It doesn't matter what belief system you have, for this debate to favour Pro.
Indoctrination is defined as:
the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
This is easy to dismiss at first, until you realise the dilemma of Con...
The very principles on which critical thinking are encouraged and enabled (asking questions, teaching critical thinking) and even when you go for a more libertarian 'leave them to fend for themselves' scenario with one forming one's own belief system, the core principles on which they base their critical thinking are always without fail indoctrinated into them.
Yes, I am making this debate a truism, an inescapable axiom of sorts. That's not foul play, Con was trying to do the same on their side of things without a doubt.
If someone grows up to defy the religion, political affiliation, career path or whatever else that was supposedly 'drilled into them' in an indoctrinating manner, we must not misunderstand what mechanisms of teaching and repetitive patterns in daily life can end up forcing one (everyone) to have rigid structures in the mind that lead them to continually approach critical thinking in the same way every time, even though they are using those same rigid principles in a flexible manner.
If you were to follow the psychological events that lead a child to question what they're taught or even invent ideas of their own, you'd come to find that every single word, logical transition between thoughts and all of that are solely from life events teaching them to think that way. What they are without those events is merely a speechless (non-linguistic) ball of emotions that cannot think at all and yet exists consciously nonetheless. If Pro wishes to bring examples of dead or vegetative beings into this debate, I will firmly push it away as a scapegoat because what Pro is arguing is that when the self is diminished to that level, indoctination can't take place as there's no 'self' to indoctrinate but it doesn't disprove that while there was a self at all to judge as indoctrinated or not, that self in that body was indoctrinated. You see things, hear things, experience things, learn things and those end up culminating into the inevitable thing we call 'your own thoughts' but really are the deterministic result of all that has indoctrinated you throughout life.
I'll wait for my opponent to challenge me on that we are inevitably believing what we believe. Brain chemistry is of course a factor in what makes us different to eaech other in those beliefs despite similar stimuli but this is not proof against Pro. The reason two people can have similar stimuli and reach different outlooks is not disproof that the indoctination itself didn't take place, it's proof that not everyone responds to indoctrination of the same kind in the same way.
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?