• Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      @lewisoflime Congrats for advancing to the next round!

      @jacbenj Awesome debate as usual! You got a lot of community votes but after the 24 hours mark :-( Thanks so much for participating!

      • 2 years ago

        fun debate @lewisoflime :) :)

        • 2 years ago

          17:40 - to clear up some confusion - I accidentally said resolution a couple times instead of religion. verbal slip :)

          • 2 years ago

            Great debate gents! I loved the juxtaposition of styles here. Both excellent and persuasive but totally distinct.

            I think with many of these championship debates, the skill of both sides is such that no one gets an easy win by virtue of superior argumentation. It often comes down to what arguments are chosen and how they resonate with the audience.

            Here, we have two very different perspectives. Pro comes from a parents viewpoint. Con comes from an "outside" viewpoint. So Pro looks at the family dynamic and asking what is the best decision within that context. Con takes an outside view and says, what is the best outcome for all of society and the child themselves.

            Con's arguments ask us to judge the value of religion. If we find it wanting, then we should find it problematic that it is taught/indoctrinated to children. As an atheist, I somewhat agree that religion is factually false. And I sympathize with the idea that I don't really want so many people to believe such things, or that it would be best for people not to.

            I think there is danger in taking this stand. It really alienates you from religious judges and can incite a bias against your argument. Even for me, it comes across as zealous. It doesn't help that some of the examples are on the extreme, and Pro is, style-wise, so relaxed and "down to earth" in his approach.

            The back and forth at the end of the debate is great. We get a clear look at the consequentialism of belief, vs the values of family unity and social adhesion.

            Ultimately, one of the problems with Con's position is he's somehow imagining that radical parents are going to raise rational children simply by avoiding the promotion of their faith to their kids. Pro highlights how impossible it is for a parent, who has to instruct their kids, to simply not instruct or encourage them into the views that their parent's thing is true and right.

            Pro really should have highlighted some of the value of religion, and how it mostly teaches quality social values. But because Con's harms are so dependent on outlier extremist situations, and Pro highlights that its unrealistic to expect such parents to truly produce kids free of that influence I find myself moving to Pro's view as it simply seems far more grounded in reality.

            What takes it home for me, is that Con doesn't spend much effort countering or weighing against the family dynamic. There is some effort there, but it didn't stick well with me. He says that they could avoid indoctrination and still be close. And that is possible but as close as if the child adhered to the religious of the parents... I think not. I've seen that first hand.

            I will say, I started strongly Pro, but as rebuttals wore on, Con was wearing down Pro's position through force of argument. Over time, the adamant tone was doing its thing. But I wasn't quite turned, so Pro is my vote.

            BTW: I'd say I have an inherent bias to pro's position, even though as an atheist you might expect I have a Con bias on the topic. And I think when debates are argued very well on both sides, its much more likely that a bias can't help but influence how persuasive you feel two given clashing arguments are.