Beliefs are inherited and rarely questioned.

>I would like to take this opportunity to thank SquareOne for starting this debate and extend a warm welcome to him on behalf of the debate.org community. >So apparently this debate is over two premises: (1) Beliefs are inherited (2) Inherited beliefs are not questioned for accuracy To give some insight as to what I am going to argue, my opponent makes excellent points which I think are generally evident in society. They are, however contingent on a few rules and fallacies which we cannot apply as he implicates. My rebuttals will basically be my arguments for the round; I won't really make my individual set, just go off of my opponent's rationale. >On to my opponent's points: :: Premise 1 - Beliefs Are Inherited :: >Basically, my opponent's argument is that one comes to "inherit" beliefs on social, religious, and political topics from their parents. I'd like to define both inherit and beliefs (in context, I won't equivocate): Inherit (3rd definition but easily most relevant): to receive (something) from or as if from a predecessor (http://www.wordsmyth.net...) Belief (3rd definition but easily most relevant): a notion or idea accepted as true, esp. a religious doctrine (http://www.wordsmyth.net...) So let's examine what this rule my opponent is trying to impose suggests (example): Parent believes X Parent has a Kid Kid observes that Parent believes X, whether or not Parent has actually imposed X Kid believes X So basically, my opponent is claiming that independent thought cannot exist. Kid will believe whatever Parent wants, no matter what. But independent thought exists. An example: Up until the late 16th century, the entire world believed in a theory known as geocentrism, or that the Sun revolved around the Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org...). As this was the belief for thousands of years, it was basically endorsed by all inhabitants of the world. However, in the late 16th century, heliocentrism, or that the Earth revolves around the Sun, was brought into light from Galileo (http://en.wikipedia.org...). He questioned the norm given by his predecessors and emphasized heliocentrism despite opposition from the government. In fact, the opposition was so strong he was thrown in jail. The fact remains; he certainly supports the existence of independent though. Further, religion (http://en.wikipedia.org...) has been an immensely common belief for thousands of years. Whether referring to one deity or many, it has been here almost as soon as people. Appearing more and more prominently lately, is atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org...), or the lack religious belief. From thousands to millions of nonbelievers, atheism certainly supports independent thought. So as can be seen from the above, independent though certainly exists, thus beliefs are not directly inherited, rather influenced. As these concepts are extremely different in that society would not have advanced at all from the stone ages without independent though, this is a reason to vote CON. :: Premise 2 - Inherited Beliefs are Not Questioned for Accuracy :: *This point depends largely on the previous point. I will rebut this assuming that the said person/subject has had their given belief for a large number of years in my rebuttal. >This point is essentially saying that once beliefs are chosen or , as my opponent puts it, "inherited," they are unlikely to change. Basically that we are close-minded once we make up our mind. So I'll start out, like I did last point, with some definitions: Rarely (1st definition): infrequently; seldom (http://www.wordsmyth.net...) Question (3rd definition but easily most relevant): to express misgiving or doubt about (http://www.wordsmyth.net...) Since my opponent explained his viewpoint extensively, let's go over that: "[He considers] everything [he believes] in to be rational and genuine. However, [his] beliefs in [politics, society, and religion] are very similar to those of [his] parents. (Here lies a problem. How can [his] beliefs be genuine if they are inherited from others[?]) [He has] noticed that [his] friends and their parents share political and religious views. In fact, it has been a fairly consistent in [his] observations." So let's start out with the trend of beliefs between parents and children. My opponent and I have both established that genetics isn't the cause, rather the environment. So the real question from my opponent is how he can consider his and the beliefs of others rational while coinciding with his parents. There is actually a combination of reasons: (1) They are correct. I know this sounds like a cop-out, but the parent, guardian, or predecessor is probably right about SOME of their views. Even without their influence at all, you would still agree with them somewhat. (2) Structured beliefs. Basically, when we formulate our beliefs, we do it in a fortified manner. For example, in a debate, you don't expose flaws in your argument. The same goes for your beliefs. Let's consider the belief of being pro-choice as opposed to pro-life. When you explain why you choose this belief, you simply claim that it is the woman's choice, right? You would never mention the ethical, moral, and other assorted objections from others. Thus we apply this to the modern formation of beliefs. I will choose the example of Christianity (please do not consider this anti-Christian, it is merely an example which works rather well): Parent is a Christian Parent has a Kid Kid observes that Parent is a Christian or Parent tells Kid that he is a Christian Kid asks how Parent knows that God exists Parent responds that God is eternal and must exist for the universe to be existent Whether or not the example is true in anyone's case I cannot say, but this is the basic questioning process. We question, but structured beliefs often leave out the cons and are extremely focused on the pros. Or visa versa. As I have already pretty much addressed the observations and research by my opponent, let's move on to his election notion: "Perhaps some broad evidence for my argument that these beliefs are not questioned can be seen during election times. The political spectrum rarely sees a significant change, even over generations. A particular example could examined through USA's red states and blue states. Certainly there must be a reason that a state remains republican or democrat through generational change." I grant this notion as generally true, but the reasons are explained above. What I would like to address is the swing voting population. As can be seen from the poll results leading up to the election (http://www.realclearpolitics.com...), there was a large amount of variation in the results. So essentially, we often change our mind in cases where our precedents are addressing different topics. Rather than inheriting beliefs from either Obama or McCain, people made educated decisions based upon the topic itself rather than simply because a respected individual said so. This is demonstrative of our ability to question and also to decide for ourselves rather than "inheriting beliefs." >So, in closing, you can vote CON for the reasons above. I reiterate my welcoming of my opponent to this site and wish him the best of luck. Thank you.