The Instigator
MitchellDeYoung
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
zippo
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Resolved: Forcing religion upon children is immoral

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,261 times Debate No: 7444
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (2)

 

MitchellDeYoung

Con

I believe that forcing religion upod a child is immoral.

In order for aff to win, they will have to prove why it is immoral, the neg must prove the opposite to win.
zippo

Pro

It was never forced on me as a child, though I was given the opportunity and chose atheism. I turned out ok.

Lets think of it this way. What if... a child was born, and was destine to be a scientist, had the IQ, the drive and determination before he even exited the whom (graphic I know) However, because as a child his parents forced religion on him which then set him on a track to being a priest instead of a successful scientist, who if hadn't been forced a religion could have cured cancer, 50 years from now saving countless lives. Not to mention being remembered by the entire world as the person who cured cancer. Instead because he was forced to "believe" he is now known as one of those old creepy guys, who you need to watch around your kids now. All because his/her parents forced this idea that religion was right and essential to live a successful healthy life.
Debate Round No. 1
MitchellDeYoung

Con

Id like to start of by stating that within the first three lines my opponent seems to have already contradicted himself. By stating that this child was destined to be a scientist before he was born would mean that he would turn out to be a scientist. But as later stated this child does not become a scientist but rather a priest, making it impossible for him to be destined to be a scientist.

The point that I would like to argue today will be moral. As children we are not capable of making the correct decision at all times, had I been allowed to do whatever I wanted I would only have eaten candy and never gone to school. Its blatantly obvious that children need to be taught how to act, converse with others and respect all. Parents sometimes have a hard time getting the point across so they bring religion in not only to have a common connection with their kid, but also to bring this moral guidelines into the picture.

In this specific debate I will refer to the Roman Catholic Bible, even though I'm sure the same standards exist within all religions. First I would like it say there is no better way to teach moral then to read a book to your children based on a person that does only the right thing. On top of that, such things as the Ten Commandments create a moral framework that is known to be applicable to non-Christians. Being forced into religion is in the best interest of the children, where as not teaching them religion would make the incorporation of a moral framework much harder.

A religion is not like a contract, there is no binding clause stating that a person cannot leave. When the child is old enough to make the decision on his/ her own then they can drop the entire thing all together, but the moral framework will still be there because its what they were raised on. I'm not going as far as to say if religion isn't used that all kids will be immoral, but rather that the institution of religion is helpful in the expansion of morals early on in childhood. It is moral to teach children the difference between right and wrong. this is a correct and effective way of doing so.
zippo

Pro

Id like to start of by stating that within the first three lines my opponent seems to have already contradicted himself. By stating that this child was destined to be a scientist before he was born would mean that he would turn out to be a scientist. But as later stated this child does not become a scientist but rather a priest, making it impossible for him to be destined to be a scientist.

1st off dont call me an opponent. We're not in a boxing match, we're having a debate. 2nd don't play a fool saying I've contradicted myself, you know exactly what i was talking about yet you tried to twist it to your own advantage. We both know you knew exactly the intent of my statement. So please don't cheat. The point i was making was if it wasn't for the parents forcing religion he would have been a scientist. Of course i could have phrased it differently. However, i didn't think it would be picked apart with such stupidity. Give me a break.

Next you mention if you were a child all you would eat is candy and apparently you would not have went to school, if your parents didn't force religion upon you. It wasn't forced on me, yet my parents still taught me morals, knowing that eating candy everyday as i got older wouldn't sustain me throughout the day was pretty obvious, and to be perfectly honest with you, I would rather learn out for myself that candy was bad to eat everyday, then find out from some "friendly priest" that candy is a good treat..... ( i think u get what im saying) or shall i get out the coloring books for you) I'll wait for you to pick that apart while desperately seeking something to use against me in your next speech. If the parents are having trouble teaching their kids that candy all the time is bad for them and not going to school will make them dumb, then maybe its time to introduce counseling. At least you can go in with your child and get to the route of the actual problem, instead of forcing religion on them, which could inadvertently cause huge side effects for the rest of us 50 years from now. (curing cancer etc, because we all know this baby is destine to do that.)

Tenth
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his a$$, or anything that is your neighbor's

I wouldn't force feed the 10 commandments to my child with a 1 million foot pole. With such old rules as that 10th commandment i posted above. Its a joke.

I know nothing a bout the bible, haven't read the bible and i don't ever plan on getting past the 1st page of the bible If i do, it was because it was on a dare. So let me go on by saying there are many books out there that are specifically designed for parents to help teach their kids morals, without having to force religion on them. Because in 20 years when the baby becomes an adult, he wont have much say on what his religion is because he's been forced into it his entire life and its just what he's become used to. In my personal opinion religion puts a blanket on reality. It makes people believe false facts about why we are here and where we came from. If religion was forced on this child he would already know where we came from, according to the bible (adam and eve) so what curiosity would be left in him to go on to become a great scientist if he was force fed this fake idea that we all came from 2 people.

