Creationism should be taught in schools.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- 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
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.
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.
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
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.