Prove that indoctrination in ALL cases
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Please present evidence that it's always the case that someone perhaps from a young age is programmed into something. They were molded, Taught to believe in certain practices, Creeds and tenets, So they're now living according to what they have been convinced of. They're mental faculties have been scrambled.
For clarity or questions, Please send a message or comment prior to accepting debate.
the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
Instead, it happens whenever something influences the end though-process of an individual that shapes their outlook as they grow. 'All cases' refers to all childhoods, not all situations where indoctrination were remotely possible. If you read the description of this debate (written by the Con side, that both agreed to), you'd find that it mentions childhoods and how personal beliefs form.
Again, I have everything ready, but the fact stillborns exist disprove my argument. If I can prove all cases except for those who aren't fully grown people, does that count?
does improvement upon indoctrination count?
"...that it's always the case that someone perhaps from a young age is programmed into something... [etc]. Yeah, the actual proposal without information in description is subjectless; poor construction. Con will pull something, however. This is a similar construct to another debate Con challenged, and wound up, in my view, shooting himself in the foot. I don't agree with Ragnar however, although Con's previous enterprise was shot by just that sort of ill-conceived logic, because a stillborn is not alive to live according to indoctrination. However, a wild child raised by wolves, for example, does fit the bill.
I am guessing con is going to pull stillborn babies as proof against it happening in all cases...
exactly same question as down below?
Supposed I am pro, what am I supposed to prove?