The Instigator
Bix
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
JustCallMeTarzan
Pro (for)
Winning
43 Points

Childhood Religious Indoctrination is Psychological Abuse

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 11 votes the winner is...
JustCallMeTarzan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,875 times Debate No: 12379
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (34)
Votes (11)

 

Bix

Con

This debate is in response to claims I have been witness to over the internet that passing on religious values to children is akin to psychological abuse.

First let me define the term, psychological abuse. The following on-line sources define the term "Psychological Abuse.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

http://www.medterms.com...

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...

Of particular interest is the third source from the Journal of the Academy of Paediatrics as it comprehensively states the various forms of abuse, none of which constitute religious indoctrination in any of its forms.

It is clear that whoever makes such claims does not or refuses to recognize the nature of child psychological abuse or psychological abuse in general.

I would also state that there appears to be no statistical evidence for psychological abuse within any mainstream religious organizations. As opposed to statistics on sexual abuse by some clergy in Church organizations.

http://www.bringyou.to...

Even in the event of a withholding of information (as was the case in the Roman Catholic Church for decades), wouldn't authorities also reveal decades of psychological abuse relating to childhood religious education as well?

In regards to religious indoctrination itself, this activity can be seen as a form of primary socialization. http://www.encyclo.co.uk... There is no evidence that primary socialization within a normal social mores (religion is an accepted part of mainstream society) constitutes or can lead to psychological abuse.

It is my understanding based on the evidence provided that religious indoctrination does not constitute psychological abuse and is instead a form of the normal socialization of children.

On a final note, I see that much of the argument for religious indoctrination being a form of child psychological abuse seems to stem from the writings of British zoologist Richard Dawkins, in particular his 2006 book "The God Delusion" in which he makes such claims. Could this be a classic case of people with preconceptions about religion simply agreeing with Dawkins because he agrees with them, or a case of "He's a scientist, so he must be right"?
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

We are here today to consider the question of whether or not Religious Indoctrination constitutes Psychological Abuse. My opponent has graciously provided some definitions of psychological abuse that include various forms of emotional abuse as well. As he recommends, I will focus on his third definition, showing that among other things, religious indoctrination in children is/are instances of:

"----- Terrorizing (committing life-threatening acts; making a child feel unsafe; setting unrealistic expectations with threat of loss, harm, or danger if they are not met; and threatening or perpetrating violence against a child or child's loved ones or objects)."

"----- Exploiting or corrupting that encourages a child to develop inappropriate behaviors (modeling, permitting, or encouraging antisocial or developmentally inappropriate behavior; encouraging or coercing abandonment of developmentally appropriate autonomy; restricting or interfering with cognitive development)."

"----- Isolating (confining, placing unreasonable limitations on freedom of movement or social interactions). "

"----- Unreliable or inconsistent parenting (contradictory and ambivalent demands)."

"---- Neglecting mental health, medical, and educational needs (ignoring, preventing, or failing to provide treatments or services for emotional, behavioral, physical, or educational needs or problems)."

(Source: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... #'s 2, 3, 6, 7, 8)

I would further like to offer definitions of some terms (all from dictionary.reference.com):

Indoctrinate - to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.

Ambivalent (ambivalence) - the coexistence within an individual of positive and negative feelings toward the same person, object, or action.

I think all other terms are appropriately clear from their context.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

I would also like to briefly address my opponent's opening arguments. The notion that the church would disclose information regarding psychological abuse is an unwarranted inference; in fact, a much more logical inference would be that they would in fact HIDE such information to prevent its coupling with the sexual abuse scandals.

Second, primary socialization cannot be an excuse for religious indoctrination, as "mainstream society" contains many different religions, all with competing viewpoints on particular topics. Furthermore, since no one religion is prevalent among a majority (or perhaps even a plurality) of the populace, "normal social mores" can only be those mores that are common to all religions, making this assessment fairly useless, as indoctrination by its nature would require beliefs that are outside the "norm."

