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.

It depends on what tradition we are talking about. If it is a tradition that is beneficial for example family gatherings or a tradition that is neutral as to it doesnt affect much, there is no harm in surviving. in fact some traditions should be preserved for future reference, for someone to understand their roots and ancestrol values. However, im a firm believer that any tradition that leads to harm or pain is a tradition that shouldnt exist in the first place.

You're conceding the entire motion. You say traditions *should* survive—then you just carved out which ones deserve it. But here's what you're missing: the moment you need modern marketing to keep a tradition alive, it's already dead. It's a zombie. Real traditions sustain themselves through genuine belief, not algorithmic manipulation. Your "beneficial" traditions don't need slick campaigns. They propagate because people actually want them. Marketing a tradition doesn't preserve roots—it manufactures consent. So which is it: are these traditions worth keeping, or do they need corporate life support?