The Instigator
Hi5562
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jaynorth
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should Children be Forced to Attend Religious Gatherings?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/11/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 431 times Debate No: 68129
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Hi5562

Con

The first round is only for accepting the debate and providing 1-5 sentences outlining the reason for your stance so we both have something to work from. Please note that I would like this debate to be civil and profanity-free. I also would not like to see any 'spelling shortcuts' (bcuz etc ) or confusion between your and you're, or anything related. In other words, this is a FORMAL debate, and your formal language should help you to win provided you have a decent argument. I am against forcing children into a religion, and taking them to religious gatherings, because when a child can ask for something in a calm, reasonable manner and explain his/her rationale, a parent should relent and allow the child to stay home.
Jaynorth

Pro

Forced-obtained or imposed by coercion or physical power

Everyone has the right to there own opinion. I would also like to not use the word force for that means physical power and I do not condone that.

Now I do believe that parents have the right to advise and handle there children in the way as they see fit until they are 18 or no longer living in there parents home.
Debate Round No. 1
Hi5562

Con

Hi5562 forfeited this round.
Jaynorth

Pro

So by forfeiting that round do you have no further argument?
Debate Round No. 2
Hi5562

Con

I sincerely apologize for forfeiting the previous round, but my internet package expired and I had to renew it.

First, I would like to thank the opposition for their acceptance of the debate. However, the definition of 'forced' given by the opposition is only one of many. The Oxford dictionary lists several, one of which is: '2 (often be forced) make (someone) do something against their will'. Therefore, the use of the word 'forced' is perfectly acceptable in this context. Also, the opposition has stated that parents have the right to advise and handle their child in the way they see fit until the child reaches 18. If parents have the right to force/manipulate children into attending a religious gathering, even when the child has tried to argue against it, then shouldn't the parents be allowed to: deny their child medical care, forgo vaccines, impose 1800s era living on their child and pull their child out of mainstream education at 14, simply because they believe it is the 'right thing' to do? These are all real-life examples that have/will be detrimental to the children's health and futures. To further highlight the massive flaw in the opposition's statement, I will use the Jonestown Massacre as an example of why children should have at least some input into a religion. The Jonestown Massacre involved the 'holy suicide' of 400 people, some as young as 4. Among the group were teenagers, many of whom were suspicious from the start due to several mentions of suicide by their extremist pastor/priest/religious leader. A report from one teenager who defected before the suicide revealed that all of the teenagers argued with their parents against entering 'The Temple', CITING PERSONAL ACCOUNTS AND EVIDENCE. They were ignored, and were later poisoned BY THEIR OWN PARENTS. While I admit that the massacre in Jonestown is an extreme event that is very, very rare, it only goes to show that parents do not always know all of what is best for their children's lives. Finally, scientific evidence has proven that many people are capable of rational thought at 11, and have some idea of what their religious beliefs are at 9. Therefore, forcing children to go to a religious gathering is not only ignoring their beliefs and ideals, but if the goal of bringing a child to a religious gathering is to convert him/her to the religion, it is also USELESS.
Jaynorth

Pro

Jaynorth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Hi5562

Con

Hi5562 forfeited this round.
Jaynorth

Pro

The word force is only being used by yourself so I repeat again I do not condone to abusive ways of parenting or "to make someone do something against their will."
But I will say it is for the matter of religion, not the other examples you have stated, but for religion the parent has the right to do their job and "parent" and I repeat "parent" not the words you used such as force and manipulate.

but let's say you are right in children can make unguided decisions on their own.

So lets even use the age of the scientist you quoted 11 years of age lets take that 11 year old and give that "child" a gun without the parents consent but as you say he can make logical decisions
does that still makes sense? no

what that child does with the gun or what he wants with that gun is his choice
but it's the parents choice to give it to the child

so to wrap all that together to make it makes sense if the parent tells the child to attend religious gathering that is the parents right but it is the child's choice to whether or not they accept it
or how the child perceives it

and by using the Jamestown massacre that's just intensifying the matter I don't believe that has anything to do with the debate that religious gathering that was a cult of people I believe you can say were mentally insane.
and if any grammar mistakes were made above I spoke this into my device so I could reach the set time abusive perceive it
Debate Round No. 4
Hi5562

Con

Hi5562 forfeited this round.
Jaynorth

Pro

Jaynorth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Stefy 1 year ago
Stefy
Its how they are choosing to raise their children and give them particular values. It may not be how you would choose to and thats fine to. But when theyre little of course their parents can make them go. When theyre older maybe not by then they can make theyre own decision and many devide to continue and many dont.
No votes have been placed for this debate.