@navapanichz hi Zoe, thanks for your feedback, I'd just like to clarify some points. The reason I didn't bring up any empirical data or statistics in this argument is because the foundation of my argument is conceptual; while I could've found statistics showing my side, the con could've done the same and it would've taken the debate down a path of empiricism. The reason this is not helpful to my argument is that the results of indoctrination, whether positive or negative, are irrelevant when considering the methods and what it means to be indoctrinated, and whether or not it is abuse.My second issue is on the point of arbitrary rules, and whether or not they constitute indoctrination or child abuse. While you're correct in that the con had a much wider field of view here, I feel like you missed my counter point (as it wasn't mentioned at all). My refutation of that was very simple: arbitrary rules are very short term solutions to problems parents have with their children, whereas religious indoctrination is something that persists throughout childhood and shapes the worldview of a person, something they carry with them every moment of their waking lives. This distinction couldn't be more important, and, in my opinion, invalidates the point that parents set arbitrary rules all the time.My final contention is on the point of faith schools. There seems to be a misinterpretation of my point here. Whilst the con did make arguments to say that faith schools were not always extremely rigid in keeping the children ideologically separated, I did make it very clear that regardless of the extent of the separation, it was still segregating children based on the ideologies of their parents, which is a restriction on their ability to explore and learn. I feel like I was judged here based on what the con's response to my argument was, rather than my argument itself. It would have been very easy to prove that faith school children can have relatively normal interactions, I even said as much in the debate, that's why I focused much more on whether or not any limitation was ok, and the concept of segregating children on the basis of their parents' beliefs.I hope this helps to make my argumentation clearer, thanks again :)
@ellbar Firstly, I personally feel like stats should be foundational to any successful case. Since I know many don't think similarly, I adjust my judging paradigm to reflect the qallout standards, but I think my commentary stands that your case would have been improved by empirics or at the very least having stronger warrants for your claims. Secondly, I did take this counterpoint into consideration, I think I referred to it as part of the depth argument. This is because, after a certain point, the con is just giving me a circumvention argument wherein even if religious indoctrination were somehow outlawed, parents would still make arbitrary rules and judgments, meaning child abuse is inevitable and in my opinion delegitimizes the struggles of actual child abuse. That said, I still felt like the broader impact of the con outweighed. Finally, I also took this into consideration, and again concluded, based on the arguments provided, that the degree of segregation brought on by a typical faith school is negligible and intermingling is not only common, but inevitable. Hopefully this explains my decision a little more, good luck.
@navapanichz thanks so much for your feedback! Appreciated!I kinda forgot to prep the substantive part of my case so that probably explains a few things. Thanks for taking the time out to go to such depth with your judgement and feedback :)
@jb043 no problem! you're clearly a really strong debater :)
@ellbar @jb043 Well done to both of you. I got pressed for time so on ways CON can improve- the "Tu Quoque" point which means "you also". Although that's the argument that won you the debate, cut it out. Sometimes its a good response to say that "if this is bad, then that other thing would be bad", but it is largely problematic elsewhere- your opponent can just as easily say "yeah both of those things are bad, moving on". My debate coach has told me to cut it out because I've lost practice rounds on those arguments. Just something to keep in mind. I don't think it's always a losing strategy but it is weaker and more defensive. Perhaps you could have looked at "religious indoctrination" vs "secular indoctrination", that could have made for a very interesting discussion. Overall, I thought this was a high quality debate. I thought both of you (especially the Pro) could have benefited from strong warrants of your claims, some of them weren't substantiated so when they clashed I chose the ones that were best backed up by reason or examples. Also may I note that in this decision, as well in every decision, I set aside personal bias to focus on the arguments in the round as they were argued. I only use arguments on my flow (note-sheet) to decide who wins what argument and who ultimately wins the debate. I do this because it's the most fair way to adjudicate, not to mention how frustrating it was in high school when judges disregard the arguments in the round and vote on an issue that was never brought up by either debater. :)That being said, you need to keep in mind that judges are not perfect robots. The way to get arguments through to the judge is by spending more time on it, giving reasoning, examples, refutation, and condensing and showing why the argument matters. Ultimately we are people so please keep in mind that how you say an argument is not how the judge always hears it. This is a piece of advice I have continually been told, as I've lost countless times because of it. I hope it'll help both of you out as you continue having conversations with others and debating on this site.
@josh808 Whilst I do feel strongly that I refuted many of his counter arguments, as I mentioned in my other comment, I appreciate your reminder that the judges might not always perceive the arguments in the way intended. Thanks :)
@ellbar I would agree you did place refutation on his points, his counter-refutation was on balance and specifically stronger, more clear, and better warranted. You made a good case though.
@josh808 Yeh I agree, I try not to use it most times but at the time I couldn't think of a better response, I actually ditched it as a point bc I couldn't think of the right way to go about it without messing it up. Aside from that, I really appreciate your feedback and will try to take it on board for my future debates!
The judges have spoken!@jb043 Congratulations for advancing to the next round! Please expect further details on your next debate on Sun/ Mon@ellbar Great job, this is too soon!We open registrations for Dec' $5,000 Championship next week; in the meantime you can have some fun with our social debates and accept one of the Open Challenges from our Resident Debaters:https://www.qallout.com/debate-challenges
@jb043 Thanks for a great debate! :)
@ellbar Ditto! :)
@ellbar Just started watchingAre vegan parents indoctrinating their kids by telling them they're worthless if they eat meat ;) ;) ;) jk jk
@ellbar @jb043 I'll be the 2nd Resident Judge for this debate, will post my comments tomorrow morning, that will be about 2PM EST or so.