On a final note, my opponent's speculation on the motives of Richard Dawkins are immaterial to this debate. Farming passages from a book not written about child socialization and then attempting to discredit them by a straw man insertion of a fallacious appeal to authority (as well as to conformity) does not advance his case whatsoever. The arguments for the abusive nature of religious indoctrination is quite clear to anyone who has seen "Jesus Camp" or "Prayers for Bobby."

I shall rest my case until my opponent begins argumentation in earnest, or otherwise develop my arguments on the aforementioned points from his definition of psychological abuse in a later round. However, running short on space, I shall leave the resolution where it stands,

AFFIRMED.
Debate Round No. 1
Bix

Con

My opponent has accepted the debate and its terms.

He accepts the 3 definitions for child psychological/emotional abuse laid out in my opening statements.

He has focused on the third definition(s) laid out by the American Academy of Paediatrics and attempted to show that childhood religious indoctrination is applicable to said definitions. The definitions he as used to describe childhood religious indoctrination as a form of child psychological abuse are as follows.

"----- Terrorizing (committing life-threatening acts; making a child feel unsafe; setting unrealistic expectations with threat of loss, harm, or danger if they are not met; and threatening or perpetrating violence against a child or child's loved ones or objects)."

"----- Exploiting or corrupting that encourages a child to develop inappropriate behaviors (modeling, permitting, or encouraging antisocial or developmentally inappropriate behavior; encouraging or coercing abandonment of developmentally appropriate autonomy; restricting or interfering with cognitive development)."

"----- Isolating (confining, placing unreasonable limitations on freedom of movement or social interactions). "

"----- Unreliable or inconsistent parenting (contradictory and ambivalent demands)."

"---- Neglecting mental health, medical, and educational needs (ignoring, preventing, or failing to provide treatments or services for emotional, behavioral, physical, or educational needs or problems)."

In response to this, I would like my opponent to provide proven links between the selected forms of child psychological abuse and indoctrination practices. As it currently stands, my opponent's claim that childhood religious indoctrination constitutes the selected forms of abuse is unsubstantiated.

"I would also like to briefly address my opponent's opening arguments. The notion that the church would disclose information regarding psychological abuse is an unwarranted inference; in fact, a much more logical inference would be that they would in fact HIDE such information to prevent its coupling with the sexual abuse scandals."

I would ask my opponent to properly comprehend my statement about the Roman Catholic Church and child sexual abuse.

Here is my original statement:

"Even in the event of a withholding of information (as was the case in the Roman Catholic Church for decades), wouldn't authorities also reveal decades of psychological abuse relating to childhood religious education as well?"

Would my opponent please note that I specifically mentioned authorities who eventually revealed the period of sexual abuse within the church by some clergy. I did not ask why the church wouldn't have revealed the information itself. My actual question was that, upon the discovery of sexual abuse within that organization, why would these authorities (those who revealed the sexual abuse) not have also revealed details of psychological abuse as well?

"Second, primary socialization cannot be an excuse for religious indoctrination, as "mainstream society" contains many different religions, all with competing viewpoints on particular topics. Furthermore, since no one religion is prevalent among a majority (or perhaps even a plurality) of the populace, "normal social mores" can only be those mores that are common to all religions, making this assessment fairly useless, as indoctrination by its nature would require beliefs that are outside the "norm."

May I state that my opponent does not seem to properly understand the concept of "primary socialization" or that religious organizations are in and of themselves cultural entities with their own set of social mores which are socialized via indoctrination.

Firstly I believe a more in depth definition and explanation of socialization needs to be provided:

http://anthro.palomar.edu...

Secondly a religious community is in and of itself a culture and is therefore subject to the same rules of socialization both primary and secondary as in any other cultural entities (states, ethnic groups etc). Societal norms are specific to each cultural entity i.e. to each religious organization. There needn't therefore be any homogeneity within societal norms between religious organization as each functions as a unique and separate cultural entity.

