The Instigator
JamieKerr
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Heineken
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Children should not be allowed to be taught religion is true

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 6 votes the winner is...
Heineken
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,682 times Debate No: 29088
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (6)

 

JamieKerr

Pro

I thank anybody who is willing to take part in this debate. Firstly I make it clear that children should not be taught it is untrue either. Simply say, "Some people believe this and some people don't"

I believe any form of telling your children that your opinions are true in pure indoctrination. I also believe it can lead to bigotry, as I have seen through many instances of Gays being excluded and Jews being told to go to hell.
Heineken

Con

Thank You Pro. You have created an incredibly articulated premise and it is an honor for me to debate this topic.


Pro established:” Firstly I make it clear that children should not be taught it is untrue either. Simply say, "Some people believe this and some people don't.” “

Rebuttal: Unless I’m mistaken (which I could be), it appears that Pro is advocating that children should learn about religion. Yet, the burden of proof clearly states that “Children should not be allowed to be taught religion is true”.
Pro defeats his own burden with the opening argument.

-----------------------------------------

Pro stated: I believe any form of telling your children that your opinions are true in pure indoctrination.

Rebuttal: Actually, indoctrination is defined as an effort “to teach (a person or group of people) systematically to accept doctrines, esp uncritically.” [1]
Simply telling your children that your opinions are true is not indoctrination. You would also need to teach them that all other opinions are untrue and that they cannot question your authority on the topic.

What my opponent calls indoctrination, I would call a “myopic worldview”, naivety or good old fashion lies. Indoctrination is far more malignant.

-----------------------------------------

Pro established: “I also believe it can lead to bigotry, as I have seen through many instances of Gays being excluded and Jews being told to go to hell.

Rebuttal: Anecdotal argument.

-----------------------------------------

Over to you Pro.

http://dictionary.reference.com...; [1]
Debate Round No. 1
JamieKerr

Pro

Thank you Con for accepting my debate.

My stance is that children should be taught about EVERY religion, and not be told by anyone which one that person believes is true.

The reason I believe that any form of telling your children (or any kids for that matter) that their opinions are facts is indoctrination is because once they get into the habit of believing something is true, it is difficult to accept it if one day you convince yourself otherwise. An example of this is that one kid that still believes in Santa when nobody else his age does.

Over to you con.
Heineken

Con


Pro stated: My stance is that children should be taught about EVERY religion, and not be told by anyone which one that person believes is true.


Rebuttal: Anecdotal argument. My opponent has failed to provide a reason explaining why children should be taught any religion, much less every religion. Additionally, my opponent did not respond to my objection over his use of the word “indoctrination” and continues to use the word incorrectly. I find it disingenuous to the premise, to accuse anyone of such malice without citing any evidence or examples.


----------------------------------


Pro restated: The reason I believe that any form of telling your children (or any kids for that matter) that their opinions are facts is indoctrination is because once they get into the habit of believing something is true, it is difficult to accept it if one day you convince yourself otherwise.


Rebuttal: Another anecdotal argument; one ripe with irony. Consider, my opponent is trying to convince the reader that forcing your belief upon another is indoctrination. Why then does the opponent begin every round with “I believe”, followed by an absence of supportive evidence or source information?


Are we concerned with what my opponent believes? Of course not. We are concerned with what my opponent can prove, which has been lacking thus far.


In fact, my opponent has not only failed to supply a reasonable argument for his burden, he has failed to address my objections. Until my opponent furnishes an actual argument, I have no choice but to extend my round one argument.


----------------------------------


Pro established: An example of this is that one kid that still believes in Santa when nobody else his age does.


Rebuttal: Interesting objection. Unfortunately, Saint Nicholas is real (or was, rather). We know when he was born (270 AD), we know where he was born (Patara) and we know why he is a time-honored cultural icon (charity for the poor). [1]


He was one of many Bishops present at the first council of Nicaea and his signature can be seen on the Nicaean Creed.


Additionally, my opponent’s example is fantastic in nature, not religious. Fantasy and faith may be cousins, but they are not the same thing.




All arguments extended.


http://en.wikipedia.org... [1]


Debate Round No. 2
JamieKerr

Pro

What my opponent has done here is remarkably odd, by than saying I have not responded to the objection of my use of the word "indoctrination" then immediately write down my argument, well done.

Your beliefs are KEY in anything and everything you will ever do. There are no arguments you could make without beliefs. For example, you could tell me that 9/11 killed many people, and we should punish the people who caused it, but to want to do that you would have to BELIEVE that it was wrong. I'm not going to be stupid enough to say it is a fact you should not push religion on children, I might be horribly wrong, but in my opinion it is unlikely.

