Businesses should be allowed to deny services on religious grounds
Debate Rounds (4)
I believe that the resolution is self-explainatory.
Framework: For a bit more context to this debate, the resolution only applies to the United States. This debate will mostly focus on Christian businesses and the LGBT community, however other cases can be taken into consideration. We will be debating the legal and moral basis of the resolution.
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Both sides present their distinctive, respective cases
Round 3: Pro rebuts Con's case and vice versa
Round 4: Both sides defend their original case in Round 2
Business - an establishment that sells goods or services
Deny - refuse to give or grant
Religious Grounds - the religious beliefs of the individual or business
1. No forfeits
2. No Kritiks
3. No violation of debate structure
4. No insults or anything of that nature
5. Good luck and let's have fun with this :)
6. Any violation of the above rules will result in an automatic loss for the rule breaker
7. Any of these rules can be mended if there is mutual agreement from both Pro and Con
A kritik is something that challenges an underlying assumption in the debate. An obvious assumption is that we are only discussing whether it should be legal for businesses to discriminate based on religious beliefs, and that if I find a single exception to this I win.
If he brings up amending other laws to accomodate that, being done in a Legal way than he is offering a kritiq.
For example if a privately owned prison decided not to take in Christians for the religious reasons that judgements that the christians have been forgiven by the death of Jesus and his resurrection, pro would ve providing a Kritik if he argued private prisons should not exist or an exception should not be made for them.
Now I am not going to argue that point, because doing so would violate the rules. My point is to show that examples can be found which are an exception to the rule.
I want to take round one to offer my opponent a chance to concede and call the debate tied. If he does so, he may learn something when I explain my argument in round 2. He can take that learning experience and craft the resolution better, then try again with no new loss on his record.
However if my opponent thinks that "for profit" prisons are the only exception to the rule and I have disqualified myself from using them than he can argue round two and we can continue the debate.
However after quickly pointing out that example, I am sure he realizes more exceptions will be easily found. I urge him to concede in round 2, let me explain my argument, and then we can call this a tie.
Very well, I concede and will allow my opponent to put forth an argument and have this debate end in a draw. I do this in interest of learning to craft a better resolution for this debate.
In a rush that is all I can put for now
Also extend and apologize for ruining this. Maybe I can make it up to pro, by doing a future debate or something
okay, me too
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.