In regards to my opponent's response to my final note:

This was not an attack on Dawkin's argument, but the seemingly blind acceptance of it by those I have witnessed promulgating it, all of whom have cited Dawkin's writings on the subject as the basis for their argument. This does not mean, nor have I made it out to mean, that there are not other cases to me made in support of the argument or even that Dawkin's is wrong. It is common for people to "jump on the bandwagon" of an argument or cause which they have done no prior research on. This was what I was referring to.
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

As I noted at the beginning of my first round argument, I will expound on the reasons I believe religious indoctrination qualifies as the aforementioned forms of psychological abuse. I feel I should note that I assume for the most part that we are talking of Christian socialization in Western cultures, but since this is not specified, I will bring in some other examples from around the world.

--- Terrorizing ---

Defined in relevant part as "setting unrealistic expectations with threat of loss, harm, or danger if they are not met," this threshold can be satisfied by the various behaviors parents expect from their children. All religious motivators carry a threat of loss, harm, or danger - i.e. hell, purgatory, sheol, no 40 virgins, etc... Thus, any prima facia expectation or expectation as applied that is deemed unrealistic would qualify here.

This article (http://203.10.46.30/ren2/gr09.doc) describes how educating children in a religious framework often sets aside immediate, realizable goals by a preoccupation with faith and hope for long-term goals. The author states that this creates "unrealistic expectations for personal change."

Another article (http://www.childrenshealthcare.org...) illustrates the point that fundamentalists have unrealistic expectations of their children because of their strict belief in the Bible, holding among other things that they are "men" and "women" by early adolescence.

Lastly, the child soldiers used in Somalia, Uganda, and the Central African Republic in religious conflicts can hardly be said to have been placed under realistic expectations - in fact, these children are essentially unrealistically expected to be essentially martyrs for their faith - perhaps best pointing out the terrorizing that takes place in religious socialization.

--- Exploitation ---

The relevant part to this position is the development of "antisocial or developmentally inappropriate behavior." Religious indoctrination, especially in children that are more inclined to believe the fairy tales they are told are true, can develop a bigoted view of others - i.e. "I won't play with Saheem because he's Muslim and I'm Christian." The goings-on in France should be plenty to convince anyone of this point.

--- Isolating ---

Surely it can be said that the indoctrination of women in a Wahhabist culture would be an "unreasonable limitation of freedom of movement or social interactions." Further, even in a Christian society, many Children are simply incapable of functioning in a world where the majority of people are aware of simple facts like the Earth's shape or that fire is not a miracle. This sort of misinformation damages social interactions for the child when he reaches adulthood.

--- Unreliable Parenting --

Ambivalent demands would be those that produce positive and negative feelings at the same time. There is also a connotation of spuriousness that is paired to ambivalence. However, the bizarre expectations that parents place on their children in religious frameworks certainly lead to ambivalence. For example, children dragged to Church may feel positively about practicing their faith, but negatively that they are forced to go to Church.

--- Neglect ---

There are many, MANY cases of religiously indoctrinated children being neglected by their parents as they "fail to provide treatments or services for the physical (medical) needs or problems" of the children. Here (http://www.childrenshealthcare.org...) is an article detailing the accounts of seven children who died as a result of the indoctrination procedures they were forced to undergo. Furthermore, those children that are indoctrinated to believe in "faith healing" will grow to be parents who believe this nonsense... parents who prolong the vicious cycle of abuse.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Some quick responses:

>> "Would my opponent please note that I specifically mentioned authorities who eventually revealed the period of sexual abuse within the church by some clergy."

While this is correct, and I will admit I misread the first statement, the "authorities" may have simply not discovered the psychological abuse. Either way, we are both speculating on this point.

>> "religious organizations are in and of themselves cultural entities"

Muslims in the US and Muslims in Iran do not share a culture. They share a belief. At best, a religious organization is a sub-culture of it's larger society - i.e. Catholics are not a "culture" anymore than Democrats are a "culture."

