THW ban religion
In developed western nations like the United States, the ideal that one is free to believe or not believe in any religion is upheld by both society and the law. People should be able to hold their own beliefs about the world, and depriving them of such an ability violates basic human rights. Yet, despite that, my opponent, who believes that religion corrupts people, has supported a complete banning of religion. This is, in my opinion, unacceptable; that’s why I oppose the motion that “this house would ban all religion.”
In my opponent’s words, under his proposal, “it would be illegal to practise religion;” “all churches would be demolished,” and “the Bible [and other religious documents]” need to be banned. 
I shall make three points to back up my case against the motion. I shall argue that firstly, banning religion is unneeded, that secondly, banning religion is ineffective at achieving its goal of eradicating religion, so it’s wrong even if said goal were a noble one, and that finally, the motion would constitute an egregious violation of human rights and therefore ought not to pass.
Banning all religion isn’t necessary, as most religious groups are making the world better, not worse. While it used to be the case that organisations like the Roman Catholic Church could start things like the Crusades, today the negative effects of religion are much less severe and limited to places like the Middle East where the political situation is unstable. Nowadays, religion is primarily a force for good; religious charities like World Vision contribute to causes like supplying clean water and sending aid to disaster-stricken areas.
In order to prove that it’s necessary to ban all religion, Pro needs to prove that most or all religions corrupt or are corrupt. Otherwise, it would only be necessary to ban the religious groups that are corrupt and spare the others.
Effectiveness and backlash
Banning religion completely is infeasible; criminalising religion is unenforceable, it makes adherents of religions hold onto them stronger, and it causes violence between the religious and authorities. As such, even if destroying all religion were a noble goal, which it isn’t, we should still not ban religion altogether.
When religious worship is banned, worshippers would simply start worshipping in private; it would be impossible to detect private worship without conducting routine searches of homes or using invasive surveillance techniques. For instance, China restricts people from worshipping outside of state-sanctioned religious groups, but there still exists a network of forbidden underground “house churches”. Plus, banning religion and persecuting religious people could only make them hold onto their faiths more strongly. Many religions’ scriptures teach that believers should stand strong in faith even when persecuted, and some even tell them to expect persecution.
Banning religion would also stir up conflict between religious people—who constitute the vast majority of people on the planet—and authorities. Religious people angry at the fact that their religious freedom is being taken away and that their places of worship are being bulldozed would start riots; some may even join terrorist groups that promise to fight a “holy war” against the anti-religious authorities. Since a good portion of our politicians, military officers, and skilled workers are religious, they might institute a new government through a coup against whomever thought of bulldozing churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples everywhere.
All in all, banning religion is ineffective at achieving its intended purpose, and would make things worse by causing violent backlash.
Freedom of religion
The freedom of religion is widely recognised as a human right. Taking away a basic human right and forcing everyone to believe in the same thing would limit thought and therefore be immoral.
As I have shown, banning religion is unnecessary, ineffective, and plain immoral. As such, be it resolved that this house would not ban religion.
2. That religion was created by the ruling classes as a means of subjugating and dividing the working classes. Note - Corruption can exist more freely when the structures of society have been torn down by religious divisions and conclaves.
3. The Muslim world has not progressed since their society has become dominated by religion.
4. Religion is not a free choice and is acquired through the brain washing of children from a very early age.
5. There is no evidence that religion improves life style. Religion is a time wasting distraction that is based on superstition, magic and made up fictitious stories and other nonsense.
6. Banning religion would make the world a better place. Religion is based on lies, therefore, it is immoral. There is nothing morally appealing about religion.
7. If banning religion causes violence, then, this is proof that religion is a major cause of violence. Thus, religious people are vengeful, hateful and violent. The world doesn't need these types of people.
According to a study from the Pew Research Centre, 84% of the world’s population is religious.  Religions are important to their devotees’ lives; they help answer questions that science can’t. It is odd that my opponent, who claims that his proposal would make the world a better place, would take something that important from a majority of the people.
In order to prove that religion shouldn’t be banned, I shall make two constructive points: that better alternatives exist, and that putting my opponent’s proposal in place would be costly. But before that, I shall reconstruct one of my previous points and then refute my opponent’s points.
In my first round, I stated that religious freedom shouldn’t be trampled over because it is a human right. To add to that, we analyse relevant views from the French Revolution, a revolution that created a model for modern Western society. The Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen put forward by the National Assembly was a great influence in modern ideas of human rights, and it states that “liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else.” Since most religions do not cause their adherents to harm anyone else—in fact, many have virtues and ideals that are beneficial to society—we ought to not ban them.
