California, Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, and Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al.
- This pertains to United States history and the study of various cases, the arguments behind them, and their significance.
- This relates to European history, the rise of naturalist theories, and the challenges to creationism that came with thinkers such as English biologist Charles Robert Darwin.
- Even if you believed creationism is false, (I won't claim either way) and therefore should not be taught, that still would not be a good argument.
- We are taught many theories such as Karl Marx's labor theory of value in economics which is demonstrably false.
- Because of this, it doesn't appear as if the falsehood or perceived falsehood of theories is what determines whether they are taught or not.
o2. science
- According to a Boston university production called "the brink, "History provides strong evidence of how the environment around scientists was equally important in shaping their lives and discoveries."
- Creationism has a significant impact on the history and evolution of scientific thought. We have discussed that creationism should be taught in history, but we can also connect this to scientific thought.
- One of the most important aspects of science is science is its history.
- In astronomy and astrology, in studies of the solar system, students typically learn of the previous theories of the universe and the development that have come with them.
- Before the heliocentric model which placed the sun in the center of the solar system, was the geocentric model which placed the earth in the center.
- And I say if the geocentric theory is taught in schools as a part of scientific history then creationism which is also a significant part of our history in the interaction of scientific theories should be taught as well.
- Students are also taught the theory of spontaneous generation, defined by oxford languages as "the supposed production of living organisms from nonliving matter, as inferred from the apparent appearance of life in some supposedly sterile environments."
- As far as science instruction goes, we are many taught theories that have contributed to or preceded the development of what is more accepted and conventional.
- So far we have discussed the importance of the history of science because science itself studies and organizes knowledge. And therefore I say, creationism ought to be a part of that.
o3. religious studies
- "Religious studies, also known as the study of religion, is an academic field devoted to research into religious beliefs, behaviors, and institutions" (Wikipedia).
- I think there are very convincing arguments that creationism should be taught in religious studies. For one, it is both a core and fundamental teaching of many religions including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Baháʼí Faith, and Mandaeism.
- One studying religious studies ought to be educated on the practices, beliefs, behaviors, and institutions, and creationism is a large part of those customs and beliefs.
- And I say, therefore, creationism is something that must be taught in schools, in religious studies, courses which are offered by almost every major university.
o4. philosophy
- One of the most discussed phenomenons in philosophy is the origin of the Universe. There are many aspects of philosophy that deal with this such as the philosophy of cosmology.
- "Cosmology deals with the physical situation that is the context in the large for human existence: the universe has such a nature that our life is possible. This means that although it is a physical science, it is of particular importance in terms of its implications for human life" (Plato Stanford).
- Creationism is also a theory and aspect of philosophy and in that regard, it should be taught in philosophy classes, as well as other philosophical theories and arguments are.
- Given this example, philosophy is a broad and complex subject and hopefully, we can get into more of an expansion in my later rounds.
- Ultimately creationism is an important part of philosophy and I hope my opening case will allow you to accept this.
conclusion
- Although I am arguing affirmative in this debate, I am also the one defending the status quo, because creationism is taught in schools in all of these areas. The argument can be seen as, rather, this should be the case, and there are many needs for creationism in various instructions. CON should be able to sufficiently challenge the status quo and tell us why creationism should not be taught at all.
- please vote PRO and on to CON.
sources
- Definition from google produced by oxford languages
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_studies
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
- https://ncse.ngo/ten-major-court-cases-about-evolution-and-creationism
- https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Marxism.html
- https://www.bu.edu/articles/2016/science-history/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
- https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmology/
Con
#2
RESOLUTION: Creationism should be taught in schools.
POSITION: CON
BOP:
Unless the description assigns a burden of proof to CON or both debaters, PRO bears the burden of proof. This rule applies in this case. BoP is on PRO.
DEFINITIONS:
- School: An institute for educating children
- Should: Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions
-Oxford Languages
FRAMEWORK
PRO opens his case by claiming that creationism is already taught in schools and that he is merely defending the status quo. That is actually a significant movement of the goalpost. The word "school" in our context is obviously refering to the institution educating children, that is what the debate has always been about. The resolution and the description lacks the words "college" and "university" and is generally devoid of any attempt to signify an unconventional usage of the term. PRO also interprets the phrase "teach creationism" to mean simply mentioning it as a part of a few specific subjects. In other words he seems to believe that the schools are already "teaching" alchemy, flat earth theory and slavery. However, the truth is that teaching is something different entirely from teaching about. Teaching math is done with the intention of creating mathematicians, and teaching language is meant to create good writers of the children. Science is taught in schools so that the children can learn the truth about different aspects of our universe. Teachers teach math, but they teach about religion, they aren't working to create religious people. The way PRO uses the word "teach" is once again completely foreign to the societal debate of which ours is but a tiny fraction. Creationists want creationism to be taught as school, or in other words, they want schools to present creationism as a valid alternative to the scientific consensus.
PRO simply cannot re-define an already well known debate, especially now when it is not mentioned in the description.
WHAT IS CREATIONISM?
PRO seems to defend a really broad definition of creationism, but then proceeds to focus specifically on the abrahamic version and its connection to history, science, philosophy and society. Especially comparing it to obsolete scientific theories and pointing out its influence on scientific thought is a giveaway that he is not talking about some general idea of religious creation myths. His mention of specific court cases and the question of creationism being true or false points in the same direction. His very definition of creationism admits that it is a rejection of scientific theories in favor of divine action.
Creationism, the belief that the universe and the various forms of life were created by God out of nothing (ex nihilo). It is a response primarily to modern evolutionary theory, which explains the diversity of life without recourse to the doctrine of God or any other divine power. It may also reject the big-bang model of the emergence of the universe. Mainstream scientists generally reject creationism. Today most creationists in the United States favour the elimination of evolution from the public school curriculum or at least the teaching of creationism alongside evolution as an equally legitimate scientific theory. [Britannica]
Creationists present themselves as the true bearers and present-day representatives of authentic, traditional Christianity, but historically speaking this is simply not true. It is not the case that the Bible taken literally has always had a major place in the lives or theology of Christians. For most, indeed, it has not. Natural religion – approaching God through reason and argument – has long had an honored place for both Catholics and Protestants... dating back to Saint Augustine around 400 AD, and even to earlier thinkers like Origen, have always recognized that at times the Bible needs to be taken metaphorically or allegorically. Thanks to a number of factors, Creationism started to grow dramatically in the early part of the twentieth century. There were the first systematic attempts to work out a position that would take account of modern science as well as just a literal reading of Genesis. There was the spread of public education, and more children being exposed to evolutionary ideas, bringing on a Creationist reaction. After the Scopes Trial, general agreement is that the Creationism movement had peaked and declined quite dramatically and quickly. Yet, it (and related anti-evolution activity) did have its lasting effects. [plato.stanford]
This is not merely the ancient belief in some supernatural world above our own to which we owe our existence. This is a modern movement -- the recent mass rejection of large chunks of natural science by religious fundamentalists. Meanwhile, even the pope has affirmed the validity of the theory of evolution and its compatibility with Christian teaching [ibid], and thus confirmed for the majority of Christian worldwide the falsehood of creationism as PRO defines it (as contradicting evolution). For this reason alone, creationism stands out as a weird outlier today.