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

This debate is not about socialization. It is about indoctrination, which requires a partisan structure - an opposing view. If religions are cultural entities in themselves, we would be talking about socialization. The resolution presupposes religious institutions are part of a larger culture, and as such, stands

AFFIRMED.
Debate Round No. 2
Bix

Con

May my opponent please note that I have indeed not specified which religion I was referring to. I am in fact referring to the indoctrination practices common to all denominations within all the world's major religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Shinto, Chinese Folk Religions).

My opponent has expanded upon his claimed links between the forms of psychological abuse he selected and childhood religious indoctrination. I will now address these claims in the order he has made them.

"setting unrealistic expectations with threat of loss, harm, or danger if they are not met,"

A Christian parent would undoubtedly consider hell just as real a threat to a child's well-being as a sex offender or an electrical socket and thus warning their children of such a danger and how to avoid it constitutes responsible parenting within their culture. My opponent also provides no evidence to support that being taught the concept of hell would inspire fear to the extent that it would be psychologically damaging and thus constituting psychological abuse.

"This article (http://203.10.46.30/ren2/gr09.doc) describes how educating children in a religious framework often sets aside immediate, realizable goals by a preoccupation with faith and hope for long-term goals. The author states that this creates "unrealistic expectations for personal change."

This article is mainly concerned with the definition of "Faith Development" as it relates to the other sectors of education within the educational framework of Catholic Schools. Though it cites criticisms of the way in which faith development is both defined and practiced, it's overall tone is not in anyway condemning or dismissive of religious education. Might I suggest my opponent properly comprehend his/her sources before providing them, as this source does not support my opponent's argument.

"Another article (http://www.childrenshealthcare.org......) illustrates the point that fundamentalists have unrealistic expectations of their children because of their strict belief in the Bible, holding among other things that they are "men" and "women" by early adolescence."

This article concerns a variety of religious views about corporal punishment. It has nothing to do with religious indoctrination as defined in the opening statement of this round in that corporal punishment is not a universal tenant held by all Christians. As the article makes clear, some Churches oppose corporal punishment.

Furthermore, it is not universal Christian doctrine to place children in the firing line. Specific conflicts are not named nor are sources given that prove they employ child soldiers let alone as religious martyrs.

"antisocial or developmentally inappropriate behavior."

My opponent provides no evidence that links the teaching of religious articles in childhood with discrimination against people of other faiths in either childhood or adulthood and he/she makes an unsubstantiated link between this and religious unrest in France

Though religious intolerance is a reality in most societies, it is not considered a form of psychological damage, nor does it have any links with psychological abuse in childhood.

"unreasonable limitation of freedom of movement or social interactions."

Wahhabi Islam is not a mainstream sect of Islam and its indoctrination practices do not reflect those of Islam as a whole. Would my opponent please refer back to the opening paragraph and to the corporal punishment rebuttal. Christians do not hold that the earth is flat or that fire is a miracle and my opponent provides no evidence that religiously educated children are unable to function outside of their Christian subculture or that this education is damaging to social interactions in adulthood.

A piece of anecdotal evidence to the contrary: I work with several Christians who display perfectly normal social skills.

"Ambivalent demands ..."

My opponent makes claims to "bizarre expectations" without explaining what these expectations are nor does he/she explain what a "religious framework" would be in relation to a parent having such expectations. My opponent's hypothetical situation is contradictory. The church is a place almost exclusively devoted to the practice of the Christian faith. One assumes a person going to church is doing so with the express purpose to practice their faith and a reluctance to do so also indicates a reluctance to practice their faith.

--- Neglect ---

The withholding of conventional medical treatment is not part of universal Christian doctrine or indoctrination practices.

"At best, a religious organization is a sub-culture of it's larger society - i.e. Catholics are not a "culture" anymore than Democrats are a "culture."

