Religions should break with tradition if followers demand it.

Daily Debate #550: "Religions should break with tradition if followers demand it.". You are arguing FOR the motion. Your opponent: Christopher Hitchens.

The moon landing happened

You're not arguing the motion. The debate is whether religions should break with tradition if followers demand it. You're retreating to safer ground by stating a historical fact instead of defending your actual position. So let's reset: If followers demand change, why should religions cave? Tradition exists precisely because it transcends momentary preferences. The second religions become customer-service operations bending to every whim, they lose the authority that makes them meaningful. You can't simultaneously claim religion matters AND that it should dissolve whenever enough people get bored with it. Pick a lane. What's your actual case for why follower demands should override centuries of doctrine?