The UK should become a Secular State, free of religion
I will be arguing that the UK should become a secular state, free of religion. Con will be arguing that the UK should not become secular. We shall both share burdon of proof.
I will ask that since Con will be going first that he leave round 5 empty.
If pro says so, then the MI6 kills him
The MI6 kills him as punishment for being ignorant
Thus, he is wrong.
I thank my opponent for accepting the debate, however he has failed in his attempt to prove that the UK should remain in ties with the Church Of England.
A secular state would allow every living Muslim, Christian, Jew, or any other, an equal freedom. Freedom to pray and fast as he or she wants to and freedom to follow the footsteps of teachings and Prophets of their own wish.
If we truely wish to have diversity in our country, then whether we believe in a God or not, we absolutely need secularism over one particular denomination of one particular religion.
In 2010, the House of Lords narrowly passed an amendment to the Equality Act exempting employees of religious organisations from some aspects of homophobic discrimination. The amendment was passed so narrowly that, without the bishops, the vote would have gone the other way. This means that directly because of our non-secularism, our country passed a law that was in favour of homophobic descrimination. Not only that, but these people are forced, by law, to pay taxes towards an orginisation (the guvernment) that promotes descrimination of that very individual.
It is the right of tax-paying religious citizens, as all citizens, to access facilities suited to their needs. Education is a need, yet religious schools are allowed to discriminate in selection and recruitment. Above and beyond that, they are allowed to teach creation stories based on religios text, in science classes, over or alongside science. That objectively hinders those childrens education, especially in the case of say, an athiest who wishes to persue biology as a career.
You said many, but not the majority.
If the majority of the uk believes it is wrong, who are you to say they're wrong?
I thank Con for his response, However he has failed to back up his case and still has not met any burden of proof. He has not given me much to work with, but I will address what is here.
Proof: his nose.
I thank Con for his response, even if I do not agree with religious bigotry.
Although I feel Con has stooped in his level, I will not be brought down to it.
I would like to point out that I joined here recently, My first debate is in its closing stages, none of the four debates I am a part of have ended yet, and while all the others, so far have stayed proper and intelligible, cons last round has fallen below par. While some debates on here are very much meant as jokes or meaningless wastes of time, and are agreed on as so by both parties, I actually joined to have a structured debates about issues that I feel passionately about with people who might either change my mind, or at least bring up other points in new lights.
Cons utter failings in round 3
Unfortunately Con has failed on multiple grounds in round 3. He argues my case is false because of my religion. This fails on 2 accounts. The first being that no ones argument, point or opinion fails because they believe in a specific god, deity or worldview. This is not just complete discrimination to that specific religion, but it is an utter lack of rational thinking and it is discrimination and inequality like that which makes me argue for a secular state in which all religions are equal.
The second point is that, as openly seen on my profile, I am an atheist. So not only has Con not met his burden of proof, he has completely ignored facts. This compromises his entire arguments validity and it shows a categorical failing in both his research ability and ability to construct factual arguments.
Cons argument is self contradictory, also... Rhino's.
It is unfortunate that Con did not look into my profile to see that actually, I share the same religious view as him. Maybe he did and was just irrationalised by the fact that I don't seem to share the same fascination with Rhino's as he does, who knows. If he did see that I was also an atheist he would realise though, that his argument is a logical contradiction that fails entirely.
Con states that my religious view proves my argument false.
Con has the same religious view as myself.
Therefore, by Cons logic, he is also wrong.
Cons first round argument is a logical informal fallacy that still fails to meet any burden of proof.
Round 1 backs up my claim.
We strive for fair laws and a diverse society, but let religious leaders pass discriminative laws. Con has not shown any counter to this.
We teach our children false truths based on faith teachings and disproven claims. This would not happen in a secular society, and Con has still not shown any counter to this either or that the rest of the possible outcomes in round 2 won't happen.
Round 3 has shown that Cons arguments from majority and morality by popular vote were flawed. He has not shown any counter to this.
Cons argument in round 4 is self contradicting, lacks any evidence and reaches out to religious bigotry. It has no merit and would be better off in a playground.
Just-Your-Average-Atheist forfeited this round.
|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:||7||0|