Is secularisation happening within the UK?
Debate Rounds (3)
Wallis suggests seculariastion is a decline in institution, i do however believe that this is true. However I believe that on an individual basis religion is still very much strong, and that people still have religious, if not spiritual practices. Hanson suggests a Broad and Narrow approach. The Broad approach does suggest that religion is losing its social significance, but the Narrow approach suggested does say that in fact religion has simply become much more privatised- this means that religion is not in decline, but in fact that people are practicing religion at home rather than attending churches. This means therefore that secularisation is not happening, as people do still have these sacred and spiritual beliefs.
Hello, I'll be accepting this challenge. I'll be arguing against my opponent's claim that "secularisation is not happening, and in fact religion within the UK is increasing".
My opponent has given me all I need in his first Round.
As my opponent wants -
Secularisation: decline in institution.
Institution: a society or organization founded for a religious, educational, social, or similar purpose .
My opponent is arguing that, to sum up his first round, religious institutions are "losing [their] social significance", but, because "religion has simply become much more privatised", religion itself "is not in decline". He claims that "people are practicing religion at home rather than attending churches", and so "secularisation is not happening, as people do still have these sacred and spiritual beliefs".
This is very easy to rebuke. Because of the definitions of secularisation and institution, if organized religion is declining, then secularisation is occurring. My opponent conceded that, yes, organized religion is declining, so my opponent accidentally conceded that secularisation is occurring.
I'd like to conclude with some supporting sources to solidify the the decline of religion in the UK (and also worldwide).
And church attendance may of declined, but whose again to say that this means that original church go-ers were there as they truly believed? Davies suggests a belonging without believing, the idea that people went purely to fit in with the norms of the society. Therefore religion has not declined, as statistics on this is incredibly unreliable and do not show an accurate picture of religion years ago.
My opponent continues to assert that religion has not declined, when I have clearly shown that it has. My opponent has even admitted that it has declined. Allow me to simplify my first round, and address my opponent to say that I recommend, for the sake of his argument, that, when replying to me, please do not ignore what I have decisively said, and continue to assert that you are correct. I offered you a rebuttal on your first round. You lightly touched on it, and admitted that you were incorrect (unintentionally, it seems), then simply re-wrote your first round.
Once again, this is a matter of definitions. Allow me:
Secularization is happening in the UK. (My argument)
Secularization: To make secular (I think this is a basic but perfectly suitable definition to use) 
I prefer, however, the more useful: decline in institution.
Secular: denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis. 
Therefore, I can prove that secularization is happening in the UK if I can prove that the UK is becoming increasingly disconnected to religion, religious activities, or religious institutions.
My opponent has conceded that religion has declined institutionally. Therefore, secularization is occurring. Done.
If my opponent desires to continue debating, I ask three things:
-actually address what I've said.
-use grammar, etc.
Now, if you want to make another argument, please present to me where I or my logic failed here.
Ad Hominem involves a case of one who simply insults or otherwise gives derogatory statements about the opponent rather than giving an argument, in an attempt to fool less fallacy-aware readers into believing one's point. For example, if my response was: "My opponent's profile picture is that of an extremely heavy individual, and so he should not be trusted, therefore I am right", then I would have committed Ad Hominem. While I critiqued my opponent's response, I certainly did not insult his person, as I have no knowledge of it. Look back. 'Ad Hominem' means 'to the person'. Nothing I said even slightly refers to my opponent's characteristics, only the failure in argumentation, writing, etc., which I feel are valid, and are either detracting from the debate, irritating, or worth noting. If my opponent's response had been written by Jesus, my response would be no different.
There is a fallacy that refers to a case in which one claims that their opponent is committing a fallacy in order to avoid making an argument. Here, this is interesting:
In conclusion, I feel that the real definitions of the words show that Con's arguments are false, due to his apparent incorporated belief that an apparent increase in private spiritual practices (despite a cited source - however, much to my chagrin, I will assume, for Con's sake, that it is true) equate to an increase in religion (institutional), and therefore secularization (decrease in religious institution) is not occurring.
I'd like to conclude by going through my opponent's second round piece by piece, more for fun and thoroughness than anything else.
"Despite I may of accepted institutionally it has declined,"
Umm ... what? Okay. Religion has institutionally declined.
"Wallis also suggests that belief and practices are also a keypart in religion."
A) Source please
B) You say yourself that it is his suggestion, only.
C) That does not mean that they are the end all be all of religion.
"These however have evidentally not declined due to NRM's and NAM's that have come into play, which studies such as the Kendall project show that privatised religion is in fact evidently increasing."
B) Cite sources
"Meaning new religions are in fact increasing."
A) This should be part of the last sentence.
B) No - new religions are not increasing. They're not new.
C) They're not institutionalized - private.
"And church attendance may of declined, but whose again to say that this means that original church go-ers were there as they truly believed? Davies suggests a belonging without believing, the idea that people went purely to fit in with the norms of the society."
A) Grammar/spelling (*may have declined)
B) Your entire argument is that some statistics may have, in your opinion, been exaggerated?
C) Cite source.
"Therefore religion has not declined, as statistics on this is incredibly unreliable and do not show an accurate picture of religion years ago."
A) Once again, you have admitted that everything here is based on suggestions that you have allegedly read, despite refusing to cite sources THREE TIMES.
B) What statistics? Oh right, no sources.
C) Why are they "incredibly unreliable"? Because of your hunch that some people might have exaggerated a little due to an extreme desire to fit in. Even in the most extreme case of this, if it happened, it would not make much difference, certainly not enough to make false the idea that secularization is occuring in the UK, which you seem to intend it to.
D) "They do not show an accurate picture of religion years ago,"
i. Yes they do, almost certainly.
ii. Why do they need to, and how does their supposed failure to do so change whether or not secularization is occurring?
iii. What 'years ago'? This is really very vague and undeveloped.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Ad hominem...ridiculous. Anyway, Pro argued quite well, and provided sources for his claims, unlike Con, who failed to even post a counter-argument in his final entry.
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.