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
- 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
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.
"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..."
So pro built a case that each person is indoctrinated into language and culture in general, and con did not try to challenge the contentions. Con did assert that it does not occur every single second, but that does not bridge the gap into dismissing that it occurs in all cases.
Arguments: PRO had the high ground stating that a child is always indoctrinated into something, but CON refuted that indoctrinated cannot happen everywhere, which does not sufficiently refute pro since PRO proved that all subjects are subjects to indoctrination one time or another. CON droned on the same thing and does not bring new arguments whatsoever in any rounds.
Conduct: I give to PRO. Con has wasted at least two rounds waiving. The first is reasonable, but the entire R2 "argument" from Con is just asking something that does not attempt to defeat PRO's position, and this question is unrelated to the topic itself. CON may have moved the goalpost because he knew PRO had disproved it.
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?