A subculture is still a culture irrespective of it being a part of a larger entity. The resolution is that religions are (sub)cultures and as a result, socialization applies. As a result, indoctrination is a for
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

My opponent has hamstrung his own argument by admitting he is referring to "the indoctrination practices common to ALL DENOMINATIONS within ALL the world's major religions" while at the same time seeking to discount Wahhibist Muslims and their indoctrination practices because it is inconvenient to his argument.

At this point in time, I shall simply begin responding to my opponent's rebuttals, as I have made my major points clear.

>> "Wahhabi Islam is not a mainstream sect of Islam and its indoctrination practices do not reflect those of Islam as a whole."

All denominations, remember? Please tell me that these examples (http://www.hizb.org.uk...) (http://expat21.files.wordpress.com...) (http://www.inminds.co.uk...) are not of an "unreasonable limitation of freedom of movement or social interaction."

>> "A Christian parent would undoubtedly consider hell just as real a threat to a child's well-being as a sex offender or an electrical socket..."

The unreasonable expectation here is not simply the threat of hell, but rather the expectation that a CHILD is willing and mentally competent to set aside their present hopes for a future that is years away. This is an abuse of the trust a child has in their parents - the child does not know better than to take their word as truth - truth that removes their ability to think for themselves without the terrible guilt of sin hanging on their conscience.

>> "Might I suggest my opponent properly comprehend his/her sources before providing them, as this source does not support my opponent's argument."

It is clear my opponent does not understand the larger context of the argument. This is a specific case of the INDOCTRINATORS THEMSELVES admitting that they are walking a dangerous line beside unrealistic expectations, and that, sometimes, they DO ask unrealistic things of the children they are educating.

>> "This article concerns a variety of religious views about corporal punishment... corporal punishment is not a universal tenant held by all Christians"

But it IS held by some. All denominations, remember? The point is salient - sometimes religious indoctrination involves abusive corporeal punishment.

>> "Furthermore, it is not universal Christian doctrine to place children in the firing line. Specific conflicts are not named nor are sources given that prove they employ child soldiers let alone as religious martyrs."

Who said anything about Christians? But now that you mention it, in "Jesus Camp" they do in fact refer to the children as soldiers for God... But I was referring to the thousands that have died in conflicts in the Middle East and Africa, where children are taught from an early age that the enemy is a God-hating (or Allah-hating) despicable fiend. Here's a great article from Time about it (http://www.time.com...). In Africa, 1986, 3000 child soldiers fought... not all for religion, but some, yes (http://www.faqs.org...).

>> "My opponent provides no evidence that links the teaching of religious articles in childhood with discrimination against people of other faiths in either childhood or adulthood and he/she makes an unsubstantiated link between this and religious unrest in France"

I was unaware that commonly known current events needed to be "substantiated." Perhaps in another debate I should have to provide evidence of an oil spill in the Gulf? (http://en.wikipedia.org...) - This should satisfy you concerning the social problems in France, particularly in the schools.

>> "Though religious intolerance is a reality in most societies, it is not considered a form of psychological damage"

Except that religious intolerance is form of unacceptable or antisocial behavior, which my opponent's own source considers to be psychological abuse.

>> "One assumes a person going to church is doing so with the express purpose to practice their faith and a reluctance to do so also indicates a reluctance to practice their faith."

I doubt this position will find much sympathy among the readers who were dragged to church as children.

>> "The withholding of conventional medical treatment is not part of universal Christian doctrine or indoctrination practices"

Doesn't need to be. All denominations, remember? It is a part of SOME fundamentalist ones like the Christian Science Church.

>> "The resolution is that religions are (sub)cultures and as a result, socialization applies"

Nooo... the resolution is at the top of the page. Religions are no more cultures than political affiliations. It is a deliberate misuse of terms.

AFFIRMED.
Debate Round No. 3
Bix

Con

My opponent has miscomprehended the first paragraph.

By "...the indoctrination practices common to all denominations within all the world's major religions", will my opponent please take note that this means indoctrination practices which are *universal* to those world religions *irrespective of denominations found within them*.

