The Instigator
neebs56
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ZenoCitium
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Should Children Be Indoctrinated

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 4 votes the winner is...
ZenoCitium
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 719 times Debate No: 45312
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

neebs56

Con

In the world today, the relevance of religion to our modern society is a highly debated subject, and one of the most common topics of the subject is that "Should children be indoctrinated". My opinion? In laymen"s terms, no. I think that it is abhorrently wrong that people brainwash children. The reason that children believe in religious views, is that they will believe most things they are told. They don"t make the rather obvious connections between mass killing and being a bad-tempered and indiscriminate ". that any adult would when told the story for the first time. But then we tell children all sorts of preposterous things and they lap them up. There are two very good reasons for this: firstly children don"t have enough experience of life to see how crazy some of the things we tell them are and secondly a capacity to accept to see the other side of the argument.
ZenoCitium

Pro

Thanks for posting this debate CON. Good luck.

Since CON has started round 1 with his opening arguments, I will do the same.

DEFINITIONS:

Indoctrinate
1.Teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically:
Example: "Has an atheist who practices religion in Borneo overcome the beliefs he was indoctrinated with?" [1]

Uncritically
1.Not expressing criticism or using one"s critical faculties [1]

Belief System
A set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs of any such system can be classified as religious, philosophical, ideological, or a combination of these. [2]

Brainwash
1.Make (someone) adopt radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible pressure [1]
We can see through these definitions that brainwashing is slightly different than indoctrinating. The difference in the definition is highlighted in the words: make, radically, systematic, and forcible. I am not sure if CON prefers to provide more insight into his use of the word brainwash in round 1. I do see that he is currently debating another member regarding these two words and that he maintains that they are the same. I"m not sure if "brainwashing" really deserves to be in this debate since the resolution of this debate is that children should not be indoctrinated and makes no mention of brainwashing. I would like to urge the voters to consider this and make CON responsible for providing an argument and evidence that brainwashing is the same as indoctrinating if he uses the term brainwashing in future arguments. I would also like to point out that the definition of brainwashing, like that of indoctrinating, is not isolated to cruel or harmful beliefs. It is simply a more demanding and forcible method of indoctrination that uses methodical means.
Also, since brainwashing is defined as the adoption of radically different beliefs it is curiously out of context in his argument that religion is "brainwashing" since the majority of Americans are religious. According to a yearly aggregate of 2013 Gallup polls, only 15% of Americans declared that they had no religious preference. [3] This would maintain that the belief systems associated with non-religion or "atheism" is the radically different ideology.

CONTENTION 1: Indoctrination is not limited to religious beliefs.

We can see from the definition section that the term indoctrination is associated with any set of beliefs, not necessarily beliefs that are cruel or harmful or religious in nature. It is simply teaching someone or a group a set of beliefs without, at the same time, providing the opposing belief or beliefs. Non-religion, non-theism, and anti-religion are all belief systems. Therefore, teaching children these belief systems without providing their critic"s viewpoints or providing an overview of the contrasting religious beliefs is indoctrination. It appears that CON"s argument, since he argues against indoctrinating children, should be that teachers and parents should teach children all view points and criticism of each belief system they learn. However, his round 1 argument insists that children should be indoctrinated with non-religious views. I"d like CON to clarify this in subsequent rounds as it appears his views and arguments support PRO.

CONTENTION 2: Indoctrination can and is typically used to instill a positive belief system in children.

There are a few examples of, what most people would call, positive belief systems that are typically indoctrinated by children. Democracy, for instance, is a belief system that we typically teach without great criticism. Common criticisms include irrational and uninformed voters and inefficiency. This proves that CON argues that teachers should provide alternate belief systems to democracy, such as authoritarianism, at an equal extent in lessons on governing ideology so that children can determine, on their own, which system they prefer. Other examples include chivalry, which some critics label as sexist, and desegregation, which one criticism maintains that it is sometimes necessary as in affirmative action.

CONTENTION 3: Indoctrination is a clear and efficient method of teaching belief systems to children.

According to the distinguished psychologist Jean Piaget, children progress through a series of four key stages of cognitive development. The ability to use deductive reasoning and understanding of abstract ideas does not develop until the final stage, labeled "The Formal Operational Stage" [3]. This stage begins in adolescence and spans into adulthood. Before this stage, children struggle to see other people"s perspectives. They see morality in black and white and see rules as absolute. It is therefore very confusing to children if their teacher attempts to provide all criticisms of each belief system they are taught. Instead, it is the teacher"s responsibility to teach the best belief systems to the children, drawing from their own life experiences. When the child enters adolescence it is guaranteed they will question, evaluate and test every one of their belief systems. This is the natural order of development and supporting their growth as they become adults is important. However, when they are children they benefit more from absolute reasoning.