Now, I shall move on to addressing my opponent’s arguments. While I would otherwise put them all in prose, I fe;t that using the same numbering system my opponent used for the rebuttals would be more clear.
1. My opponent argued that religious fanaticism caused numerous terrorist attacks, but has not shown that the fact that religious fanaticism exists justifies a banning of all religion; most religious people have moderate views that do not cause problems in society. Even if all violence would cease and rainbow unicorns start flying everywhere when religion disappears, banning religion does not help eradicate religion. In fact, it would only exacerbate the problem of religious fanaticism because it might cause people to join in a holy war against the anti-religious government.
2. My opponent argued that religion was created to control and divide the working class, and that could cause corruption because it makes society chaotic. While this may be true, most religions no longer control and divide the working class. Plus, many religions weren’t created to control the working class; for instance, Sikhism, created in a time of religious and caste disputes, rejects discrimination based on social status, creed, or gender.  Banning it would not be right, as it does not cause harm to non-devotees, and therefore people should be able to believe in it, following the logic put forward in my reconstruction.
3. Despite the religiousness of the medieval Islamic world, their scientists and scholars’ inventions and discoveries were numerous and still affect modern science. My opponent’s claim that the Islamic world stalled doesn’t seem true. Even if it were true, my opponent would still need to prove a cause-and-effect connection between religiosity and a stall in progress.
4. This may be true if you neglect to consider the fact that religious people may convert away from the religion they were raised in, atheist parents can birth Christian children, and so on and so forth. While religion, just like political ideologies and preferences in music, may be passed on from generation to generation, it is still an issue of choice.
5. Even if religion is not an improvement to one’s lifestyle, one should still be allowed to pursue it if it isn’t at the detriment of others. This has been analyzed in the reconstruction above.
6.My opponent asserted that all religions are based on lies, but does not give any proof. Again, even if this were true, it would still not justify a banning of religions that do not cause their adherents to harm others.
7. Even if religion is a major cause of violence, and making religion disappear is a solution to said violence, that doesn’t mean banning religion is the way to achieve that goal, since doing so would not make religion disappear and would only cause more violence, as stated in the previous round. Plus, banning any basic human right would cause violent backlash, so this isn’t a problem limited to religion.
Better alternatives exist to banning religion, so we should not ban religion. In one possible alternative plan, the government raids cults promoting violent acts and uses intelligence agencies and the military to squash terrorist groups, bans religious groups promoting dangerous behaviour such as refusing medical treatment in favour of faith healing, and makes public education secular. This alternative is better than banning religion altogether because it only targets problem-makers and therefore does not cause 84% of society to turn against the government in a bloody coup, has the support of most people, including religious ones, and does not impact human rights.
Banning all religion and bulldozing all churches would be a costly thing to do. Firstly, in order to squash out any and all house churches operating underground, the government would need to hire a special “thought police for religion” to search houses, monitor the internet, and review secret camera feeds to search for possible religious activity. Concerns about privacy aside, this would also be costly for taxpayers, as it would require the hiring of a whole new police force and setting up of surveillance programs. Also, my opponent supports bulldozing all churches to the ground. This would be costly to governments, since there are around 37 million churches in the world.  Bigger cathedrals are even costlier to demolish, as they cannot be bulldozed and must be blown up.
Through my debate, I have shown that banning all religion is unjustified since most religions do not cause harm to others, and banning religion would not solve the problems caused by religion due to its ineffectiveness and the possibility that it would cause violent backlash against authorities. As such, be it resolved that this house would not ban religion.
2. Churches are hiding places for sexual deviates and perverts. We are constantly hearing about new cases of where church leaders have sexually abused children who were place in their care. Most religious organisations don't allow their priests to marry which encourages the proliferation of sexual frustration and homosexuality.
3. If churches were demolished, then, this would release valuable land for more productive purposes. Thus, this would not be a costly procedure and would be highly profitable for the government and other developers.
4. My opponent says that religion makes the world a better place. Yet, he has failed to list any improvements that religion has made. Therein lies the fraudulence of my opponents claim.
5. Banning religion by making it a criminal activity would be difficult to achieve. True, but banning any illegal activity is difficult to achieve. This shouldn't stop us from trying to ban it though. Is my opponent suggesting that we shouldn't attempt to stop any criminal activity because it is difficult to achieve? Should we retire all the police forces around the world because policing criminal activity is difficult? Obviously not!