SHOULD CREATIONISM BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL?
No. I will flesh out an argument in R2 due to time constaints. For now, PRO has failed to meet his BoP when the goalpost is placed where it ought to be. The discussion is about whether or not schools should teach children that a religious modell of reality is a valid alternative to a scientific one. I don't think my opponent adequately supports this position. I hope he makes a case relevant to the real debate rather than try to defend himself moving the goalpost.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Framework
- Definition of school (disputed): any institution at which instruction is given in a particular discipline.
- Definition of should: agreed.
- Definition of creationism is binding (stated in the full description) so it cannot be contested.
- Definition of taught: give information about or instruction in (a subject or skill).
Benjamin sats "The word "school" in our context is obviously refering to the institution educating children, that is what the debate has always been about"
- Actually, not at all. This sort of logic just blatantly excludes schools that generally educate people who are adults, such as community colleges, trade schools, and universities. This is not how anyone defines the school. A school is simply an institution for the learning and education of anyone, not specifically children.
"The resolution and the description lacks the words "college" and "university" and is generally devoid of any attempt to signify an unconventional usage of the term."
- Is a Univerity suddenly not a school?
- Is a College not a school now?
- The way con asserts that the use of the word "school" here is "unconventional" is a baseless assertion. Almost every reputable online dictionary or educational body will define school in the way I have. There is no justification for excluding a large proportion of schools for no apparent reason.
- Merriam Webster: "b: COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY"
- Collins Dictionary: "A university, college, or university department specializing in a particular type of subject can be referred to as a school."
- California Department of Education: The term "school" is used to refer to all educational institutions that have the following characteristics:
- Have one or more teachers to give instruction
- Have an assigned administrator
- Are based in one or more buildings
- Contain enrolled or prospectively enrolled students
- Vocabulay.com:
- 1. noun an educational institution
- 2. noun a building where young people receive education
Rebuttals
Benjamin says that: "PRO opens his case by claiming that creationism is already taught in schools and that he is merely defending the status quo. That is actually a significant movement of the goalpost"
- Even if I mentioned that creationism is already taught in schools, and even if I argue that I am defending the status quo, that is not moving the goalposts at all.
- According to Wikipedia: Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
- The resolution is that Creationism should be taught in schools. I am simply pointing out that it is already.
- That doesn't move the goalposts at all.
Benjamin says that "PRO seems to defend a really broad definition of creationism, but then proceeds to focus specifically on the abrahamic version and its connection to history, science, philosophy and society"
- There are many types of creationism, but they all encompass the idea that the "universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation."
- Maybe Christian Abrahamic creationism would have a historical significance in American/English history, but in religious studies, students can be educated on any aspect of creationism of any religion.
- There is no reason different forms of creationism can be taught in different countries' historical education.
- Ultimately, CON's point is a red herring. My examples generally correspond to Abrahamic religions, but that doesn't affect that creationism should be taught in schools.
CON sort of goes on a tangent about creationism being "a movement" conducted by "religious fundamentalists" or whatnot, and all of it is irrelevant to the debate at hand.
- It doesn't matter if you believe something is a movement or not as we are discussing the ideas; we are debating whether or not creationism should be taught in schools or not. Your point is irrelevant.
Meanwhile, even the pope has affirmed the validity of the theory of evolution and its compatibility with Christian teaching [ibid], and thus confirmed for the majority of Christian worldwide the falsehood of creationism as PRO defines it (as contradicting evolution). For this reason alone, creationism stands out as a weird outlier today.
- CON displays a severe misunderstanding of the Pope's stance on evolution. For one, the Pope accepts evolution thats true.
- But to say that he said creationism is false is wrong. The pope's and the catholic stance on this is that creationism and evolution aren't mutually exclusive. We can see what he really said here.
On October 27, 2014, Pope Francis issued a statement at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation," warning against thinking of God's act of creation as "God [being] a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything."The Pope also expressed in the same statement the view that scientific explanations such as the Big Bang and evolution in fact require God's creation:[God] created beings and allowed them to develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one, so that they were able to develop and to arrive at their fullness of being. He gave autonomy to the beings of the universe at the same time at which he assured them of his continuous presence, giving being to every reality. And so creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became what we know today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the creator who gives being to all things. ...The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.[66]
Ben finally says that "PRO has failed to meet his BoP when the goalpost is placed where it ought to be. The discussion is about whether or not schools should teach children that a religious model of reality is a valid alternative to a scientific one"
- For one, this is not correct. The resolution never says that creationism will replace evolution. It just says that creationism should be taught to students.
- Secondly, creationism and evolution aren't mutually exclusive. As you yourself brought up, the Pope himself acknowledges evolution, but according to your own source "In 1950 Pope Pius XII released an encyclical confirming that there is no intrinsic conflict between the theory of evolution and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church"
- Even proponents of creationism acknowledge that both can be explained without contradiction, and have done so for 70 years. One does not preclude the other.
A pecualir anylisis of CON's case
- CON's case can be summarized on the following premises.
- PRO has moved the goalposts
- That creationism should not be taught as an alternative to evolution.
- Creationism is a movement of religious fundamentalists who reject science etc.
- a has been proven to be false, as asserting that the resolution pertains to the status quo does not alter the resolution itself.
- b has been proven irrelevant because there is nothing that creationism must preclude evolution. Rather both can complement each other, and both can be taught.
- c has been proven to be irrelevant because just because you believe something to be a more largely sinister movement, does not mean it is understood, taught, and accepted in this way.
- CON largely drops the various ways in which creationism can be taught in schools in areas of world history, religious studies, philosophy, and science/science history.
- He argues for a semantic distinction between "taught" and "taught about," but he does not even challenge the definition, or provide a reference definition, more so how it is used.