CONTENTION 4: Indoctrination is conceivably impossible to avoid.

In order to truly avoid indoctrinating children, we must teach every belief system equally and consider all criticisms. This is an incredibly inefficient method of teaching children and conceivably impossible altogether. In the end we would be leaving them to evaluate each best belief system and to adopt the best with almost no life experiences to draw from.

CONTENTION 4: Indoctrination is a constitutional right.

There are currently no laws preventing indoctrination so it is not possible to keep parents from indoctrinating their children. Specifically, the indoctrination of religious beliefs is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. This perhaps was the first amendment because its importance was easily recognizable by our country"s founders, who fled from the religious persecution in England.

REBUTTAL:
As I stated in CONTENTION 1, CON"s round 1 arguments support the indoctrination of non-religious views to children and therefore his current arguments support the PRO position.

Unfortunately, I did find that CON"s arguments were plagiarized from the source below labeled [4]. I urge voters to at least consider preventing the award of any points related to source or conduct from CON. This is a clear and significant violation of DDO rules and conduct so a complete forfeit should be considered as well.

[1] Oxford English Dictionary
[2] Wikipedia.org
[3] http://www.gallup.com...
[4] http://right2think.org...
Debate Round No. 1
neebs56

Con

neebs56 forfeited this round.
ZenoCitium

Pro

Round 2 was forfeited by CON. Since there are 5 rounds, I think that it is probably acceptable to proceed without a total forfeit (unless the voter decides CON's plagiarism in round 1 warrants a total forfeit). I'm ok with proceeding to ROUND 3 but would argue that a CON forfeit of ROUND 3 should be looked at as a total forfeit).

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 2
neebs56

Con

neebs56 forfeited this round.
ZenoCitium

Pro

CON has forfeited this debate. Please vote PRO.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 3
neebs56

Con

neebs56 forfeited this round.
ZenoCitium

Pro

No surprise there. CON has forfeited again.
Debate Round No. 4
neebs56

Con

neebs56 forfeited this round.
ZenoCitium

Pro

Con forfeits.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by ZenoCitium 3 years ago
ZenoCitium
No surprise there. CON has forfeited again.
Posted by ZenoCitium 3 years ago
ZenoCitium
@Seeginomiata: Do you think that he meant to have this debate "Should we indoctrinate our children with religion?" I didn't realize this until a little into pulling together my first round argument (when I found the source he plagiarized). I could have probably assumed what he meant, but I think we should stay ON topic (the topic that CON defined himself which specifically negates the term "religion").

No one should have to assume what we are debating. I also, honestly, lost motivation for this debate since he plagiarized. I've seen voters completely forfeit an opponent for plagiarizing so I thought maybe he would forfeit himself by not posting any further rounds.

In either case, this debate has 5 rounds so I figured CON would enlighten us a bit more and maybe we can hone this debate into the true topic CON wished to debate (whatever that may be). I do hope that he doesn't use his plagiarized source any further. I read through the article and found it quite hateful. I respect everyone's religious or non-religious views equally, but stating that teaching a child the concepts of heaven and hell are the same or worse than sexually abusing a child is sick.
Posted by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
Pro looks like a smart guy, but not nearly smart enough. The entire Pro case was off-topic.
Con should have been more clear, but if I can understand what he meant the debate to be about, so should the pro.
Posted by andrewbarnard94 3 years ago
andrewbarnard94
The format of this debate is poor. No one believes that children should be brainwashed, but the poster seems to think that religious teaching is brainwashing. I'd be glad to debate on that topic, but debating on whether or not children should be brainwashed is silly since we all agree.
Posted by neebs56 3 years ago
neebs56
@SPENCERJOYAGE14 you can vote pro if you like even though on face value you are slightly agreeing with the other side
Posted by SPENCERJOYAGE14 3 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
I would like to accept this debate except I'm a bit confused, will pro be debating it is good for children to be indoctrinated? And if so, could I argue that not all religious people indoctrinate their children and that brainwashing is not a problem?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
neebs56ZenoCitiumTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
neebs56ZenoCitiumTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Xerge 3 years ago
Xerge
neebs56ZenoCitiumTied
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: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
neebs56ZenoCitiumTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.