Teaching children religion is borderline child abuse and should be discouraged.

My opponent seems to be under the impression that he can change the resolution round two. In respect to the resolution we are determining if something ‘is borderline child abuse' and ‘should be discouraged' and that something labeled in the resolution is ‘teaching religion.' My opponent has stated last round "Yes, they should teach them all about ALL religions and leave it at that." For my opponent to take that position he must abandon the resolution and admit defeat for he just agreed that one ‘should teach' religion to there children. I regret to inform our newest DDO member that you do not have the luxury of changing resolutions in round 2 of debates. If I were to be merciful and agree to the change in resolution I would be taking sacrifice upon the fairness this is to my ability to argue back as my opponent has two rounds on the topic of this new resolution and have but one, because anything I argued in the first round would deal with the first resolution alone that I agreed to debate. I understand that you are new and this lesson is a hard one but you will get used to it. Now you have one of two options. 1) Surrender, telling the voting audience you forfeits all argument points to me. Then start a new debate with you new more specific resolution, defining all the words in the resolution in round one so that this cannot happen again. 2) Gird your loins up and finish this debate arguing against teaching religion, even though that is a broad phrase, requiring you abandon your position that we should "teach children all religions and leave it at that", and oppose the position for the remainder of the debate. Doing so won't be so bad, you may even discover debating against the side that you in reality are for can be fun. Should you accept two the following will be relevant. When refuting conclusion 1 my opponent merely said ‘I don't think you did' without ever acknowledging the legal definition of child abuse presented and sourced. I can give little more response to that other than ‘arguments extended' as they have presently been ignored. When looking at the requirements its clear that the effects of teaching about a religion(s) does not fall anywhere near that, much less ‘borderline'. The closest requirements can come for child abuse lies within the neglect category, concerning exposure or encouragement of illegal activities. Education of religion does not ‘border' this unless one is prepared to argue that teaching religion(s) should be illegal. But my opponent has already supported the position in round one that ‘no one should tell us what religion to follow, we have a right to choose for ourselves.' So again I assert that its safe to say I have shown its not even close to being ‘borderline' It seems the worst accusation my opponent can cite (and when I say cite I mean his implied but untold anecdotal testimony) is that children ‘feel guilty'. Well my oh my! Isn't that just horrific! Stop the presses and send someone down to my opponents house to get coverage of the ‘shocking' story of the hard times he's gone through ‘feeling guilty' witch I would estimate lasted up to a week or 2 at max before going away. It is not a concerning problem that you ended up being a ‘emo' for little while after blowing off the people who raised you beliefs system. The day we consider that signs of child abuse is the day we have lost our minds. It is difficult enough to argue physical discipline like spanking your kid as ‘borderline' child abuse , much less can we even begin to consider my opponents ‘psychological trauma' as real pain. Our ageist friend say's he's talking about the same thing as Nazi youth, ect, ect… just in a smaller degree. That ‘lower degree' is rather a big deal in this discussion. The core reasons that make it qualify as smaller degree are the same core reasons that draw the line between what we call an intolerable way that other people raise their kids and whatever is their prerogative and ‘none of our business'. These core principles are the ones that give foundation to the holy scriptures for his U.S. religious beliefs, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. It is the idea that your rights end when they infringe upon another persons rights. The idea that the only instance the Gov. should step in is if it goes to far in harming others. We send the child protective services in not if we see a parent smack their kids hand when they decide to touch something they just told them not to touch, but rather wait until its conclusive that that child is outright not safe in that house. I used to think spanking was the mildest form of discipline a parent could use, or perhaps milder yet making the kid sit in a ‘time out chair', but it seems my opponent has described for us a milder yet discipline, a ‘guilt trip'. If spanking cannot be child abuse, then ‘guilt trips' can never be called child abuse. My opponent has somehow successfully deluded himself that he isn't an ageist. This is to expected even when we know he is as most ageist try and justify their prejudice belies against children as more reasonable than just considering themselves superior to those poor pathetic inferior creatures they call children. He has admitted to all the charges I brought against him that make him an ageist, he has even revealed he's pre-judgment on all children that they would literally eat pizza everyday if they could be in charge of grocery shopping. This is simply a blatant stereotype based on age that is supported by nothing, just an ageist view. What is funny is that though he completely disrespects a child's ability to make a choice for themselves on what to believe he claims to advocate that those children should make those decision. If he doesn't believe they can make intelligent decisions for themselves he must think that if they did it would be ruin for them, and yet he invites that ruin on the children. Now I do not believe it would be ruin because I am no ageist (against children or geriatric), but since he does We can only conclude he wants our children to make bad decisions for themselves. He asks me to ‘not drag this off topic; we are talking about traditional American values'. But in fact, I am the only one talking about the traditional American ones, because that of the Native American are as traditional as it gets. Even the U.S. constitution does not go back as far as this lands values are concerned. The Cherokee ways are as old as you can hope to get for this country in its traditions. I would like my opponent to explain exactly why he would think most people would disagree on the importance of passing on your values, your character strengths in your descendants. Do take note of the way he phrases his blatant statement that he's sure ‘most adults would….'. Why does he only bring up what the adults would think on the matter? Because he is an ageist and simple does not care about what the young say because he considers them more stupid by default. My opponent dosent think I responded to his original strawman argument, so the set the record strait this round I will take it on quote by quote. ‘They are gullible and wired by nature to take everything their parents tell them as the absolute truth.' So it is natural for an apple to fail to fall far from the tree. That doesn't make it ‘borderline abuse'. By the ‘agiest' I don't appreciate your derogative terms being used to further stereotype all children, they need someone to defend their honor and since I'm the only non-agiest hear I guess that someone must be me. ‘They are easily intimidated and coerced by their elders.' That's an ageist myth. And even if true, its not a description of ‘abuse' ‘They have a right to decide on their own what they chose to believe.' And you have openly agreed that they still have that right now regardless of what their parents teach them. And they do use it. ‘And explain....' Absolutely nothing is imposed, and that is why its a strawman