Instigator / Con
7
1483
rating
327
debates
40.21%
won
Topic
#2149

Prove that indoctrination in ALL cases

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2

After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
14
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

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.

-->
@Barney
@Mall

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?

-->
@Mall

does improvement upon indoctrination count?

-->
@User_2006

"...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?