Instigator / Con
7
1420
rating
395
debates
43.8%
won
Topic
#2149
Prove that indoctrination in ALL cases
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
RationalMadman
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
14
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Please present evidence that it's always the case that someone perhaps from a young age is programmed into something. They were molded, Taught to believe in certain practices, Creeds and tenets, So they're now living according to what they have been convinced of. They're mental faculties have been scrambled.
For clarity or questions, Please send a message or comment prior to accepting debate.
Round 1
The description will serve as the first round.
It doesn't matter what belief system you have, for this debate to favour Pro.
Indoctrination is defined as:
the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
This is easy to dismiss at first, until you realise the dilemma of Con...
The very principles on which critical thinking are encouraged and enabled (asking questions, teaching critical thinking) and even when you go for a more libertarian 'leave them to fend for themselves' scenario with one forming one's own belief system, the core principles on which they base their critical thinking are always without fail indoctrinated into them.
Yes, I am making this debate a truism, an inescapable axiom of sorts. That's not foul play, Con was trying to do the same on their side of things without a doubt.
If someone grows up to defy the religion, political affiliation, career path or whatever else that was supposedly 'drilled into them' in an indoctrinating manner, we must not misunderstand what mechanisms of teaching and repetitive patterns in daily life can end up forcing one (everyone) to have rigid structures in the mind that lead them to continually approach critical thinking in the same way every time, even though they are using those same rigid principles in a flexible manner.
If you were to follow the psychological events that lead a child to question what they're taught or even invent ideas of their own, you'd come to find that every single word, logical transition between thoughts and all of that are solely from life events teaching them to think that way. What they are without those events is merely a speechless (non-linguistic) ball of emotions that cannot think at all and yet exists consciously nonetheless. If Pro wishes to bring examples of dead or vegetative beings into this debate, I will firmly push it away as a scapegoat because what Pro is arguing is that when the self is diminished to that level, indoctination can't take place as there's no 'self' to indoctrinate but it doesn't disprove that while there was a self at all to judge as indoctrinated or not, that self in that body was indoctrinated. You see things, hear things, experience things, learn things and those end up culminating into the inevitable thing we call 'your own thoughts' but really are the deterministic result of all that has indoctrinated you throughout life.
I'll wait for my opponent to challenge me on that we are inevitably believing what we believe. Brain chemistry is of course a factor in what makes us different to eaech other in those beliefs despite similar stimuli but this is not proof against Pro. The reason two people can have similar stimuli and reach different outlooks is not disproof that the indoctination itself didn't take place, it's proof that not everyone responds to indoctrination of the same kind in the same way.
Round 2
Are you saying indoctrination always occurs where it is possible to?
No, I am saying that it occurs in many ways. For instance if you indoctrinate someone to resist indoctrination by adhering to your set path of critical thinking, they end up irrationally ignoring the potential validity of conspiracy theories and creative paths to reach conclusions that they deem 'whacky' or 'stupid'.
An atheist is indoctrinated by their life events, people they've met etc. Even if you think they 'resisted the indoctrination' of what may have been a religious upbringing, other things indoctrinated them towards that.
I am not saying indoctrination is wrong, I am saying it is in fact inevitable. I was indoctrinated by my life's events and people who influenced me along the way to believe these things (even if they tried to make me believe the opposite, they too led to me believing this).
Round 3
My question:
Are you saying indoctrination always occurs where it is possible to?
Your response :
No.
So you do agree that indoctrination does not occur in all cases where it's able.
There goes the debate.
I do agree, yes. I instead assert that despite this, it occurs regardless of which type of up ringing one had.
What you're asking is if the sun is able to rise, does it always rise? No, sometimes it's setting or not oresent in the sky or staying on top. Yet does the sun rise in all occasions where rising is not just possible but inevitable? Yes.
Same goes for indoctrination. You asked me to explain how it occurs in all cases of uobringing and so I did. No yoy try to change the debate to be that indoctrination is possible to not occur. I didn't say it was impossible for it to not occur, I'm saying it never actually doesn't occur because o too of possibility the events that unfold in a person's life always involve indoctrination. That fact you believe it doesn't always occur is something your life indoctrinated you to believe.
Round 4
" You asked me to explain how it occurs in all cases of uobringing and so I did. "
This is what I put in the description:
"Please present evidence that it's always the case that someone perhaps from a young age is programmed into something. They were molded, Taught to believe in certain practices, Creeds and tenets, So they're now living according to what they have been convinced of. They're mental faculties have been scrambled."
Where in that did it state EXPLAIN HOW INDOCTRINATION HAPPENS?
I said prove that it always happens, not explain how in every case that it happens in.
Don't confuse this up. The difference between the two, one is requesting validity or proof for an absolute matter while the other is requesting explanation for each matter the subject applies to as it doesn't apply to all which goes back to what we just agreed on.
"No yoy try to change the debate to be that indoctrination is possible to not occur. I didn't say it was impossible for it to not occur, I'm saying it never actually doesn't occur because o too of possibility the events that unfold in a person's life always involve indoctrination. That fact you believe it doesn't always occur is something your life indoctrinated you to believe."
So I'll ask again straight from the top. Stay with me, don't fall off track again. Maybe you'll recant your original response.
Are you saying indoctrination always occurs where it is possible to?
Indoctrination doesn't happen every time it's possible, otherwise you'd never see a devout Christian, given thst they'd be indoctrinated to another religion or atheism in tbe blink of an eye, if that were the case.
Instead, it happens whenever something influences the end though-process of an individual that shapes their outlook as they grow. 'All cases' refers to all childhoods, not all situations where indoctrination were remotely possible. If you read the description of this debate (written by the Con side, that both agreed to), you'd find that it mentions childhoods and how personal beliefs form.
Instead, it happens whenever something influences the end though-process of an individual that shapes their outlook as they grow. 'All cases' refers to all childhoods, not all situations where indoctrination were remotely possible. If you read the description of this debate (written by the Con side, that both agreed to), you'd find that it mentions childhoods and how personal beliefs form.
Again, I have everything ready, but the fact stillborns exist disprove my argument. If I can prove all cases except for those who aren't fully grown people, does that count?
does improvement upon indoctrination count?
"...that it's always the case that someone perhaps from a young age is programmed into something... [etc]. Yeah, the actual proposal without information in description is subjectless; poor construction. Con will pull something, however. This is a similar construct to another debate Con challenged, and wound up, in my view, shooting himself in the foot. I don't agree with Ragnar however, although Con's previous enterprise was shot by just that sort of ill-conceived logic, because a stillborn is not alive to live according to indoctrination. However, a wild child raised by wolves, for example, does fit the bill.
I am guessing con is going to pull stillborn babies as proof against it happening in all cases...
exactly same question as down below?
Supposed I am pro, what am I supposed to prove?