The Instigator
rjayx8
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Theunkown
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

There should be a Ram Mandir (Temple) in Ayodhya

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Theunkown
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/28/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,585 times Debate No: 58295
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

rjayx8

Pro

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttal and closing arguments

Background of the topic may be found here

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Pro will argue as to why there should be a Ram Temple constructed in Ayodhya, and Con should provide reasons as to why it must be discouraged.
Theunkown

Con

I accept.
For those who don't know who Ram is, he is an avatar of the Hindu god 'Vishnu'.
Vishnu is one of the major gods in Hinduism (along with Shiva and Brahma).

I await Pro's reasons for building a Temple (Mandir) for Ram in the city of Ayodhya/Faizabad.
Debate Round No. 1
rjayx8

Pro

DEMOCRACY IS MAJORITY RULE

Democracy can be defined as: control of an organization or group by the majority of its members

Source: Oxford Dictionary

Demographic Table of Religions in India: Office of The Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India, New Delhi-110011 2011,

In a democracy the mandate of the majority should be respected at all times. The construction of the Ram Mandir would see the majority satiated which has been seeking to re-establish the temple since centuries. The first of the many legal petitions dates back to 1885 even before the birth of the Indian nation when Mahant Raghubar Ram moved the courts for permission to erect a temple just outside the Babri Mosque premises.

Despite validating the claim of the petitioner, the Faizabad (Ayodhya) District Judge dismissed the case, citing the passage of time. [a] On 18 March 1886, the judge passed an order in which he wrote:

I visited the land in dispute yesterday in the presence of all parties. I found that the Masjid built by Emperor Babur stands on the border of Ayodhya, that is to say, to the west and south it is clear of habitations. It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus, but as that event occurred 356 years ago, it is too late now to agree with the grievances. [b]

Giving this churlish justification when India was under colonial rule the judiciary under the ambit of colonial oppressors could get away with it, but today when a Hindu Nationalist Party, BJP is in power and is not crippled by coalition it not only has the strength but the right to do build a Ram Temple in Ayodhya as it would be doing nothing but heeding to the wishes of the majority.

Activists of RSS and VHP, whose political wing BJP holds the majority in the house of the people, have constantly been trying and fighting for a temple at the Babri Masjid site but have failed owing to the Muslim appeasement vote-bank policies of Congress.

The BJP listed Ram Mandir in its manifesto and have come into power riding on Hindu votes (as per data provided by election commission). Therefore, it is fair to say that it is the wish of the majority that the Ram Mandir should be constructed.

Sources:

[a] Gumaste, Vivek (17 September 2010). "Can court verdict resolve Ayodhya dispute?".Rediff News. Archived from the original on 20 September 2010. Retrieved 28 September 2010.

[b] Anatomy of a confrontation: the rise .... Google Books. Retrieved 26 September 2010

Why is it fair that a Ram Mandir should be constructed? Because of the fact that it was demolished by Babur in the 16th century, the first of the Mughal foreign emperors and he replaced it by a mosque.

Evidence to support there was a Ram Mandir before the construction of Babri Masjid

The earliest suggestion that the Babri Mosque is in proximity to the birthplace of Ram was made by the Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler, whose work in French was published in Berlin in 1788. It says:

Emperor Aurangzeb got demolished the fortress called Ramkot, and erected on the same place a Mahomeddan (Muslim) temple with three cupolas. Others believe that it was constructed by Babur.

The reason is that here there was a house in which Vishnu took the form of Rama, and his 3 brothers are also said to have been born. Subsequently, Aurangzeb, or Babur razed the place down, in order not to give the (Hindus) occasion to practice their worship. However, they continued to follow their practices in both places, believing it to be the birthplace of Rama."

This record reveals that Aurengzeb demolished the Ramkot fortress; that either he, or Babur constructed a Mosque there; the 12 columns of black stone pillars were brought from Lanka; and when veneration of Rama became prevalent after the 17th century, a small rectangular mud platform was built to mark the birthplace of Rama.

