Talk Origins is an excellent site. You should also check out these:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ (Understanding evolution.)

http://www.talkreason.org/ (Arguments against creationism, et. al.)

BTW, your screen name is useless without knowing which protocol/network it's for.

thanks you guys for all the help im a highschooler but i guess according to my teacher im "way above my level" so i just want to be able to descuss it intellegently but thanks for the help if anything else comes up please let me know you guys are amazing one problem i am having though is getting through to this one kid about the catholic church distorting the views of the pagans. i know that this will come up what can you guys help me with on that?

What kind of debate is this and for what grade? In other words what is the objective for the discussion? There is nothing wrong with asking the other side for a framework that they will use. It gives both sides an idea where the other side is going for a more lively debate.

I would study some of the creationist claims at www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html and try to anticipate their questions. There are quite a few standard arguements. I would spend a lot of time on transitional fossils and anticipate the attack that many of these fossils are faked. Also remember that biogenisis and evolution are 2 distict fields of study. Evolution doesn't have an answer for the origins of life. 

One tactic I have used is to get them to admit that micro-evolution happens. If you can get them to admit micro-evolution occurs then you have them on the ropes. The problem is that most will not take the leap into macro-evolution. Young Earth creationism is still a big barrier to break because if the Earth is young macro-evolution can't take place. If they start saying the Earth is young ask for proof. At some point they will have refer to the bible.

This is a good chance to reiterate the scientific method because way too many people what scientific theories are vs scientific laws, hypothesis and just a "theory".

In just about any debate with creationists there will be an appeal to emotion with statements like, "Hitler was a Darwinist". If they attempt to get out of the context of the discussion (i.e. science vs philosophy) steer them back to the topic at hand and do not let them steer the debate to emotional responses.

Hope this helps a little bit. Good luck in representing.

Argument and Debate: Forms and Techniques, Part 1

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

Critical thinking is a must. I think educating yourself on logical fallacies and how to think logically is one of the most important things you can learn. You will have to get them to think logically. Remember that a debate is supposed to be about determining the truth. How do you do that? You need some sort of criteria for determining what is and isn't valid reasoning. That criteria is logic.
The first thing you should address is probably the need for evidence. How do you determine what is and isn't a rational belief? What makes something believable? The answer is evidence. That is the single most important thing you have to establish, and once you've established that, you've laid the groundwork for the rest. Once you get them to agree that evidence is what makes something believable, the rest shouldn't be too difficult. The sites linked to above should privde all the evidence you need to establish your case, and refute their "evidence." One point you might make is that, if creationists really think they have something of significance to say, why don't they submit it to a peer reviewed journal? Then census would sway accordingly.

If people are annoyed at you for trying to convert them, then don't. Just learn to think logically, and then you can demonstrate when others aren't. An easy way to see if something is logical is to apply the same kind of reasoning to something else and see if it holds. So if someone uses a flawed line of reasoning, apply it to something else to show how it's not right.

I can't imagine how evolution negates the need for a creator. As an atheist I still find that evolution and a possible creator can co-exist. You may be able to work that in somehow if they start appealing to emotions.

Another good website is www.Pandasthumb.org so I use it all the time.

Here is a link to an actual written debate from PBS. This might give you ideas as well. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/debate/ 

Some of the creationist arguments you may hear are irreducible complexity and recapitulation doctrine. The first one is kinda interesting, but the second discarded by scientists a long time ago, however it still does come up time to time.

How does evolution not negate the need for a creator? Even if evolution and a creator co-existed, that doesn't mean evolution doesn't negate the need for one. Frankly though, even admitting the possibility, there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of an outside influence on our evolution.

Infidels.org was linked to, and that's another great site with a lot of good content, though some of it may be a bit high level for high school. It has formal debates, among other resources.

Tanath, so far in my research into evolution, it appears that evolutionary theory presupposes life, and merely explains how life progressed from a very simple state i.e. single cellular and multi cellular organisms. I think the science that you are referring to, which was already mentioned, is abiogenesis. Abiogenesis explains the theoretical ways in which life arose judging from evidence we have today, of how things were in the past.