- Taught means "give(n) information about or instruction in (a subject or skill)"
- CON says "Teaching math is done with the intention of creating mathematicians," but this is hardly the case. Out of all people taught mathematics very few actually become mathematicians at higher levels of education. Like any instruction, teaching is to equip the student with knowledge.
- CON goes on to say that "Science is taught in schools so that the children can learn the truth about different aspects of our universe" but this lies directly in contrast to what CON just said, about the intention to create people of the same profession? So it appears the couplet is self-refuting.
- All things considered, CON has not sufficiently countered any of my arguments or made any of his own.
Back to CON for his rebuttal.
Please vote PRO.
Con
#4
RESOLUTION: Creationism should be taught in schools.
POSITION: CON
BOP: PRO
ARGUMENTS
Creationism is not science
Recall from my citing of Britannica in R1 that there is a firm scientific consensus reject creationism in any form, especially young-earth creationism. Moreover, information found in religious doctrine or religious interpretation of science are not actual science no matter how many religious scientists support it. Science is established through the scientific method and science always requires peer-review and conclusive evidence -- this has been the practise for at least 300 years [2]. No matter the truth of creationism, the balance of scientific evidence and consensus still firmly support evolution and the big bang [3] [4] [5]. Schools should not teach creationism when the evidence clearly proves the occurence of natural processes rather than specific acts of divine intervention.
The differing narratives of creation, and their respective religions, divides us
Different parts of the world have different creation myths. The only way we can all get on the same page is if we base our education on the objective facts we can observe and the scientific community that studies it. Teaching creationism in school guarantees that all parts of humanity continues to have very different (and unscientific) pictures of the very core of our identity, our origins. Science on the other hand shows us that we all share the same history and that it is possible for us to work together to discover our shared origins, and by extension, shared identity.
FRAMEWORK REBUTALLS
Creationism
PRO defines creationism as such: "the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution." Affirming the natural processes by which life and the universe came to be, like evolution, and in doing so rejecting the specific acts of divine creation (as described in the bible), automatically means you aren't a creationist according to PRO's own definition. To be a creationist you need to believe that a divine power used specific acts rather than natural processes to create life and the universe. The pope might believe evolution and a creator God is compatible, but he does reject specific acts of divine creation in favor of natural processes as described by modern science. The same applies to the majority of christians throughout history. My schoolastic sources Britannica and Standford both agree that creationism is a fairly recent invention, a mass rejection of modern science based on religion.
School
PRO rejects the first oxford definition of school in favor of the second. It reads: "any institution at which instruction is given in a particular discipline". However, the example given to illustrate it was "a dancing school", which makes it obvious that this definition is not valid for our debate. The category is broad enough as to even include religious schools and creationist academies. PRO claims that creationism is already being taught in schools, by which he means religious, philosophical, historical and social studies -- all for adults in higher education. Crucially, the creationism debate has never been about these arenas, it has always been about creationism and evolution in public school. Every single court case PRO mentioned were controversies about public schools and unlawful teaching to children [PRO's source]. The legal debate about creationism in school has always been about public schools for children. PRO's claim that the debate concerns all educational institutions is a cherry picking of secondary definitions -- a semantical fallacy and a bad faith argument. If PRO wanted to have a debate with unconventional usage of the term "creationism taught in school" he should have put it in the description or resolution.
Teaching
My opponent defines teaching in an extremely defensive way. According to him, people shouldn't be taught creationism in the classical and controversial meaning of the phrase, that the schools should embrace the faith as truth (or atleast a valid alternative to modern science). Instead, teaching creationism means telling folks the obvious truth that there exists people who believe the divine had some sort of role in this cosmic history stuff. PRO is effectively dodging the entire debate. The entire legal controversy has always been about creationism being taught as science, and not merely being discussed as a belief system from a secular perspective.
In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. The Arkansas statute required public schools to give balanced treatment to "creation-science" and "evolution-science". In a decision that gave a detailed definition of the term "science", the court declared that "creation science" is not in fact a science. The court also found that the statute did not have a secular purpose, noting that the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature. The theory of evolution does not presuppose either the absence or the presence of a creator.The provision of a comprehensive science education is undermined when it is forbidden to teach evolution except when creation science is also taught.In 1990, in Webster v. New Lenox School District, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that a school district may prohibit a teacher from teaching creation science in fulfilling its responsibility to ensure that the First Amendment's establishment clause is not violated and that religious beliefs are not injected into the public school curriculum. [PRO's source]
My opponent pretends that "teaching creationism" is similar to schools in some subjects mentioning an outdated model of reality like alchemy. He even implies that any schools having older students specialize in studying any old creation myth for the sake of understanding ourselves and our history, as being "schools teaching creationism". Only in this context can he call his case a defence of the status quo. Unfortunately for his case, the teaching of creationism has already been thoroughly discussed and the legal conclusions have been that creationism should not be taught in schools.
BURDEN OF PROOF
Moving the goalpost: changing the rules in a situation or an activity, in order to gain an advantage for themselves and to make things difficult for other people.
PRO tries to define the words of the resolution in such a semantic way as to make "teaching creationism" compatible with creationists losing their historic fight for the right to teach creationism in school. He twists the idea to the point where it is so obviously permissible and uncontroversial that the resolution becomes a truism. "A truism is distinct from a tautology in that it is not true by definition. Instead, a truism is an argument that is considered to be true by the vast majority of people; it is an argument that really is not disputable. For example, the argument that “genocide is bad” is a truism; virtually no one is going to argue that a genocide is good." [1] Removing all creation myths worldwide from religious, historic, social and philosophical studies for everyone including adults --- that is both nonsensical and unheard of. The CON position in this debate is effectively impossible if PRO gets to set the rules and define the meaning of the resolution. I am forced to invoke the CoC:
Truisms and Tautology. The setup for a debate need not be wholly fair, but there should be grounds for either side to argue. A debate such as “the sun is hot”' are so overwhelmingly in favor of one side, that the other side is best off kritiking the setup and asking for voters to disregard the proofs. [dart voting-policy].
PRO argues that people need to know about creation myths to understand society, history and religion. He refuses to acknowledge the actual meaning of teaching creationism at school, by cherry picking definitions and semantically redefining the meaning of the phrase to mean "telling some people somewhere something about some form of creation myth". This way of framing the resolution it becomes a truism. Additionally PRO disallowed Kritiks. He is guilty of creating a truism debate.
Either vote CON since PRO's debate is confirming a truism and is absurdly unfair, or vote based on the conventional meaning on the term "teaching creationism in school". In the latter case, consider if schools should really regress and once again convince kids that creationism is as valid as evolution, which is evidentily not true.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Framework
- Definition of taught: give information about or instruction in (a subject or skill).