Its not a correct way of doing it, force feeding a fake book onto someone as a child getting them to believe falsities is just plain barbaric and should be against the law if you ask me. I also agree that its not a binding contract and they can leave any time they want. However like you just said they leave with morals, what you didnt say is they also leave with the belief that there actually is a god (which there is not) imo. Thats like me as a parent reading only disney books to my kid because the books have good morals not only just to learn morals, but to learn that peter pan actually exists and someday when my child dies he will see peter in the after life. Give me a break. With something so fake as the bible it should be against the law to force it upon our youth. Im all for morals, but there are other less life ruining ways to do it, than forcing religion onto an unwilling victim. Why should parents help keep religion alive, its nothing more than a blood sucking company trying to get its fair share of the pie. Although in my books its not so fair, lying to people and then asking for donations.
Debate Round No. 2
MitchellDeYoung

Con

Zorro seems to think that having religion forced on you as a child will turn you into some religious whack job rather then leading a "normal life" this is not the case. Over %50 of scientists are religious, more then likely as a child they were taught teaching from religions such as christianity. By simply stating that all children will become preists is an asinine statement and is not plausible what so ever.

Im not sure what Zorro is referring to by "friendly preist" i can only assume with the current issues that he is meaning a pervert touching little kids. If that is infact the case i believe it is irrelivent and should be saved for a different debate.

Onto the subject of this "amazing baby" that has be created to save mankind. As i previously stated, just because you are forced into a religion does not mean that you are going to turn out to be a priest. All that this religion is doing is implementing a moarl structure that parents might not be able to fully cover on their own, no where do i imply that they will be brainwashed into the priesthood.

Whenever religion is the subject, many people insist that it must be taken at face value and means everything. If you were to ask any priest about the bibles interpritations they would all agree that it is ment for the morals within and not supposed to be taken literally. I am not saying that religion is why we exist, but it implements moral guidelines. In no way can learning how to act hinder anyones life. It will not lead them away from what they are supposed to be. Heck, you dont even have to stick with it forever but regardless of your standpoint, you will have been brought up learning about morals and abiding by them.
zippo

Pro

The priest was just an example of what can become of that type of atmosphere. You are giving your trust in these people and they are taking advantage of it by molesting children. I'm not saying its only limited to priests, yet it seems to be a very important topic that actually does relate to this debate. Unless of course a priest has nothing to do with religion, then in that case you are 100% correct.

About the "super baby", I never said there were no scientists that have no religious faith, but I also know and have read and watched on television that it does conflict with their jobs, and the decisions they make in their career. In fact even the scientists themselves debate the very existence of "god" and Adam and Eve. Some believe it and some don't. How do we expect to find out all the answers in life (cancer) if this magical book has spelled it all out for us? Should the rest of society who believe in atheism have to suffer because groups of people live their entire life based on what some fantasy book tells them to do.

=========================================================
Here are some facts that prove that only a small percentage of scientists actually believe in creationism
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.

One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.

=========================================================

The reason I posted that information was to point out the fact that there are only a handful of scientists who actually believe in creationism, would there be more scientists if there was no religion to hinder them entering the scientific field to begin with? I would have to argue yes there would be many more scientists to help discover the meaning of life, and maybe even a "super baby" to help cure cancer 50 years from now.

Lastly you keep repeating morals, morals and morals yet I have given you a reason, why to choose counseling over religion.
Debate Round No. 3
MitchellDeYoung

Con

MitchellDeYoung forfeited this round.
zippo

Pro

Well thanks for lasting as long as you did. ...... opponent forfeits
Debate Round No. 4
MitchellDeYoung

Con

ill debate it indepth when i have time, again im truely sorry.
zippo

Pro

Its no problem at all. Once you get everything sorted.. We'll start this debate again.. just challenge me.. maybe we can even copy and paste what we already put down lol.. Take care man
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Defualted PRO, CON gave up.
Posted by MitchellDeYoung 8 years ago
MitchellDeYoung
im sorry, i will not be able to finish this debate due to family problems. Sorry to zippo for the conflict.
Posted by Meganrihanne1992x 8 years ago
Meganrihanne1992x
i agree with this debate it is immoral , kids are so mind provoked...

and thanks :)
Posted by zippo 8 years ago
zippo
Well take your time, i have a few debates on the go. I will most likely answer yours later tonight
Posted by MitchellDeYoung 8 years ago
MitchellDeYoung
haha im in no way done, dont you worry. im just lazy right now.
Posted by zippo 8 years ago
zippo
aww don't give up that early.. Keep me on edge till the very end.
Posted by MitchellDeYoung 8 years ago
MitchellDeYoung
yea i dont like religion what so ever, im just trying to challenge myself by debating a side i dont believe in. Lurkers exist on all sites, really annoying.
Posted by Epicism 8 years ago
Epicism
Trust me, they do. Long before I ever came here. They hide in the shadows, waiting for someone to slip up on their resolution... kinda creepy in a way lol. I like this topic, Its such a shame this actually happens in many countries today.
Posted by zippo 8 years ago
zippo
Im not smart enough to come up with a clever scheme like that, however thanks for spelling it out for everyone.. I just hope they don't attempt your idea lol.. I know i wont
Posted by Epicism 8 years ago
Epicism
Just be careful, I've seen a lot of smarta$$ed people take up these debates and then say something like "Con supports my case already therefore I win!" and people actually vote for them. Of course it doesn't seem zippo is mean like that so nothing to worry about.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by JBeukema 8 years ago
JBeukema
MitchellDeYoungzippoTied
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 wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
MitchellDeYoungzippoTied
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:07