For example, the doctrine that one must pray facing the city of Mecca is used by *all denominations of Islam*.
Conversely, the strict seclusion of women from public places without a male to accompany them is only observed by more conservative branches of Islam such as the Wahhabi sect and is thus *not a universal doctrine* of the religion.

I will now provide a rebuttal to my opponents points.

"The unreasonable expectation here is not simply the threat of hell, but rather the expectation that a CHILD is willing and mentally competent to set aside their present hopes for a future that is years away. This is an abuse of the trust a child has in their parents - the child does not know better than to take their word as truth - truth that removes their ability to think for themselves without the terrible guilt of sin hanging on their conscience."

Will my opponent please provide evidence that children are commonly required to consider their future prospects whilst disregarding current goals or aspirations and that such a requirement to think ahead constitutes an abuse of trust as it relates to the definition of abuse provided. It is reasonable to assume that all caring parents wish for a good future for their children and will try to provide a good a good starting ground to ensure such a future.

Sin is defined within the Christian subculture as immoral behavior. Guilt is the normal expression of a conscientious person having done something immoral. A child feeling guilty about having committed an act deemed immoral within their culture is thus a healthy expression of their conscience and is by no means "terrible".

"It is clear my opponent does not understand the larger context of the argument. This is a specific case of the INDOCTRINATORS THEMSELVES admitting that they are walking a dangerous line beside unrealistic expectations, and that, sometimes, they DO ask unrealistic things of the children they are educating."

The article provided was not written by those providing religious education but by a person commenting on those education providers. Thus the context of the article is his argument, which is not one of condemnation or dismissal of religious education/indoctrination. Secondly, the article is not indicative of all centres of religious education, and thus is irrelevant to this debate.

Will my opponent please note that from this point onwards all arguments made in regards to indoctrination practices which do not comply with parameters set in my last round and explained in this round will be considered irrelevant to the debate and thus ignored.

"I was unaware that commonly known current events needed to be "substantiated." Perhaps in another debate I should have to provide evidence of an oil spill in the Gulf? (http://en.wikipedia.org......) - This should satisfy you concerning the social problems in France, particularly in the schools."

Regarding the topic of religious unrest in France, will my opponent please note that I asked not for the events in France to be proven to have occurred, but for a link between such events and religious indoctrination in childhood. Furthermore, I would again ask my opponent to provide evidence that religious indoctrination in childhood leads to religious discrimination in adulthood.

"Except that religious intolerance is form of unacceptable or antisocial behavior, which my opponent's own source considers to be psychological abuse."

Will my opponent please properly comprehend the source provided as it does not state that antisocial behavior is a form of psychological abuse, but that the *teaching* of such behaviors constitute psychological abuse. Please note that my opponent is yet to provide evidence for religious indoctrination in childhood leading to religious discrimination later in life.

"I doubt this position will find much sympathy among the readers who were dragged to church as children."

This is clearly speculation, not a rebuttal and is irrelevant to the debate.

"Nooo... the resolution is at the top of the page. Religions are no more cultures than political affiliations. It is a deliberate misuse of terms."

http://www.answers.com...

The resolution that religions are subcultures, which are in themselves cultures, stands.

In conclusion, my opponent has been unable to provide any evidence that religious indoctrination is a form of psychological abuse as he has chosen to define it with reference to the sources provided. My opponent makes many unsubstantiated claims and cites irrelevant sources and miscomprehends several statements, all undermining his argument.
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Responses:

>> "will my opponent please take note that this means indoctrination practices which are *universal* to those world religions *irrespective of denominations found within them*."

To accept this principle in reading of the quote "the indoctrination practices common to all denominations within all the world's major religions" would be to look for those practices that are common to all denominations in all religions... which would be very, VERY few practices. My apologies, but my opponent is bound by his unfortunate wording. It seems that my opponent would like to limit this debate by plays of phraseology to only those incidences of indoctrination that are convenient for his argument. Perhaps he should have said "Writ large, religious indoctrination is child abuse."