- Definition of school (disputed): any institution at which instruction is given in a particular discipline.
See from round 3: California Department of Education: The term "school" is used to refer to all educational institutions that have the following characteristics:
- Have one or more teachers give instruction
- Have an assigned administrator
- Are based in one or more buildings
- Contain enrolled or prospectively enrolled students
- CON continues to argue about the semantics of the word "school" saying that it excludes universities and colleges for some reason but has he said why?
CON says "PRO rejects the first oxford definition of school in favor of the second. It reads: "any institution at which instruction is given in a particular discipline". However, the example given to illustrate it was "a dancing school", which makes it obvious that this definition is not valid for our debate."
- OBJECTION, CON has made two different points that contradict one another.
- CON argued in round one that school does not include colleges and universities because that isn't its conventional use and the resolution doesn't mention them (presumably a university isn't a school?) but then says that for our debate this definition would include dancing schools.
- CON round one: "The word "school" in our context is obviously referring to the institution educating children, that is what the debate has always been about. The resolution and the description lack the words "college" and "university" and are generally devoid of any attempt to signify an unconventional usage of the term"
- But going by his first-round assertion, would he not also say that dancing schools are not included in the resolution?
- These two statements cannot be true at the same time. It is special pleading to say that universities aren't schools because they aren't in the resolution, and arent how people would use school in reference to education, but then go on to say that dancing schools would be included as schools under a definition going against your own reasons for removing universities.
- CON drops my argument that every reputable education board and or online dictionary would define schools including universities and colleges, as well as the many examples I provide.
r1.
CON argues that creationism is not science.
"Schools should not teach creationism when the evidence clearly proves the occurrence of natural processes rather than specific acts of divine intervention"
- But this argument has been refuted by CON's own Britannica source which claimed in round one that "In 1950 Pope Pius XII released an encyclical confirming that there is no intrinsic conflict between the theory of evolution and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church."
- Creationism does not preclude evolution and the two are not mutually exclusive. Quite frankly your argument is irrelevant.
- Evolution proves the development of organisms, creationism seeks to theorize the origins of the universe itself. Your argument is irrelevant.
- CON argues a point here that his own sources disagree with that creationism precludes evolution and one or the other must be true, but as CON fell into after his round one case, even the Pope doesn't believe this.
- "On October 27, 2014, Pope Francis issued a statement at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation"
- Science history is taught in science class, such as the geocentric model and spontaneous generation
r2. Teaching
"My opponent defines teaching in an extremely defensive way"
- The definition isn't defensive at all, in fact, it came straight from oxford English languages and CON has not provided a single counter definition as pointed out in round two.
"According to him, people shouldn't be taught creationism in the classical and controversial meaning of the phrase, that the schools should embrace the faith as truth"
- Why is faith relevant here? We have faith in many things. I am just arguing that creationism should be taught.
- There are many theories for the origin of the universe all are uncertain and all require different amounts of faith.
- Teaching creationism does not necessitate that anyone accepts a particular religion. In fact, creationism can be completely a-religious. It just pertains to specific acts of divine creation.
- All the legal cases are irrelevant as we could be debating something entirely different.
Conclusion
- CON has dropped many points in this debate, such as my listing how his own metrics of what is and isn't teaching contradict each other in round one. Please vote PRO>
Con
#6
I have little time to write, so this will be short.
Moving the goalpost:
Description: Creationism refers to the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.......PRO in R3: Creationism does not preclude evolution and the two are not mutually exclusive.
I fail to see how PRO isn't moving the goalpost. He is literally saying creationism doesn't preclude its definitional preclusion.
Truism debate:
All the legal cases are irrelevant as we could be debating something entirely different....Creationism should be taught in history because it is an important aspect of history....I think there are very convincing arguments that creationism should be taught in religious studies....Creationism is also a theory and aspect of philosophy and in that regard, it should be taught in philosophy classes,
And finally PRO'S grand assertion: CON should be able to sufficiently challenge the status quo and tell us why creationism should not be taught at all.
PRO argues that people need to know about creation myths to understand society, history and religion. He twists the resolution in such a semantic way as to make "teaching creationism in school" so obviously permissible and uncontroversial that the resolution becomes a truism. Removing all creation myths worldwide from religious, historic, social and philosophical studies for everyone including adults --- that is both nonsensical and unheard of. The CON position in this debate is effectively impossible.
I invoked the CoC calling this a truism debate and PRO DID NOT OBJECT, thus conceding the point. Therefore, vote CON as truism debates are unacceptable and the voting guides calls to punish such debates. PRO never provided arguments for a non-truism interpretation of the resolution, so he can by definition not have won a fair debate to earn votes. His BoP is hardly touched on even if we disregard everything else.
I ask voters to vote responsibly.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
There's not much of substance to this debate and that stems from the fact that the debaters cannot agree on the terms throughout. To some degree, that's a factor of just finding areas of disagreement with what Con views as a truism debate and trying to figure out where the burdens lie. For the most part, I don't see this as all that important to the debate. Even if I assume that the resolution is a truism as defined, the CoC doesn't necessitate a vote against Pro for creating it or for slanting the debate in his favor with his definitions. I also don't know why the burdens debate goes on for so long when burdens stop mattering early on. If I buy that Pro's definitions are the ones I should use for the debate, Con presents few if any direct rebuttals, meaning that he has upheld his burden. If I buy Con's view of the definitions, then the issue of BoP goes away because Pro's basis for establishing who has it also goes away, and simultaneously, he fails to uphold the resolution.
So, this debate comes down to topicality. It's a rare thing for me (at least on this site) to evaluate whether a given way of defining the resolution is valid, but it's essential in this case. In cases where the instigator sets a definition in R1, particularly when that dramatically shifts the direction of the debate, it comes off as opportunistic, i.e. someone will accept expecting a certain debate, but end up having to argue something demonstrably different, granting greater advantage to Pro. I believe that happened here, especially as Pro was willing to define some terms in the description, but left out essential items to understand the shift. It also doesn't help that, from a contextual level, this debate clearly should have taken a different course. The title "Creationism should be taught in schools" has a common meaning, referring to the teaching of creationism as theory rather than in the abstract as something to be analyzed from a distance (e.g. as a part of history, philosophy, religion). So, I'd say that based on common usage and context, Pro's definition of the resolution doesn't match what his opponent could reasonably anticipate upon reading the resolution. As such, I'd say that the way he defined the topic is off-base, especially as it slants the topic much more heavily toward Pro.
