To clear up some confusion, I am referring to a style of formal interscholastic debate common in American high schools and colleges called “policy debate,” or sometimes “cross-x debate” or “switch-sides debate” (to distinguish it from an older version that involved four-person pairs of teams, two of which always debated on the negative side and the other two, always on the affirmative side). It is organized in national circuit tournaments like the Tournament of Champions and in leagues like the National Forensics League (NFL, “forensics” being a generic term for speech and debate), and the NDT (National Debate Tournament, a college tournament).

blah critique blah blah so there

Hahaha! Scrolling down past it is so much quicker and easier.

For completeness, I’ll make some more obvious ones

1. alt. doesn’t solve–Hitler will find another justification for his atrocities. His racial views were preconceived and evolution was just one way to justify them.

2. Case outweighs–One individual’s ravings don’t compare to the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

3. Impact turn–2,000 years of violence and WW2 prove Christianity leads to way worse shit than Nazism.
Scenario one: Nuclearism / disaster porn (believing in afterlife –> wanting the apocalypse –> self-fulfilling prophecy –> extinction)
Scenario two: Genocide (duh)
Scenario three: Suppression of science/knowledge (impacts of war, disease, famine, AIDS, poverty, energy, global warming, econ, everything else known to man)
Scenario four: Coercion (impacts into Petro and meaning of life)
Scenario five: Nietzsche (for the lulz)

4. Theory
Interpretation: The Theory of Evolution is a statement of fact
Violation: The consequences of belief or nonbelief have no bearing on the truth.
Standards:
1. Core issue – Statements of fact get to the core of the issue of Evolution vs. Creationism (AmazingAtheist 09).
2. Predictability – We can only know what is or was, predicting the future is impossible.
3. Lit. doesn’t check when you make shit up that isn’t in the literature.
4. Limits – If they can read arguments about everybody who ever believed in evolution or creation, they explode the topic to billions of possible arguments.
5. Clash – Every time we answer their last poser, they just ignore it and come up with something else irrelevant. Sticking to fact is key to responsive debate.
6. Science (see impact scenario three)
Voter for the sake of reason.

In a real debate I would then extend case and laugh at them for seven minutes. They would concede before the neg block.

He somehow extrapolates this fact to races, claiming that like different species, different races should never interbreed or work together, that it is impossible, and further that each race has certain, distinct, immutable, defining characteristics. Therefore he is literally justifying his hierarchical and violent racial beliefs at least in part by an understanding of nature exactly the opposite of Darwin’s, and certainly today’s, Theory of Evolution.

There is also some decent material out there about how, though Hitler did embrace some of Darwin’s views, his actual beliefs were more in line with Lamarckian evolution, Darwin’s chief competitor.

Of course, none of that actually matters, because the whole argument is an absurd and textbook example of the association fallacy, and even worse, Hitler was even more a Christian than a Darwinist, but it is amusing that the argument is wrong on literally every level.

A summary of religious identification in Australia between 1996 and 2006, from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, is here: http://tinyurl.com/ms5cpd

But something else is growing and these are the conspiracy theorists. They have become cults. People against vaccination, people against global warming, poeple againas Evolution, People against the moon landing. They all have on thing in common like the religions people. They are beeing brainwashed.

Religion seems to be replaced by something even crazy, the conspiratie theories.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html