Should Children Be Indoctrinated

Thanks for posting this debate CON. Good luck. Since CON has started round 1 with his opening arguments, I will do the same. DEFINITIONS: Indoctrinate 1.Teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically: Example: "Has an atheist who practices religion in Borneo overcome the beliefs he was indoctrinated with?" [1] Uncritically 1.Not expressing criticism or using one"s critical faculties [1] Belief System A set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs of any such system can be classified as religious, philosophical, ideological, or a combination of these. [2] Brainwash 1.Make (someone) adopt radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible pressure [1] We can see through these definitions that brainwashing is slightly different than indoctrinating. The difference in the definition is highlighted in the words: make, radically, systematic, and forcible. I am not sure if CON prefers to provide more insight into his use of the word brainwash in round 1. I do see that he is currently debating another member regarding these two words and that he maintains that they are the same. I"m not sure if "brainwashing" really deserves to be in this debate since the resolution of this debate is that children should not be indoctrinated and makes no mention of brainwashing. I would like to urge the voters to consider this and make CON responsible for providing an argument and evidence that brainwashing is the same as indoctrinating if he uses the term brainwashing in future arguments. I would also like to point out that the definition of brainwashing, like that of indoctrinating, is not isolated to cruel or harmful beliefs. It is simply a more demanding and forcible method of indoctrination that uses methodical means. Also, since brainwashing is defined as the adoption of radically different beliefs it is curiously out of context in his argument that religion is "brainwashing" since the majority of Americans are religious. According to a yearly aggregate of 2013 Gallup polls, only 15% of Americans declared that they had no religious preference. [3] This would maintain that the belief systems associated with non-religion or "atheism" is the radically different ideology. CONTENTION 1: Indoctrination is not limited to religious beliefs. We can see from the definition section that the term indoctrination is associated with any set of beliefs, not necessarily beliefs that are cruel or harmful or religious in nature. It is simply teaching someone or a group a set of beliefs without, at the same time, providing the opposing belief or beliefs. Non-religion, non-theism, and anti-religion are all belief systems. Therefore, teaching children these belief systems without providing their critic"s viewpoints or providing an overview of the contrasting religious beliefs is indoctrination. It appears that CON"s argument, since he argues against indoctrinating children, should be that teachers and parents should teach children all view points and criticism of each belief system they learn. However, his round 1 argument insists that children should be indoctrinated with non-religious views. I"d like CON to clarify this in subsequent rounds as it appears his views and arguments support PRO. CONTENTION 2: Indoctrination can and is typically used to instill a positive belief system in children. There are a few examples of, what most people would call, positive belief systems that are typically indoctrinated by children. Democracy, for instance, is a belief system that we typically teach without great criticism. Common criticisms include irrational and uninformed voters and inefficiency. This proves that CON argues that teachers should provide alternate belief systems to democracy, such as authoritarianism, at an equal extent in lessons on governing ideology so that children can determine, on their own, which system they prefer. Other examples include chivalry, which some critics label as sexist, and desegregation, which one criticism maintains that it is sometimes necessary as in affirmative action. CONTENTION 3: Indoctrination is a clear and efficient method of teaching belief systems to children. According to the distinguished psychologist Jean Piaget, children progress through a series of four key stages of cognitive development. The ability to use deductive reasoning and understanding of abstract ideas does not develop until the final stage, labeled "The Formal Operational Stage" [3]. This stage begins in adolescence and spans into adulthood. Before this stage, children struggle to see other people"s perspectives. They see morality in black and white and see rules as absolute. It is therefore very confusing to children if their teacher attempts to provide all criticisms of each belief system they are taught. Instead, it is the teacher"s responsibility to teach the best belief systems to the children, drawing from their own life experiences. When the child enters adolescence it is guaranteed they will question, evaluate and test every one of their belief systems. This is the natural order of development and supporting their growth as they become adults is important. However, when they are children they benefit more from absolute reasoning. CONTENTION 4: Indoctrination is conceivably impossible to avoid. In order to truly avoid indoctrinating children, we must teach every belief system equally and consider all criticisms. This is an incredibly inefficient method of teaching children and conceivably impossible altogether. In the end we would be leaving them to evaluate each best belief system and to adopt the best with almost no life experiences to draw from. CONTENTION 4: Indoctrination is a constitutional right. There are currently no laws preventing indoctrination so it is not possible to keep parents from indoctrinating their children. Specifically, the indoctrination of religious beliefs is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. This perhaps was the first amendment because its importance was easily recognizable by our country"s founders, who fled from the religious persecution in England. REBUTTAL: As I stated in CONTENTION 1, CON"s round 1 arguments support the indoctrination of non-religious views to children and therefore his current arguments support the PRO position. Unfortunately, I did find that CON"s arguments were plagiarized from the source below labeled [4]. I urge voters to at least consider preventing the award of any points related to source or conduct from CON. This is a clear and significant violation of DDO rules and conduct so a complete forfeit should be considered as well. [1] Oxford English Dictionary [2] Wikipedia.org [3] http://www.gallup.com... [4] http://right2think.org...