So, evolutionary theory by itself does not really address the origin of the life question i.e. the Creator question. Was there a Creator? Evolution would not attempt to answer that question. However, evolution would challenge and attempt to redefine the beliefs one may hold about how a hypothetical Creator made everything. Evolution would say that the Creator most likely didn't just breathe or speak and everything instantly came into existence how we see it all today. Rather, evolution would point to evidence for a very slow, and often extreme dumb (mindless), process of progression and development.

That's my humble two cents on the subject.

Agreed.

The articles by Hambydammit are a great start to exactly this:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/argument_and_debate_forms_and_techniques_part_1

Not to mention the fact that invoking a creator is just plain useless and lazy.  It answers nothing and leaves you with the more difficult question of who created the creator.  Even if you take the 2001: A Space Oddessy aproach and say that life on Earth was started by aliens, that still does not solve the origin problem.  Those aliens still had to evolve indipendently didn't they?  That does not solve the problem it just moves it to another planet.

Well, are they even going to accept that evolution has been demonstrated in other species? If you can get them to accept that, then yes, it's a valid point. And you can point to chromosome 2, among other things, as evidence that we have common ancestry.

Why settle for demonstrating it in other species, you can bring up evolution of humans with the following:

1) Sickle cell heterozygote has a high selective advantage in areas with Plasmodium while it is a disadvantage in areas without it (early death due to blood clots)

2) Lactase persistence; multiple single nucleotide polymorphisms which arose independently in multiple populations of humans and overlap in areas with high milk-production dependence.

3) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html

4) A map of any SNP demonstrates diffusion of genotypes from the point of origin, which IS evolution.

If your classmates are hardcore creationists then they likely don't accept evolution in any species.  So I would not go that rout.  The basic stratagy that creationists have always used is to try to make evolution look flawed by pointing out the gaps in our knowlege.  They say it is "just a theory" and point to the fact that not all species have known transitional forms (some even say no transitional forms exist which is a flat out lie) and that natural selection has never been observed.  The idea is that if they can make evolution look like it is full of holes then the genesis creation story is the only alternative.  You need to be firm about a few key points...

1. Make sure you point out the fact that evolution is the currently accepted model for how life came to exist on Earth.  You have the authority of the entire scientific community on  you side.  It is not up to you to prove evolution.  Your opponent must try to prove that evolution is false.  Furthermore he/she must also demonstrate that creationism is a viable alternative.  Remember, even if evolution were not correct that does not mean that the story of genesis is.  Don't let them get away with saying or implying that creationism should win by default.  Ask them to show why creationism is a better scientific theory.  What kind of "research" do creationist institutions do?  What evidence for creation (not just against evolution) have they come up with?  The answer is none.  Check out this website for some info on the "Institute for Creation Research" (ICR) it should help with this.

http://www.atheists.org/evolution/reversing.html

2. The fact that not everything is yet known about how evolution works does not invalidate it.  There is nothing in science that is fully understood.  That is not a weakness.  That is what makes science exciting and able to change to fit new information.  There are just as many gaps in our theory of gravity but does that mean that gravity is not real?  The same holds true for evolution.  Scientists debate the details of how evolution works.  That is where the "theory" of evolution comes in.  But nobody who is respected in the scientific community denies that it happened.  Evolution is scientific fact!

3.  Transitional forms do exist and are known from the fossil record, you can find some good examples on line (look up "archaeopteryx.&quot  Transitional forms are "links" between a species and its evolutionary ancestor.  They look like an in between version of the species and show how the species evolved from its ancestor.   It is true that transitional forms are not known for every species but that is because fossils are rare.  Fossilization doesn't happen all that often.  Even so, new "missing links" are being found all of the time.  Also, there are examples of natural selection being observed in nature.  Two classic examples are the peppered moth and penicilin.

NO NO NO!  Definitely don't take this approach.  Sorry, Roc, but this is totally wrong.  The thing that evolution has over creationism is that it does hold up to scientific inquiry!  Don't throw away your strongest advantage!  Yes, you have the entire scientific community on your side, but if your opponenets are going to assert that creationism is true, then they must prove creationism.  The proof of their proposition would necessarily disprove yours.  Don't skip a step and give them an undue advantage.