6. My opponent suggests that banning religion would cause a violent backlash. This only shows that religious people are violent and vengeful in nature and that they don't like non-religious people. Thus, religious people are highly discriminating people who have used religion as a form of social division.
7. Religious people use their religion to gain unfair advantages in social and work related matters. I have personally seen many religious people gain positions in the government merely because they were active in a religious activity outside of the work area.
8. My opponent has used Sikhism as an example of a perfect religion which has no discrimination. But on close observation; Sikhism appears to be an early form of communism. We all know that communism is a hypercritical form of democracy which has a system of secretive hierarchy which is essentially no different to any other hierarchy. lol
Note - Sikhism societies still have a very active caste system in operation! lol What a joke!
9. My opponent claims that the Islamic world has been very innovative and has not been affected by its religiousness. Yet, has he included any inventions or innovations that have come out of Islam in the last 1000 years? Answer - NONE!
When we analyze how people behave, we see that (non-fanatic) religion brings honesty, law-abidance, charity, and morality. We can conclude that most religions are forces of good in the world. Yet despite this, my opponent supports a motion that would completely ban adherence to them in an egregious violation of human rights, simply because he can list some examples of "corrupt" religions or religious practices that, by no means, say anything about all religion in general. Because of all the risks of my opponent's proposal and the existence of better alternatives, I am proudly go against the motion that this house would ban religion.
Again, I shall use the same numbering system for arguments used by my opponent for better clarity.
1. While one could argue that teaching your child your own religion—thereby passing on cultural traditions and customs—is somehow "corrupt" or "evil", it would still not justify a complete ban of religion, only religious indoctrination. If a complete ban on religion were imposed, then religious fundamentalism would prevail for reasons explained earlier, and that would cause children to be filled with more extreme religious teachings.
In addition, religion does not appear to warp values or shock children—on the contrary, it teaches children what is right and what is wrong. Religiosity is correlated with morality.  It tells children that they're important because God or gods care about them.
2. While some religious organizations may have a minority of their clergy members be pedophilic, this does not justify a total ban on religion. First of all, not all religious worship takes place in churches or other major congregational places—a mildly religious person or a person who believes in a religion that does not require group worship might only have an altar at their house. As such, not all religions could encourage any pedophilia in the first place, and therefore not all religions should be banned. Secondly, even in religions that do have congregations and clergy, most clergy do not abuse children; those who do are prosecuted like any other child abusers.
In addition, my opponent's proposal would only make religious child abuse worse. Since there would still be religious people, but they would all begin worshipping underground, religious people would become distanced from the rest of society, making pedophilia harder to report. People might avoid reporting incidences of pedophilia in religious groups because they're afraid that they'd be prosecuted. The status quo is better than the situation in my opponent's proposal, since at least the abused can report abuse to authorities without fear of prosecution.
3. On the short term, demolishing all churches is costly; demolitions need to be planned, detonation charges need to be planted, and so on. Let's assume that cathedrals and temples of non-Christian religions didn't exist, and all churches were tiny ones in suburbs built inside small houses. The lowest estimated cost would be around $3,000. As stated above, there exist around 37 million churches in the world. Bulldozing all of them would cost around 111 billion dollars. (This is a VERY low estimate; it ignores that some churches are in remote places, and therefore require bulldozers to be transported.)
Let's see what we can build on the land to pay that 111 billion dollars off. If we built civic services like police departments or hospitals (operated by the scientific establishment :)), then the government would lose rather than gain money, as they are governmentally funded. If we built private homes or shops, then it would take some time for all the debt to be paid off through taxes.
4. Religion makes the place a better place by contributing to better morality and charity. Religious organizations like Global Vision help give aid to poverty or disaster-stricken areas. Churches, Temples, and Gurdwaras operate soup kitchens and help provide shelter to homeless people because religions often have charity as an ideal.
5. Debate is based on balancing risks and benefits. If banning religion were otherwise beneficial, then yes, costs should not stop us from doing so. However, it isn't beneficial, and the fact that it costs a lot would be an additional "risk" adding to the lack of benefits.
6. I argue that religious people are not inherently vengeful nor violent; instead, removing their rights is what would make them vengeful and violent. Any action that egregiously violates human rights would cause violent backlash—for instance, some Jewish people armed themselves up against the Nazi military during the Holocaust. Yet we don't call them vengeful and violent and thereby justify the Holocaust.
Let's say that the government banned freedom of speech, of protest, and of press, and forced everyone to listen to obvious propaganda 24 hours a day. There would be violent uprisings and backlash, but we wouldn't therefore call speakers, protesters, and journalists vengeful and violent and justify the government's actions.