But even in cases like this, I'm looking for contender to make these points and argue why the debate should have gone a different way. In that respect, Con could have done better. There's a comparison with teaching things like alchemy, though appealing to absurdity doesn't get the point across that there's something wrong with the framing of the debate. The math point manages to demonstrate it a little more clearly, though even then he explains that the express purpose is to generate mathematicians (which Pro points out isn't true of everyone who learns math) rather than give people the tools to actually utilize mathematics in their everyday lives, which would've better gotten the point across. The point is better captured by talking about teaching language and science as means of imparting skills or knowledge of a given field. I don't see a response to that side of Con's point, instead saying that since this differs from his point about mathematicians, it can be thrown out. Contrasting rebuttals don't cancel each other out, particularly not a contrast like this. I need to see a reason from Pro why teaching creationism and teaching about creationism are both reasonable interpretations of this resolution, yet all he does is say that Con doesn't challenge his definition. He challenges it contextually. He doesn't have to present an alternative definition. Pro had to rebut his contextual standard, and I don't see it.
After R1, I'm just not given anything substantive by either debater to affect this issue, and since deciding it also decides the debate from where I'm sitting, I vote Con.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Arguments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3381/comment-links/41652
Sources:
(in order of what you should read them)
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3381/comment-links/41653
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3381/comment-links/41655
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3381/comment-links/41654
Conduct:
(in order of what you should read them)
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3381/comment-links/41656
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3381/comment-links/41657
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3381/comment-links/41658
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro's case is largely a semantics kritik, executed via hiding his definitions until R1; and then cherry-picking ones against common usage, in a basic lawyering tactic. Ultimately pro himself doesn't even seem to buy that, as he switches to advocating a different form of creationism than he locked in on originally.
Pro argues general information on the belief existing part of history and science, in addition to religious studies at a university level. In addition to philosophy just because. All this counts as teaching it.
Con uses an effective appeal to absurdity to challenge this notion, via pointing out that it would be the same to claim they are teaching "alchemy, flat earth theory and slavery." He then builds the distinction in teaching using math as an example showing how the word is understood in common English.
Pro does an ok defense of the math with pointing out how few students go on to become mathematicians by trade.
Semantics:
Con immediately attacks the BoP rests on the contender proclamation as disingenuous, as well as the claim that school usually refers to universities instead of the much more common k-12 environment.
Pro challenges that schools ought to include any place of learning, to include trade schools (I'm scratching my head at this one; but con misses it, so not damning).
Con catches that pro is having to use secondary definitions, and calls to pro's own sources that include dancing schools as a reference to his cherry-picked definition to dismiss it from consideration.
Pro basically calls it unfair to have his case attacked on multiple fronts here (I'm left somewhat curious what a dancer needs to know about creation myths).
Con further builds that creationism refers to an anti-science movement, linked directly to pro's own definition.
Pro oddly immediately at the start of R2 doubles down insisting that con's wrong and that his definition is binding... The definition that con agrees to, and was just leveraged against pro's case. Later in R2 pro does better by trying to separate his case from the movement, by reminding us he is not endorsing all other ideas that movement would demand.
Intelligent Design:
Pro quotes the pope, to argue that we should teach ID. Pro goes to some lengths here about how ID doesn't contradict evolution.
The big obvious problem here is that it's pre-refuted by con having already reminded us with the authority of the pope that ID goes against the branch of creationism this debate is centered on. Which pro catches and reminds of of the "rather than" part of the definition.
Pro tries to double down on ID in a repetition fallacy, which fails to challenge his chosen and locked in definition for creationism being specifically mutually exclusive. This is ironic given the earlier lawyering, and then trying to move the goalpost for the one definition which was pre-agreed.
Ultimately, without some value shown to teaching that evolution is wrong (as the specific branch of creationism this debate began on demands), I cannot favor pro, even while I do respect his efforts. In retrospect, cons case could have been a lot stronger with explicit focus on the value of science over superstition, but it was pro who held the primary BoP for the proposed change.
The pain of a tie, in a debate I know that I have won.
I'm not asking you to agree to disagree. If you don't like my RFD, so be it. I'll simply agree to your disagreement and you'll continue to be disagreeable. I'm not going to argue the point any further because you're not interested in engaging with the specifics of my RFD and instead seem more interested in attacking it with generalities. I've already talked about tabula rasa, too, though you didn't seem interested in engaging with that, either.
I will not agree to disagree.
You violated tabula rasa in your RFD.
I wrote out very specifically where I thought he fell short. You disagree. That’s fine, I’m not interested in convincing you, and if Novice’s takeaway from all this is that I wrote all that as a long-form way of saying I was just voting based on my biases, then that’s his choice. But, for the record, just because someone is being exploited by a definition doesn’t mean they cannot exploit an obvious problem with that definitional setup. It’s a different kind of exploiting. I believe that Benjamin did enough to accomplish that.
There is almost no way at all that Novice could have done this better. The only thing he didn't do fully was prove that 'taught' encompasses teaching about not just teaching that something is true.
No, he didn't. He was the exploited one.
I disagree that this debate represents something so unique or important, and more importantly, I think that the way you’re framing it as emblematic of some larger principle just isn’t accurate. I can’t speak to the specific goals of other voters, but my goal here isn’t to punish someone who utilizes a non-standard way of defining the resolution. If he had argued back the topicality successfully, I would have voted for Pro, whether I personally agreed with his framing of the debate or not. So if Novice wants to, as you put it, be a “creative ensnarer in tricky debates,” I think the votes against him should inform him that doing so comes with its own risks. You can call Benjamin a complainer, but he exploited one of those risks in a way that several of us found persuasive. You can blame that on voter bias and throw up your hands, or you can take something constructive from it and do better next time. Your choice.
this debate is a very important moment in this website's history. This is a sign to three (me, novice and benjamin) whether voters will punish the complainer or creative ensnarer in tricky debates.
Everyone voted for me except for RationalMadman.
