The religious indoctrination of minors is a form of child abuse

I thank Brian for this rousing debate and hope others have enjoyed the discourse contained herein. DEFENSE OF FALLACIES I'll briefly defend my fallacies, then move on to cross examine Brian's second round. Fallacy 1: Hasty Generalization Brian admits that he had more source material, but even if he had ten videos, it's still not enough to conclude that ALL religious indoctrination constitutes child abuse. Furthermore, he would need to submit proof of the various denominations within each religion. Not all Muslims wage holy war on America and not all Christians wage holy war against religious freedom. Fallacy 2: Observational Selection Brian's assertion that Jesus camps are popular helps his case very little. So long as there remain examples of religious indoctrination void of abuse--no matter how ubiquitous-- the resolution is fulfilled. Remember, Brian asserted that ALL religious indoctrination was abuse, not just popular ones. Fallacy 3: Poisoning the Well Yes, politicians love to poison the well, probably because it's easy to sneak past most participants and listeners. Unfortunately for you, Brian, I brought my Fallacy-O-Vision to this debate. REBUTTAL My opponent is, of course, free to add any positive or negative connotations he wishes to the terms indoctrination and teaching. However, the definitions of those terms remain fixed. Indoctrination is a form of teaching, focused on the passing on of doctrine's and beliefs. I can see why Brian would think this is bad if thinks he himself to be neutral in his own beliefs and doctrines. However, I have been arguing that there are no unbiased parents anywhere in the world or in all of existence. This is what I meant by worldview. A physics teacher teaching observational science is teaching. A physics teacher telling his children that morality is relative is indoctrinating. In the first case, the teacher passes objective knowledge. In the second case, he passes belief. The first case appeals to the scientific method, and the second case appeals to worldview assumptions, i.e., doctrines. In this way, it is still possible to indoctrinate your children (pass on your beliefs) while also teaching your children (exposing them to opposing views). Indoctrination is only a dirty word to the one convinced their position is perfectly unbiased, reasoned, and true. Young children do need to be coerced into knowledge. Indeed, they are born philosophers, the first several years of their lives marked by the most powerful word, "Why." Additionally, they are concrete thinkers and do not usually question the answers until abstract thinking capabilities kick in during adolescence. They simply accept their parents' answers and follow their parents' lead. As they grow older and begin to question their parents indoctrination (as most children inevitably do), then it becomes appropriate to encourage them to explore alternative theories and philosophies so as to make their beliefs their own. BRIAN'S ANALOGY Brian knew it was coming, so wouldn't want to deny him the joy of seeing his analogies criticized. Indoctrination does not correlate at all with spoiling/neglecting a child. I guess he was trying to get at the issue of good intentions. I agree, not all good intentions avoid abusive situations. To clarify, I never argued that people indoctrinate solely on good intention. I argued that people indoctrinate because it's impossible not to. MY ANALOGIES An atheist passes on his worldview to his five year old child. At first, his conscious bid him to never impose his views, and he would offer multiple answers to his kid's philosophical questions about life, death, and existence. Gradually, daddy learned that his child's mind was too immature to handle such things, so he learned to just offer the most truthful answers he could. When the kid grew older, he made a Christian friend and attended several youth group meetings with him. He would come home with questions. The father was glad to see his son wrestle intellectually. He allowed his son room to explore these conflicts, never preventing him from attending church. Still, he would offer his own experience and wisdom on these questions whenever his son asked. His son grew older, and left home for college during which time the son became a Christian. The father was disappointed that his son chose a path he personally disagreed with, but he never disavowed or ridiculed his son for finding his own way. To this day, while they disagree philosophically, they have a deep and fulfilling relationship even though the father has high hopes of seeing his son one day return to atheism. A Christian passes on his worldview to his five year old child. At first, his conscious bid him to never impose his views, and he would offer multiple answers to his kid's philosophical questions about life, death, and existence. Gradually, daddy learned that his child's mind was too immature to handle such things, so he learned to just offer the most truthful answers he could. When the kid grew older, he made an atheist friend and attended several Freethinkers events with him. He would come home with questions. The father was glad to see his son wrestle intellectually. He allowed his son room to explore these conflicts, never preventing him from skipping church or joining his friend's meetings. Still, he would offer his own experience and wisdom on these questions whenever his son asked. His son grew older, and left home for college during which time the son became an atheist. The father was disappointed that his son chose a path he personally disagreed with, but he never disavowed or ridiculed his son for finding his own way. To this day, while they disagree philosophically, they have a deep and fulfilling relationship even though the father has high hopes of seeing his son one day return to Christianity. Both stories are identical in progression. Both stories are realistic and probable. Neither story exhibits emotional child abuse. So long as there are mature believers, Brian's resolution will never find solid footing. CONCLUSION My opponent's wording of the resolution and his opening statement confirm that he asserts ALL religious indoctrination is child abuse. He has offered scant evidence from which he has drawn huge generalizations. He has not refuted my insistence that indoctrination is unavoidable, nor has he shown why irreligious indoctrination can never be abusive. At best, he's tried to redefine indoctrination as an evil act of forcing beliefs down one's throat, which goes beyond the dictionary definition. On the other hand, I have attempted to reveal indoctrination for what it truly is: the passing down of one's worldview. In light of this, I have tried to show through both analogy and argumentation that some religious indoctrination is not abusive. If you have been convinced of at least that much, then the resolution has been sufficiently negated.