The education system should try to make children question their religious beliefs

Rebuttals 1: lI'll adress my opponent's arguments as they appear.the semantical argument:My opponent tries to counter my definition of “should” with the definition of "to give an opinion or a recommendation". However, this definition does not make sense when used in the context of the resolution. When using my opponent's definition, the resolution will read as 'the education system gives an opinion or recommendation to try to make children question their religious beliefs'. You can tell how different that sounds from my opponent’s arguments. However, when using my definition, it reads 'The education system has an obligation or duty to try to make children question their religious beliefs'. When combining the context of the resolution with the argument Pro presented in round 1 - that educational systems should do it because they are trying to shape individuals - it is clear that my definition fits in with both while my opponent's does not. Therefore, I propose that the definition I proposed in round 2 be used for the debate, as it matches the context of the resolution, my opponent's argument, and my argument far more than my opponent's definition. Pro's Clarification:a.) In this section, my opponent says that it is not brainwashing because it doesn't imply "forcing" them to doubt their , beliefs. However, what my opponent is suggesting is taking students during their most impressionable years[1] and devoting an entire class period to teach students to doubt what they've been taught by their parents. That's taking an impressionable mind and trying to teach it that their parents are wrong in what they taught them, which is brainwashing children against religion, and thus interfering with their right to worship. Sure my opponent can say that there is a chance the lessons could fail, but that doesn't change what it is, it merely implies that it could result in a waste of resources.b.) Just because my opponent did not explicitly state when these tasks would be performed, it does not mean that there wouldn't be real-world implications. Obviously, in order to teach this in schools the educational system would have to clear time from their schedules in order to impliment these sessions. This means that time would be taken away from the other classes, giving children less time to learn their core classes and hindering the purpose of schools.Further Comments:2.) My opponent starts this section by repeating the same argumentation used in section a.) of the clarification, stating that it's not neccesarily brainwashing because they have the option to hold on to it, so I'll reiterate the same argument used against it. Although Pro is reluctant to call it brainwashing, he is advocating for taking children during their most impressionable years and submitting them to teaching to doubt their parents in regular daily sessions. This is quite obviously an attempt to turn young minds against religion, and parents teachings as a whole. The result would be less "critical thinking", and more indoctrination, only instead of indoctrination for religion, it will be indoctrination against religion ,which completely undermines the well-rounded mind that Pro's advocating. He ends the section by saying that it would actually promote religious freedom because it implies "feeling free not to conform to the view of neither school, society, nor parents", but this is not what will be accomplished. As I stated earlier, you're not promoting critical thinking with this system, your teaching students to mindlessly question their parents. This isn't freedom, it's indoctrination.1.) I only have 200 characters left, so I'll keep this as short as possible. My opponent claims that "critical thinking" is better than tools to have a successful future. However, this indoctrination does not promote critical thinking as I've proven, and so it strips them of the tools without providing the thinking.Works Cited:1.) http://www.cssaonline.net...