7. The fact that religion can be occasionally abused does not justify banning all religion, only abuse of religion.
8. My opponent asserts baselessly that Sikhism is like communism. He then claims that there exists an active caste system in Sikh societies, thereby making Sikhism a system that creates hierarchies; this is untrue, since Sikhism views castes equally, and it's just that some Sikhs do not, thereby causing the existence of hierarchies. 
9. Astronomer al-Battani helped make the Tables of Toledo used to predict movements of stellar objects. Ibn al-Haytham was instrumental in developing fields like optics and perfecting the scientific method. In fact, religious obligations led to the creation of a way of calculating the direction of Mecca, the location to which Muslims turn to pray. Scientific development thrived under Islam. 
To add to my original point about cost, I shall talk about the costs of incarcerating religious people. Since, under my opponent's proposal, the government would also need to prevent people from conducting worship in private, it would be necessary to incarcerate religious people so authorities can stop them from worshipping through heavy monitoring. This would mean placing close to 4/5 of the Earth's population in jails. Ignoring the fact that it would be tantamount to genocide, such a mass-scale incarceration would be costly; food and water need to be provided, and new jails need to be constructed because most of the people in the world are now in prison. We'd also need to send rockets to space in order to get religious astronauts, who do very well exist, down to Earth to be thrown in jail. I don't need to explain why that's costly.
In this debate, there were two main issues. Firstly, would we be better off without religion? And secondly, if no, then would banning religion actually make things better? While both sides made valid points, I believe I held the high ground on both of the issues.
To prove that we would not be better off without any religion, I showed that mainstream, non-extreme religion leads to charity and morality through statistics and examples. In response, my opponent listed facts that do not apply today, such as "religions were created to break up the working class" or do not apply to all religion and therefore do not justify a banning of all religion. I have shown, using my alternatives point, that you can be free from the bad sides of religion without banning it altogether; it was a point that went unaddressed by my opponent. As such, I have shown that we'd not be better off if religion disappeared.
I also showed that even if religion were bad, banning religion would not make things better. I have argued that it is costly and that it would cause violent backlash against authorities. I further argued that banning religion is impossible to do due to the possibility of house churches appearing, and that underground worship caused by a ban on religion would lead to more instances of religious abuse, not less. I believe that my arguments still stand and haven't been successfully addressed.
Therefore, be it resolved that this house would not ban religion.
One just has to have a quick look into the Bible to see that the Bible is full of lies and deceptions. How can one base moral behaviour on a book that is filled with lies and deceptions? Answer - You can't!
A list of lies in the Bible -
Noah was 950 years old. lol Please! Don't feed MY children this nonsense!
The flood lasted for 40 days? Hmmmmmmm ????? Sounds like they were working off the old Egyptian Nile flood calender! lol
Yes folks - The Bible is really all about Egyptian flood cycles!
If fact, all the Bible characters are really Egyptian Pharaohs in disguise. No wonder the Arabic people hate Christians so much?
Jehad to all Christian liars!
Jesus was the son of God? Really? Naaaa!! He was really the son of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra. His name was Caesarian. After his father was murdered he was forced into exile in India where he picked up some nonsense pacifist philosophy which later became Christianity.
2. My opponent proposes that bulldozing down all the churches would be too costly and unprofitable. More irrational religious nonsense. Most church properties would be worth millions of dollars in real estate value alone. Now, if you put in a high rise block of units that would could make billions of dollars for each church demolished.
Note - Most churches are made of stone so nobody could burn them down. Burning down churches was a popular past time when they used to be made of wood. lol
3. The ancient Romans had a good use for Christians. (a) They could become good entertainment for the masses in an arena. lol (b) They could become slaves. Thus, we wouldn't have to fill up our prisons with such useless human beings.
4. My opponent has found very few inventors and innovators in the Muslim world. All he could muster was a couple of pathetic individuals. One of which painted feathers onto his arms and tried to fly. 'Abbas ibn Firnas, who made the first attempt of human flight in the 9th century, using adjustable wings covered with feathers'. Pathetic!
Where are the Einstein's, Thomas Edison's, Alexander Graham Bell's, Leonardo da Vinci's, Nikola Tesla's, Isaac Newton's, Logie Baird's and the James Watt's?????????????
None to be seen! Why? Answer - Because religious intolerance has dominated their lives and suppressed any freedom of thought and mind. That's why!
5. All religion is really pagan sun worship. The video will explain.
|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:||6||0|