>> "Will my opponent please provide evidence that children are commonly required to consider their future prospects whilst disregarding current goals or aspirations and that such a requirement to think ahead constitutes an abuse of trust as it relates to the definition of abuse provided."

This is getting ridiculous... do the readers expect a study that produces this exact requirement? Obviously, one can think of a situation wherein a child may be asked to give up a present want in the name of religion... like, say, LENT? There is no "source" needed to recognize an abuse of trust present in the request that a child take the parent's word for something they are incapable of thinking through for themselves that will bind them until their late teens. It is no coincidence that religious doubt occurs as the brain matures.

>> "The article provided was not written by those providing religious education"

Incorrect. Rossiter is a professor at Australian Catholic University.

>> "Secondly, the article is not indicative of all centres of religious education"

Immaterial, as we are still concerned with all forms of religious indoctrination.

>> "Will my opponent please note that from this point onwards all arguments made in regards to indoctrination practices which do not comply with parameters set in my last round and explained in this round will be considered irrelevant to the debate and thus ignored."

I'm all for my opponent ignoring arguments, but the point I made at the beginning stands. It is unfortunate that he has chosen to ignore these points in the final round.

>> "I asked... for a link between such events [in France] and religious indoctrination in childhood."

If there are problems arising because of religious differences in children at schools, then religious socialization is obviously part of the cause.

>> "the source provided [states that] the *teaching* of such behaviors constitute psychological abuse."

If the children exhibit religiously antisocial behavior, they obviously learned it from somewhere.

>> "The resolution that religions are subcultures, which are in themselves cultures, stands."

This is quite humorous - apparently subcultures are themselves cultures. If a subculture had all the necessary requirements to be cutures, they would be.

***********************************************

Throughout this debate, my opponent has continually asked for "substantiation" of my claims. I have given such substantiation where required. It is not a hallmark of intellectual honesty to ask for substantiation of common knowledge or studies and articles to confirm what is easily deduced.

I should also remind the readers that my opponent refused to address my point about child soldiers, the social abuse of Muslim children, and most importantly, terrible neglect visited upon children in the form of "faith healing."

If these atrocities are not "psychological abuse," which they clearly are, then it is hard to imagine what WOULD be abuse. Further, if we accept my opponent's ludicrous redefinition of what constitutes a viable culture, and what abuse itself is, then it would be impossible for religious parents to abuse their children because whatever they did would be common to their tiny sect of a subculture.

Readers, this debate is clear. The resolution stands

AFFIRMED.
Debate Round No. 4
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 6 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
All things considered, negation is a tricky place to go... Perhaps it is a bit of a semantic argument to negate with one or two examples, but consider the alternative... if one had to negate All S are P with No S are P, then the same problem would arise where the resolution would be saved by one example. Do you see what I mean there? I think it's really a balancing act. Yes, one example would negate, but it has to be a reasonable example.
Posted by Procrastarian 6 years ago
Procrastarian
You must mean isn't as your third to last word.

I guess my problem with this debate is that it purports in its title to be about something it actually isn't. If you were to post a challenge to me with you as con on the resolution "Teaching Children Atheism is Psychological Abuse" would I only have to find specific circumstances of the resolution being true to uphold it? It seems a bit intellectually dishonest to have a debate's title not represent what the debate's truly over (This is, of course, assuming that Con is in agreement with you over the true meaning of the debate).
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 6 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Lol - I see what you did there... I think it would be more accurate to say I understood the resolution as standing for the proposition that it is not the case that all religious childhood indoctrination is psychological abuse...
Posted by Procrastarian 6 years ago
Procrastarian
I think I can see the core of our disagreement now. I thought the resolution was "Childhood Religious Indoctrination is Psychological Abuse" and you thought the resolution was "It's untrue that Childhood Religious isn't Psychological Abuse."
Posted by unlikely 6 years ago
unlikely
All religios indoctrination is child abuse....Let them decide when they are old enough....are you too scared
Leave the kiddies alone....
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 6 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Ah - I had assumed P1 was Premise 1.

