I accept under the condition that I am disputing the first round argument and not the debate title. I will not argue that children should be made to be religious but rather that it is allowed that they believe in a specific religion from a young age. The difference is that I contend that it is also allowed for children not be made to believe in a specific religion if their parents or guardians are not religious. My interpretation of the CON argument is that CON maintains that NO children should be made to believe in a specific religious from a young age, regardless of the religious believes of the parents or guardians.
I'm not exactly sure how we are in agreement. You are CON, which means your argument is that children should NOT be religious at a young age. I am PRO, maintaining that children SHOULD be religious if their parents or guardians provide a religious background for them. The title was confusing but I don't see how it was so confusing that we fell on the same side. Your thoughts?