He writes that Hindus celebrated Ram Navami (Rama's birth festival) in front of the mosque, and that the mosque was built on a temple.[1]

Subsequently Aurangzeb and some say Babur destroyed the place in order to prevent the heathens from practising their ceremonies. However, they have continued to practice their religious ceremonies in both the places knowing this to have been the birth place of Rama by going around it three times and prostrating on the ground."[2]

SOURCES:

[1] (A.K. Chatterjee: “Ram Janmabhoomi: some more evidence”, Indian Express, 27 March 1990 and History and Geography of India, by Joseph Tieffenthaler, (published in French by Bernoulli in 1785) (RETRIEVED 2ND JULY 2014)

[2] Joseph Tieffenthaler, History and Geography of India, 1785, publisher: Bernoulli, France, cited by Harsh Narain The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources, 1993, New Delhi, Penman Publications. ISBN 81-85504-16-4 p.8-9, and by Peter Van der Veer Religious Nationalism, p.15 (RETRIEVED 2ND JULY 2014)

Shykh Muhammad Azamat Ali Kakorawi Nami (1811–1893) wrote: ‘According to old records, it has been a rule with the Muslim rulers from the first to build mosques, monasteries, and inns, spread Islam, and put (a stop to) non-Islamic practices, wherever they found prominence.

Accordingly, even as they cleared up Mathura, Bindraban, etc., from the rubbish of non-Islamic practices, the Babari mosque was built up in 923 under the patronage of Sayyid Musa Ashiqan in the Janmasthan temple in Faizabad-Avadh, which was a great place of (worship) and capital of Rama’s father’ (p. 9). ‘Among the Hindus it was known as Sita ki Rasoi’ (p. 10).[3]

[3] Shykh Azamat Ali Kakorawi Nami, Muraqqah-i Khusrawi or Tarikh-i Avadh cited by Harsh Narain The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources, 1993, New Delhi, Penman Publications. ISBN 81-85504-16-4 (RETRIEVED 2ND JULY 2014)

OTHER WRITINGS

A. Führer wrote that: 'Mir Khan built a masjid in 930 during the reign of Babur, which still bears his name. This old temple must have been a fine one, for many of its columns have been utilised by the Musalmans in the construction of Babur's Masjid.'[4]

H.R. Neville wrote that the Janmasthan temple "was destroyed by Babur and replaced by a mosque."[5] He also wrote "The Janmasthan was in Ramkot and marked the birthplace of Rama. In 1528 A.D. Babur came to Ayodhya and halted here for a week. He destroyed the ancient temple and on its site built a mosque, still known as Babur's mosque. The materials of the old structure [i.e., the temple] were largely employed, and many of the columns were in good preservation."

[4] (A. Führer: The Monumental Antiquities and Inscriptions in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, Archaeological Survey of India Report, 1891, pp 296–297) cited by Harsh Narain The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources, 1993, New Delhi, Penman Publications. ISBN 81-85504-16-4 (RETRIEVED 2ND JULY 2014)

[5] (H.R. Neville in the Barabanki District Gazetteer, Lucknow, 1905, pp 168–169) (RETRIEVED 2ND JULY 2014)

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RULING

The Allahabad High Court ruled that the 2.77 acres of Ayodhya land be divided into 3 parts, with 1/3 going to the Ram Lalla or Infant Lord Rama represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha for the construction of the Ram temple.

While the three-judge bench was not unanimous that the disputed structure was constructed after demolition of a temple, it did agree that a temple or a temple structure predated the mosque at the same site.

The excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India were heavily used as evidence by the court that the predating structure was a massive Hindu religious building. [7]

SOURCE:

[7]"Issues For Briefing" (PDF). (RETRIEVED 2ND JULY 2014)

CONCLUSION

A Ram Mandir should be constructed because the status quo is only harming communal fabric of the country, with the BJP in power, a known communalist party, (read more about Gujrat 2002, 1992 Ayodhya) they will not stop until one is constructed.

The construction will not harm anyone, it will just see the majority’s mandate realized. At best, the Allahabad Court Ruling of 2010 should be upheld.

Theunkown

Con

*Quotes from Pro are italicized and underlined*

My opponent's main reasons for constructing the temple are:
a) There was a temple prior to the rise of the Mughal Empire (which was demolished by Emperor Babur)
b) Pro claims that many people want the temple built and it would only be democratic to do so.