Vote in Question: Jeff_Goldblum
Vote: 3 points in arg for CON
Verdict: Removed
==================================
I do not believe this vote is sufficient enough in explaining the why in his vote. I believe more information could have been added to explain how this vote was off topical b explaining why he thought it was. There was a lack in sufficent information of the topicality issue that is presented, and lacking a why as to the information presented in this vote. Ultimately, he does not go much more in depth with the article presented. Thus the vote is not sufficient enough
Vote in Question: Whiteflame
Vote: 3 points in arg for CON
Verdict: NOT REMOVED
===================================
This was a borderline vote for me. I definitely think that whiteflame could have added more depth as to why the following rounds do not add any substantive information to which the debate can be proven topical, but I do believe the vote made was fair in the criticisms it gaved
1) It established reasoning as to what the judge was basing the vote on, topicality, which a valid way to grade the debate
2) The vote author explains as to why the debate was off topic by giving adequate information about each users arguments and such
This vote follows sufficiency and readers responsibility, thus the vote is valid and follows the guidelines
Feels like you’re drifting to issues well beyond this debate and these votes… you OK?
I hope you live a really long time; certainly far longer than the life expectancy of any of these sites.
We will not be website users here forever. Legacy is all we have then. What did you stand for?
…I honestly have no clue what you’re talking about now.
Just promise me that when I am dead and gone this debate will be a reminder that RM did not cower to peer pressure and support enabling cowardice in the debating arena.
You enter the arena, you better have your teeth baring.
Scientists have reacted strongly to suggestions that creationist views be taught alongside scientific theories. Dawkins and Coyne (2005) have stated emphatically that there is no place in a science classroom for creationism. If science instructors were to take the “10 min to exhaust the case for (Intelligent Design)” (Dawkins and Coyne, 2005, One side may be wrong, para. 20) then they lend legitimacy to creationism by its mere presence in the science classroom. This is consistent with Grayling’s (2014) position that broadening the conversation to include non-scientific approaches validates those non-scientific approaches and provides them with institutionalized importance. Scott (2007) warns teachers about the potential incursion of “Teach the Controversy” policies that may affect curriculum: Under the guise of recommendations to teach critical thinking, these proposals present the false view that there is any question about whether evolution occurs. She writes:
It might be a useful critical thinking exercise for students to debate actual scientific disputes about patterns and processes of evolution, as long as they have a solid grounding in the basic science required…It would, however, not be a good critical thinking exercise to teach students that scientists are debating whether evolution takes place: on the contrary, it would be gross miseducation to instruct students that the validity of one of the strongest scientific theories is being questioned. (Scott, 2007, pp. 313–314)
Shouldn't it be: The history of Creationism should be taught in schools?
I didn’t “randomly” decide anything. I explained why that particular issue was the one that stood out to me as most pivotal in the debate. You don’t agree with that, but I don’t see you giving reasons why I’m wrong. For all you’re claiming that we’re calling you angry or toxic (or are getting ready to do so at some point), both Barney and I have tried to engage with you directly. I’m personally asking you to engage with the text of my RFD rather than generalizing about my imposing my own views on the debate.
I am not new to websites. I am at times mistaken for a sheer thrillseeking troll on other websites. Banned at times from places for my backbone.
I have learned one thing most moderators have in common:
The harder you push against then the more they call you angry and toxic, instead of addressing the contents of what you are saying. I believe there is probably a correlation between being an appointed moderator online and having a personality that reacts to emotion conveyed in posts readily, rather than contents of posts etc.
It seems involuntary, it is not unique to you guys.
"dismissing that point without addressing it. If you've got a problem with that, then clarify it because what I've seen so far is a bunch of generalized frustration."
Whiteflame's accidental description of Benjamin in this debate, in a nutshell ^^^^
Please narrate him more, you begun so nicely in your RFD until you randomly decided the debate ended in Round 1.
As I said to RM, if you've got a problem with my vote, I'm willing to discuss it. I feel I have a long enough voting history on this site and DDO for my voting paradigm to be pretty clear by this point, and no, I don't purport to be perfectly tabula rasa in every decision. I also don't think that that kind of voting is always best, though I respect the view from some voters that being tabula rasa should always be the aim.
This isn't the first time we've disagreed about how judges should view a debate and I have little doubt that it will be the last. I've got my disagreements with your vote, but I respect your decision and the time you put into writing it out. That being said, I think the claim that your vote is purely tabula rasa is just straight up wrong. You are not a blank slate and you don't behave like one as a judge. None of us do. We can attempt to do so, but we all come in with biases or against specific arguments and argument types, regardless of our feelings on the debaters or the topic.
As for why I voted the way I did, I have a whole RFD written out that explains it. If you want to chalk that up to bias and assumption on my part, I guess that's your prerogative, but it's not the basis for my decision. I gave how I saw the resolution, pointed to the arguments from Con that established a similar conclusion, and explained why they were persuasive. I'm not going to get into an argument over which side did the better job on every single point because, as I said at the top, there wasn't really a debate here and it didn't end up mattering much anyway. For me, it came down to semantics: whether Con sufficiently demonstrated a problem with the way the debate was framed, and whether Pro effectively defended his interpretation of the resolution. Both could have done better in these regards, but I see Con doing enough to get his point across, and I see Pro dismissing that point without addressing it. If you've got a problem with that, then clarify it because what I've seen so far is a bunch of generalized frustration.
You got robbed here. This debate was one of your finest in every way.
You executed it to perfection almost.
I think the one thing you could have done better was elaborate on what 'taught' constitutes. I know it could backfire, I get that, however Benjamin's attack on you falls even shorter if you can prove teaching about and teaching-is'true are both within 'teaching'. Our fear that exploring teaching could backfire
ended up what the voters able to punishbyou for.
You did so good in this debate, everything, your Round 2 was a masterpiece. I am sorry for you.
I gave the best RFD here. I did not go in with preconceptions influencing who i declared the winner.
I did not get along with Novice. I do nit have string feelings on the topic especially because I am cool with it being taught about but admitting evolution is the scientifically superior theory.
I was shocked and appalled at what a pussy and faulty debater Con was to Pro. Con did nit even once explain the detriment of the idea poisoning the sudent's minds or how vulnerable children are to faulty ideology, he just cried and cried at Pro's adept debating.
Benjamin got bodied in this debate in a way I have never seen him get bodied prior. You are blind if you do not see it, to everything good and skilled in Pro's case and the issues with Con's.
The irony of your last statement...
This is pathetic to see.
Sheer confirmation bias, 100%
You are enabling and encouraging crybaby attitude when entrapped by a cunning instigator.
Actually if Con cannot give a decent source and argument to thwart how Pro justifies and backs said definition, you are a scumbag tovote Con UNLESS Con proves cats dont truly meow
Tabula Rasa is one voting paradigm people may attempt to use. It however is not mandated on this site.
Our voting policy can be found at: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
We have one core principle: Strive to be fair.
