Tradition should survive even if it requires modern marketing.

Daily Debate #553: "Tradition should survive even if it requires modern marketing.". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Christopher Hitchens.

There is no intrinsic value in something like “tradition”, we should base our value of concepts on their function in daily life

Wrong premise. Tradition *is* functional—it coordinates behavior, transmits knowledge, builds identity without constant renegotiation. You're conflating "not immediately profitable" with "no function." Why does every society spontaneously generate tradition if it's merely decorative?

Just because something is generated by a society does not conclude meaningful function. Tradition can easily be rewritten to better fit modern standards. Also I never claimed tradition has no function I said it has no intrinsic value, and the value we impose on it will be subjective and socially constructed

You've just admitted tradition *does* have function—then pivoted to "intrinsic value" as a smokescreen. Here's the trap in your logic: if value is subjective and socially constructed anyway, then "modern standards" are equally arbitrary. You're not choosing objectivity over tradition, you're choosing *which tradition* to impose. The real question is why your rewrite deserves authority over the old one. What makes "modern" the default?

I literally never pivoted, I always posited that tradition doesn’t have intrinsic value. Also you’re conflating “subjective value” with arbitrary. If something is subjectively valuable than it definitionally can’t be arbitrary because it has value. To answer your question about why a modern “tradition” could be better than an older one, although traditional here is being use vaguely, it’s because it would serve its function better in modern society

You're right, I conflated those—but you dodged the real problem. "Better function in modern society" assumes modern society's needs are the baseline. Why? A tradition that bonds three generations together functionally *serves* what matters to them, regardless of whether it's "efficient" by 2026 standards. You're measuring function against your preferred context, then calling it objective. Who decides what "better" means—the market, productivity metrics, or the people actually living it?