Ok... this debate is the form All A are non-B. Why? Because it was put forth by Con, which means that regardless of the wording, his actual claim is that indoctrination is NOT abuse. So lets look at it two ways, the first of which is I think how you are viewing it.

NOT (All A are B)
Negation then should be (All A are B), right? Here's why not.

All A are B means that No A is a Non-B, or in other words, in the limited set we are dealing with, No A can be a B. So Not A AND B. Or: ~(A & B)

~(A & B)
The negation of this does not have to show that in all cases there are A & B, but rather that A & B coexist in at least one instance.

Does that make sense?
Posted by Procrastarian 6 years ago
Procrastarian
But you're Pro, and you're defending the resolution A is B. If what you conclude doesn't match the resolution, shouldn't you lose? I agree with everything you've said in the comments and I've even learned bit about negation, but when it comes down to it, what matters is the resolution, the fact that you're pro, and the fact that you argued not that all A are B, but that some A are B.

In your example,

Resolution: All A are B.
P1: I can prove that Some A are non-B.
Conclusion: NOT All A are B.

shouldn't P1 be "I can prove that some A are B"? I was using P1 to indicate the Pro side of the argument, which should be in support of the resolution.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 6 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Ok - the root of the problem is here:

>> "Conclusion: A is B"

If the resolution is (A is B), then what we are looking for is something quite different. Let's rephrase these in their logical forms:

Resolution: All A are B.
P1: I can prove that Some A are non-B.
Conclusion: NOT All A are B.

**** Note that the conclusion is not "NO A are B." ****

Let's go one step further and use this debate as an example.

Res: All I is non-A
JCMT: At least one I is A
Concl: Therefore, NOT All I is non-A.

I'm not saying All I is A because at least one I is A - and I think that's where you are getting hung up.
Posted by Procrastarian 6 years ago
Procrastarian
Tarzan, I think I was a bit confused with the logical specifics of negation, but I don't think that my misunderstanding detracts from my point about the debate.

My primary issue is with how you are trying to prove a general statement from specific statements. Consider how my analogy compares to your debate. Here's the line of logic you seemed to be using:

Resolution: Childhood Religious Indoctrination is Psychological Abuse (A is B)
P1: I can prove that in a bunch of cases A is B
Conclusion: A is B

Resolution: Homosexuals are Rapists (A are B)
P1: I can prove that in a bunch of cases A are B
Conclusion: A are B

I'll debate this same resolution with you if you want. I find it offensive and clearly untrue.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 6 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Procrastarian, your misunderstanding comes from not realizing that:

All H are R; and
All H are non-R

are not negations of each other. They describe two sets. They are contradictory in that they cannot both be true, but they are not the negations of each other in the sense that we look for in determining when a proposition is false.

Consider:

All S are P
~(All S are P)
:. At least one S is non-P.

If ALL S are non-P
:. At least one S is non-P

What you are understanding as the simple negation is the categorical negation of the proposition - it's direct opposite. Let's use a simpler example.

All the fruits in this bushel are apples. I only need to find one orange in the bushel to make the first statement false. The statement is ALSO false if all the fruits turn out to be oranges, but I only need to find one.

Better?
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by silverynekochan 6 years ago
silverynekochan
BixJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 6 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
BixJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by cjl 6 years ago
cjl
BixJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by brighteyes16 6 years ago
brighteyes16
BixJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Procrastarian 6 years ago
Procrastarian
BixJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
BixJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by rbrownell 6 years ago
rbrownell
BixJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 6 years ago
sherlockmethod
BixJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by BobMarleyIsDead 6 years ago
BobMarleyIsDead
BixJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ravenwaen 6 years ago
ravenwaen
BixJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24