Interesting objection indeed, but I believe you are nit picking, not at my argument, but my choice of language, and I know you know what I meant. Santa Claus, or Santa, is a man who travels the world in one night on flying reindeer that lives in the North Pole. Not the man he was based off.

In fact, I think you just added that last bit in so you could say you have source material, which is what you criticise me for.
It was irrelevant, and other than that you had no source material. You just wanted to not look hypocritical.
Heineken

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his expediency. He posted his rebuttals with impressive alacrity. I do, however, take objection to the last round ad hominems. I understand that my opponent might be upset about my tedious arguments, but we are here to debate. Unless I plan to forfeit the sum of my arguments to semantics, I will make sure to specify and define the points of discussion with a certain care for detail. It is not necessary to devolve our discussion into rude mudslinging.

The burden for this debate was inherently confusing. The title resolution stated one premise:
Children should not be allowed to be taught religion. (1)
This is followed by the opening arguments, which establishes:
Children should possibly be allowed to be taught religion as long as it's not through indoctrination. (2)

-------------------

In my
opening arguments I noted that Pro defeated his own burden by contradicting the title resolution with his opening arguments. Pro did not respond to this objection and thus dropped his first arguments.

Additionally, I cited the American Heritage dictionary for the proper use and definition of the word "indoctrinate". Surely, my opponent could have easily found source evidence to support religious indoctrination of children by their parents or teachers, but he did not. Instead he used anecdotal evidence which fell short of even meeting the definition of "indoctrination".

For his final round one argument, Pro stated axiomatically that indoctrination leads to gay exclusion and Jewish condemnation. I found this argument seriously lacking merit and articulation. Hence, I dismissed it as anecdotal also. Pro did not revisit this point, dropping it along with my first objection.
--------------------

In the second round, Pro behaves as if it's round one all over again. He addresses none of my objections and reforms his initial argument in the same fashion, using (again) nothing more than anecdotal evidence.
In this round, Pro attempts to define indoctrination as kids "believing something true,"..and finding "it is difficult to convince yourself otherwise."
As defined in round two, indoctrination is the forced supplying of a single form of information, to the exclusion of all other information, that cannot be challenged and must be accepted uncritically.
Pro's understanding of indoctrination is clearly lacking which is made apparent in his utter lack of evidence.

As a final attempt to sway opinion, my opponent explained that a child is indoctrinated to believe in Santa Claus and sometimes suffers socially for clinging to the belief longer than his peer group might.
Again, this is not indoctrination. This is an example of fantasy.

Despite my opponent's objection, my citation of the historical Santa was relevant, as it clearly showed that "believing" in a Santa Claus is not entirely irrational. However, I continued my argument by acknowledging the contemporary incarnation of the Santa Claus by defining it as "fantastic in nature, not religious."

My opponent did not respond to my objection on the use of fantastic creatures in a debate on religious indoctrination and thus dropped his final argument along with the rest.

My opponent provided no evidence.
My opponent provided no real arguments.
My opponent provided no rebuttals.
My opponent resorted to character attacks in his final round.

I strongly urge a vote for Con and I also urge my opponent to continue to be an active member of this site.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
JamieKerrHeinekenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:43 
Reasons for voting decision: Con seemed to want to redefine the debate question to fit his needs. Rather than arguting whether or not religion should be true, he argued as if the question was whether it should be taught at all. He gets points for sources since pro used none, but loses points for conduct and arguments due to the issue I mentioned above. Spelling and grammar is obvious.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
JamieKerrHeinekenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's ad hominem's lost him conduct, plus he supported his opponent's position.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
JamieKerrHeinekenTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO is correct in the resolution: kids should not be taught lies except for the purpose of encouraging skepticism; as such this requires not teaching them lies that are difficult to disprove such as religion. Despite this, PRO did an awful job of defending his position and wasted CON's time by failing to know his position and failing to discuss it with others before instigating a formal debate.
Vote Placed by CIIReligion 4 years ago
CIIReligion
JamieKerrHeinekenTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO defeated his on debate. CON had better arguments. Nothing more to say!
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
JamieKerrHeinekenTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: A lesson was delivered by Heineken.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
JamieKerrHeinekenTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an easy call. Pro had the burden of proof and provided no non-anecdotal evidence that teaching children religion is true is indoctrination or even harmful for the children in some way. He also made unwarranted insinuations about Heineken's character in the final round. Con provided the only source.