If someone started a debate titled: "dogs meow" and then in R1 defined dogs as cats, I do not see it as favorable for voters to feign ignorance as to common knowledge of what dogs really are. To even understand logic for any good debate, necessitates some knowledge (as opposed to being swept up by every weak assertion as if it were golden).
Not that I see it as important for this debate. Both pro and con argued against creationism (at least as pro originally defined it) being taught in schools. To me at least, that was something pro did not overcome. I don't take any offense at the existence of votes going in the other direction.
I'm not much of a voter, but I have to agree with you on this RM. The mods especially should be setting the best standard for voting, especially when they have the power to also determine if votes meet the standards or not. Tabula rasa is, in my opinion, important for voters in a debate setting, and to see that the mods, who are supposed to be the golden standard, are doing what they are doing just seems off to me.
the two voting mods of the website don't comprehend tabula rasa at all. you are just voting based on what you feel was 'morally right vs my preconceptions of the debate' not what really went down here.
You can't assume shit about a debate title and its scope, that's violating tabula rasa.
Debates about creationism really bring out the best in people, it would seem.
Yes there is but you dont value privacy and anonymity like I do. If I ever voted against benjamin due to a report I am a retard who needs to be banned from voting. I wasted so much effort justifying a valid vote due to his report. Thats all. Me venting itself stopped the hostility. You are a man, you know how it is to fight and argue with someone and enjoy that masculine release. That is all it was.
With the profanity, I inferred some degree of hostility. To try to prevent any future issues between you two stemming from a misunderstanding related to it, I clarified his lack of involvement. Further, there was risk of voters fearing that Benjamin reports any votes against him, which this dispels.
Is there some reason you believe it to be harmful to correct such misinformation?
Lol! You think that line was about my vote? It was about Benjamin.
You shouldn't confirm he didnt report the revote.
> "Don't fuck around with me reporting my vote, Benjamin if you're not ready for a good spanking in the re-write. You're an absolute coward. I mean it."
Two things:
1. At least for the revote, Ben did not report it, nor did any moderator. It was some rando.
2. I have a hard time believing any RFD with that line connected to it is truly "tabula rasa."
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Jeff_Goldblum // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
From the first round, it is clear PRO engaged in a bad-faith misrepresentation of the case they intended to argue. Headlining a debate with "creationism should be taught in schools," without any additional details provided very clearly implies the proponent will argue along the same lines as conservatives and religious fundamentalists who advocate for creationism to be taught alongside evolution.
But that's not what Pro does. Instead they attempt to spring a manner of semantics ambush in R1, arguing that learning about creationism is important to various academic disciplines, just as learning about outmoded cosmologies is important to astronomy, for example.
Con very correctly and concisely calls this out, making plain the distinction between teaching creationism and teaching about creationism. Everything that follows in the debate is peripheral to this core issue; the BoP is on Pro by default, and having built the foundation of their argument on bad-faith semantics, their argument is weak indeed.
For these reasons, I award arguments to Con. I also award Conduct, because I have no patience for Pro's clumsy and unsportsmanlike attempt to move the goalposts.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does explain his interpretation of the resolution, how that affects the BoP in this debate, and as a result how arguments should be evaluated. That is sufficient for awarding arguments, though the justification on conduct is not sufficient. Introducing definitions in R1 instead of in the description is not a sufficient basis for awarding conduct. Even when it comes to giving slanted definitions, awarding conduct on the basis that the voter knows the more common usage of the terminology is not sufficient, particularly as the voter attributes much of this to the intentions of Pro, going beyond what was written in this debate to try to infer what the debater was thinking.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter goes to extensive lengths to explain each of his point allocations and does so sufficiently on each.
Jeff's conduct allocation has to be insufficiently justified. Moving the goalposts is not a conduct violation , Pro only set them in a way Con didnt like, Con actually complained about wanting to move them.
If my justification for conduct before was insufficient, so is jeff goldblum's 100%
Not all voters understand tabula rasa, they come into the debate with presumptions and involve that in their voting. While ideally, more voters would be like me, you yourself have benefitted from Ragnar failing to be that way in the debate I linked to earlier here.
It's a question of adapting to the voters and what they generally punish/assume.
This moron further states:
"very clearly implies the proponent will argue along the same lines as conservatives and religious fundamentalists who advocate for creationism to be taught alongside evolution"
Implying that a resolution must conforms to his own specific assumptions. This is not allowed in voting, and the vote must be removed
Jeff Goldblum has cast a vote that lies about me being bad faith or making a semantic ambush. It's completely biased and the conduct point is not justified
In another debate you referenced me voting against you as "biased, dishonest, and bad-faith"
Yet, you still have not indicated to any flaw in my vote.
This debate needs some more votes to resolve a voting controversy.
There's more to quote if I was going to quote every part relevant but those are the actual parts that explicitly have the arrogant or whiny tone that came to really make it an upleasant read for me as a debate judge and I will explain why it's not just whining that's the issue.
Issues:
Pro does not identify as male on the website, I can't be bothered to screenshot a profile or prove this, I know Pro has not identified as male unless it was momentary, I've now and again seen Pro's profile. Con misgendered Pro and in 2022, that is actually bad conduct yes. I'm not exaggerating but sure it's not like he called a directly identified gender as another, Pro's gender section is left 'unknown' so Pro could be male.
Con tells that Pro has no right to set (not move, set) the goalposts of the debate in a way that dissatisfy Con, let alone define terms like 'school' or 'Creationism' in a way that Con feels is unfair. That's bullcrap, the debate is fine and Pro has every damn right to do that. If Con doesn't like it, Con can 'move the goalposts' elsewhere but be aware that the Kritik-ban rule in the description would stop Con challenging assumptions made by Pro regarding that debate's topic.
Con says the position is unwinnable and that not only should voters sympathise with his unwinnable position but punish Pro for having a debate that is worthy of site-rule enforcement. Holy shit, what a goddamn coward. No, really, what an absolute coward. I don't care about the crying, I'd be whining too in his position but seriously Benjamin, what are you doing?
If the debate is against site rules to take place because apparently Truisms are so bad to debate that mods need to get involved as code of conduct has been violated, why is Con encouraging vigilante justice by voters? Clearly, Con should tap the flag at the top of the debate, say he fucked up accepting a Truism (which he thinks is not allowed to take place as a debate, lmao) and ensure the mods punish Pro for violating the CoC, right?
Don't fuck around with me reporting my vote, Benjamin if you're not ready for a good spanking in the re-write. You're an absolute coward. I mean it.
