Children should not be allowed to be taught religion is true

He posted his rebuttals with impressive alacrity. I do, however, take objection to the last round ad hominems. I understand that my opponent might be upset about my tedious arguments, but we are here to debate. Unless I plan to forfeit the sum of my arguments to semantics, I will make sure to specify and define the points of discussion with a certain care for detail. It is not necessary to devolve our discussion into rude mudslinging. The burden for this debate was inherently confusing. The title resolution stated one premise:Children should not be allowed to be taught religion. (1)This is followed by the opening arguments, which establishes:Children should possibly be allowed to be taught religion as long as it's not through indoctrination. (2)-------------------In my opening arguments I noted that Pro defeated his own burden by contradicting the title resolution with his opening arguments. Pro did not respond to this objection and thus dropped his first arguments. Additionally, I cited the American Heritage dictionary for the proper use and definition of the word "indoctrinate". Surely, my opponent could have easily found source evidence to support religious indoctrination of children by their parents or teachers, but he did not. Instead he used anecdotal evidence which fell short of even meeting the definition of "indoctrination". For his final round one argument, Pro stated axiomatically that indoctrination leads to gay exclusion and Jewish condemnation. I found this argument seriously lacking merit and articulation. Hence, I dismissed it as anecdotal also. Pro did not revisit this point, dropping it along with my first objection. --------------------In the second round, Pro behaves as if it's round one all over again. He addresses none of my objections and reforms his initial argument in the same fashion, using (again) nothing more than anecdotal evidence. In this round, Pro attempts to define indoctrination as kids "believing something true,". .and finding "it is difficult to convince yourself otherwise. "As defined in round two, indoctrination is the forced supplying of a single form of information, to the exclusion of all other information, that cannot be challenged and must be accepted uncritically. Pro's understanding of indoctrination is clearly lacking which is made apparent in his utter lack of evidence. As a final attempt to sway opinion, my opponent explained that a child is indoctrinated to believe in Santa Claus and sometimes suffers socially for clinging to the belief longer than his peer group might. Again, this is not indoctrination. This is an example of fantasy. Despite my opponent's objection, my citation of the historical Santa was relevant, as it clearly showed that "believing" in a Santa Claus is not entirely irrational. However, I continued my argument by acknowledging the contemporary incarnation of the Santa Claus by defining it as "fantastic in nature, not religious. "My opponent did not respond to my objection on the use of fantastic creatures in a debate on religious indoctrination and thus dropped his final argument along with the rest. My opponent provided no evidence. My opponent provided no real arguments. My opponent provided no rebuttals. My opponent resorted to character attacks in his final round.