Anyway, here's how it should go in a nutshell:

Kasey: Primer on evolution, eukaryotes and prokaryotes, sexual vs asexual, recombination, crossover, point mutation, Muller's Ratchet, etc...  Ladies and gentlemen, virtually all biologists on the planet (Well over 99%) know that all of these concepts are true, for the predictions made with evolutionary theory have allowed us to make incredible advances in medicine, gene therapy, cloning, etc.  The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.  In the history of evolutionary science, we have thousands of advances that are direct results of predictions from the theory of evolution (Provide examples.)  Now, I offer a challenge to my opponents.  Please provide documentation of one advance in modern medicine that has been accurately predicted and brought to fruition using only Creation Science, and eschewing the principles of evolution.

When you're done with all that, go back to a primer on debate and critical thinking, and explain again that anyone making a claim must prove their own claim.   You've done your job.  Now, let the opponent prove their own claim with as much detail and scientific accuracy.

****

See?  No need to get into the whole "Disprove evolution" thing.  That's getting into treacherous and illogical territory.  Granted, in many formal debates, there is a negative and a positive, and all the negative must do is disprove the positive to win, BUT, the positive must first make an adequate case for itself, or the negative need not respond at all, so there is still a burden of positive proof.  Also, this is not that kind of debate, for each side is making their own positive claim.  In this case, the winner is the side that provides a more compelling case for their positive claim.

Finally, keep in mind that a debate can be won or lost before the cases are stated.  Make sure that you are thoroughly versed in logic, and know how to defend the notion that the positive claimant must defend his own claim.  Make sure to include this in your opening statement, with clarity, and without any wiggle room for the opponent.

I would also avoid this approach.  Kasey, everything that has ever lived was a transitional organism.  "Species" is a rather arbitrary method of categorizing things.  It's not a description of the reality of evolution.  Consider the fact that there is no such thing as a monkey who looks at her new baby one day, and it's a human.  For the sake of illustration, imagine that there are 10,000 evolutionary steps between Homo erectus and Homo sapien.  Now, imagine that each of 10,000 generations produces one descendant (out of thousands!) who advances one step.  In 10,000 generations, you have a human, right? 

What you have to consider is that for each of those 10,000 generations, there were thousands of individuals who were NOT on the path to humanity -- they died childless, or their children did, or their great, great, great, great grandchildren did.  Though none of their offspring's descendants are alive today, they were part of the process, and they could well have produced an entirely different 'species.'  Yet, if we find one of their fossils today, we might well call them Homo erectus.

Now, that illustration is horribly simplified, because every human on the planet today is genetically different, and might be the father or mother of an entirely new species.  We will not know, however, because it will be thousands of generations before this species is clearly delineated enough for a future scientist to put it in a separate box from Homo sapien.

Any one of us.  Maybe you, maybe me, maybe Kelly or Brian.  Any of us could be the father or mother of a new species, but species are only identified after the fact.

Does that make sense to you?

Having said that, we do have fossil evidence of species that became other species.  We have a really awesome fossil record of the horse, for example.  We have tons of such evidence.  The trap in this is conceding a point to creationists by allowing them to persist in the belief that "species" means anything concrete outside of science books.  Everything is transitional, because natural selection is at work in every single organism that lives.

Here's something we could try. Post some of the arguments that you plan on using here, and I (and maybe some other people on this board) will respond as if I was a creationist. That way you have an idea of what the creationists are probably going to respond with, and you will know how to refute it.

Granted, I'm not actually a creationist, so I might not be able to twist my mind around the same way they do, but I think I can get close.

Having everyone tell you to "read this" and giving you advice on how to argue is nice and all, but you're going to need a bit of practice before you get into this debate. So, if this sounds good to you, post an argument and I'll refute it.

That's a great idea. 

Kasey, if you're still paying attention to this thread, why don't you post a draft of your presentation.  I was a Christian for a long time, and I guarantee I can give you as good an argument as any high school Christian opponent.  I'll be happy to help you with that if you'd like.