You came into the debate knowing what the title was, knowing you couldn't Kritik your way out of an awkward framing Pro may put you into. If you knew that and accepted anyway, you can't just cry about about it and act like some pseudo-snitch that we ought to punish Pro with an elo-loss for you to gain rating at Pro's expense when Pro was the one who caught you hook, line and sinker. Fuck off with that attitude, seriously. You enter the debating ring as equals. If you didn't enter as an equal, that's on you, nobody forced you to click accept and you had every opportunity to insist why Pro's framing was wrong instead of using your entire Round 3 and over 70% of your Round 2 purely whining about Pro trapping you into a situation where you didn't feel comfortable fighting the teaching of Creationism in schools because you didn't fancy the debate title's reference to Creationism being taught in the way Pro recommended as being relevant to the debate.
Do not do that. Do not threaten your fellow debater with violating site rules and needing to fear repercussion mid-debate because you realise you have no way to win. Think things through before accepting a debate, learn to spot traps, learn to set traps if you want to but do not play victim here. Do not appeal to my sympathy.
Even more revolting than the cowardice is the fact that you yourself tried to define 'school' and tried to hint at a movement of goalposts that Pro didn't enjoy or agree to. What about when you do it? Is Pro a victim then?
I will just spam quotes from Con and sum my Conduct vote up at the end. This is a valid way to justify a Conduct vote because if, to me, Pro didn't say or do bad conduct in the debate there is therefore nothing to quote from Pro in comparison.
"PRO simply cannot re-define an already well known debate, especially now when it is not mentioned in the description."
"I don't think my opponent adequately supports this position. I hope he makes a case relevant to the real debate rather than try to defend himself moving the goalpost."
"PRO argues that people need to know about creation myths to understand society, history and religion. He refuses to acknowledge the actual meaning of teaching creationism at school, by cherry picking definitions and semantically redefining the meaning of the phrase to mean "telling some people somewhere something about some form of creation myth". This way of framing the resolution it becomes a truism. Additionally PRO disallowed Kritiks. He is guilty of creating a truism debate."
" And finally PRO'S grand assertion: CON should be able to sufficiently challenge the status quo and tell us why creationism should not be taught at all.
PRO argues that people need to know about creation myths to understand society, history and religion. He twists the resolution in such a semantic way as to make "teaching creationism in school" so obviously permissible and uncontroversial that the resolution becomes a truism. Removing all creation myths worldwide from religious, historic, social and philosophical studies for everyone including adults --- that is both nonsensical and unheard of. The CON position in this debate is effectively impossible.
I invoked the CoC calling this a truism debate and PRO DID NOT OBJECT, thus conceding the point. Therefore, vote CON as truism debates are unacceptable and the voting guides calls to punish such debates. PRO never provided arguments for a non-truism interpretation of the resolution, so he can by definition not have won a fair debate to earn votes. His BoP is hardly touched on even if we disregard everything else.
I ask voters to vote responsibly."
===========
Preface to my conduct vote:
Kritiks.
"A kritik (from the German Kritik, meaning "critique" or "criticism") is a form of argument in policy debate that challenges a certain mindset or assumption made by the opposing team, often from the perspective of critical theory."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_policy_debate_terms#Kritik
"A strategy used primarily (though not exclusively) by negative debaters designed to question the assumptions which underlie the other team’s advocacy."
- https://www.nfhs.org/media/1017640/introduction-to-kritiks-2016.pdf
Pro did not actually ever Kritik. In fact, it is a Kritik itself to say Pro moved the goalposts because PRO IS THE INSTIGATOR HERE, not only Pro wrote the topic, Pro gets to set the goalposts of the topic. You can only fight back via moving the goalposts yourself.
Con actually doesn't do this to my knowledge in the debate, he dedicated the entire debate to crying about Pro moving the goalposts. That is to say that when I cover Kritik-rule violation in my 'Conduct' part of my reason for deciding to vote Pro, I will not be considering Pro deciding that Creationism needn't be taught as part of the science syllabus nor even Pro deciding that 'school' includes further and/or higher education as Kritiks. If the voting moderator removes my vote for this again, I am not sure what recourse I have as the other voting mod has vested interest via having voted otherwise in this debate.
Sources:
Con. PART 1 Mediocre reliability, brutally inconsistent sourcing regularly claiming things without sources and most importantly using sources that completely capitulate certain points Con is making, exposing his side to attacks from Pro.
Examples
====
1) https://www.britannica.com/topic/creationism
American .com but due to being Britannica (a well renowned Encylopedia) it is to be classified as educational. They are also behind the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Reliability: BACKFIRED Extreme, usage ~ trying to prove that Creationists are a modern and intellectually corrupt movement, out to remove evolution from being taught at schools, the literal quote that Con has as an excerpt from his source has this inside it:
" Today most creationists in the United States favour the elimination of evolution from the public school curriculum or at least the teaching of creationism alongside evolution as an equally legitimate scientific theory."
The part after the 'or' combined with the source itself having this within it:
"In 1950 Pope Pius XII released an encyclical confirming that there is no intrinsic conflict between the theory of evolution and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, provided that Catholics still believe that humans are endowed with a soul created by God. In 1996 Pope John Paul II expanded and reiterated the church’s position, affirming evolution as "more than a hypothesis.""
As well as Pro explicitly capitalising on the latter, via adding his own additional quote from Wikipedia to it (though Pro failed to reference it he hyperlinks text within the quoted excerpt so it's forgiven) lead me to believe that this source usage was a brutally poor usage of sourcing by Con to get his point across. Even though he quoted a part that said most American creationists want to remove evolution, he did not in any way cover how much is most (is it just 51% for instance) nor did he substantiate why this agenda itself means Creationism doesn't deserve the dignity to at least be taught in religious, historical and/or philosophical studies, which is the primary push that Pro had for it.
==========
2) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/
Edu link (educational)
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Reliability: (passive usage, near-backfiring) Extreme, usage ~ passively lets us know that Creationism as an officially backed idea to be taught and movement supporting its inclusion in school is relatively recent to human history. If you ask me personally, that would mean it's actually more, not less, important to be making students aware of than if it were a long-gone idea losing its relevance. I think this virtually backfires on Con but I admit this was a decent source, however this is literally the only decent source usage by Con in the whole debate.
Con does give some sources at another point pushing 3 at once to prove that peer-review is a part of scientific theory of big bang... That is literally nothing to do with the debate. I do get how big bang can interfeere with Creationism somewhat but this is barely explored at all. In fact many Creationists say the big bang may have been God's work so I myself know as a default that needs fleshing out by Con to be taken as directly relevant to the debate in any way at all.