I am not going to contend that there was never a Ram temple in Ayodhya, there indeed was as Pro rightfully pointed out.
However, what I do contend is the assumption that the BJP (Bharatiya Janta Party) came into power because they promised to build the temple.

Pro says that The BJP listed Ram Mandir in its manifesto and have come into power riding on Hindu votes (as per data provided by election commission).Therefore, it is fair to say that it is the wish of the majority that the Ram Mandir should be constructed.

BJP may have listed Ram Mandir in its manifesto, but was that the ONLY thing in their manifesto?

How can it be said that out of the millions of issues in India, people (hundreds of millions of people) voted for the BJP just so they can build a temple?

Either way, if the debate was about building the temple just because India is a democracy and most people think it should be built, there is nothing to debate then. I would rather we shift the focus away from what others think and to what we think.
Because if we are debating that one side is right simply because most people 'think' it is right, then the other side has no chance of convincing people or spreading their ideas, which is what a debate is all about.


I think that the temple should not be built because it is, quite frankly, a waste.
What does India, or even the Faizabad community, gain from building a temple?
It is the birthplace of Rama, I assume the temple will be huge. Huge temples are expensive.
In a rapidly modernizing world, we cannot be spending valuable money, resources and manpower to build a temple of an ancient time of an ancient religion.

Money is even more valuable considering the fact that India is still a developing nation.
The money could be used to fund education for the 287 million illiterate Indians.[1]
The quality of education of public schools which is terrible, could be improved[2]. Education is in major need of reform. The focus has always been on getting children some education, a degree on the wall and get a well paying job.
The focus should be towards quality of education, getting the kids to actually learn something and develop critical thinking skills instead of memorizing for tests and getting marks.
Reforming the education system to match this quality is not cheap and the money used to build the Ram temple could be used in creating a better education, securing the future generations of Indians.

Also note that the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh is shockingly poor. With 32.8% of its 200 million people living in poverty. Which means that Uttar pradesh has 65.6 million people living in poverty.
[3]
This expensive Ram temple is going to be built in this shockingly poor state. For goodness sake, improve Uttar Pradesh's infrastructure instead of building a temple which, quite frankly, does not help anyone or improve the situation.

I have been to Uttar Pradesh, and I can tell you from personal experience that it was the poorest, least developed and not to mention dirtiest place I have ever been to in India.
I went to Agra during my visit of Uttar Pradesh, which is supposed to be making tons of tourist money. After all it has the Taj Mahal. If a 'rich' tourist city like Agra is so bad, I can only imagine how the rural areas are. Millions of people cannot even put bread on the table so perhaps we should set up social programs instead of building massive temples.

Summary:
- India is not the world's richest country, there are better places to use money than a Ram temple.
- Uttar pradesh is one of the poorest states in India, it cannot be spending money on glorifying a mythological character when it could be improving the living conditions of its 200 million people.
- India has far bigger problems than a holy site dispute.


Sources:
[1]http://world.time.com...
[2]http://designpublic.in...
[3]http://socialjustice.nic.in...


Debate Round No. 2
rjayx8

Pro

JUDGES PLEASE NOTE: First thing that should be understood before I begin my argument is the fact that my opponent while making his argument refuted my arguments in Round 2, at the start of the debate I had clearly stated that round 3 shall be utilized for rebuttal, not round 2. This is a clear infringement of rules, and failing to abide by the conduct for which he should be penalized.

This round is to be utilized for rebuttal and closing arguments.

My rebuttal, I must say is a cakewalk, for my opponent failed to argue as to why a Ram Mandir should not be built.

He provided arguments like,

“I think that the temple should not be built because it is, quite frankly, a waste.”

You can see my opponent has not backed his claims by any sort of facts. My case on the other hand was legal, sociopolitical and based on facts and realities.

What does India, or even the Faizabad community, gain from building a temple?

It has immense to gain, just think about this simple fact: how many people around the world are hindus who accept Ram as their deity? Even if the tiniest bit of that category comes to visit this prospective temple, wouldn’t Faizabad become a tourist attraction, a place currently known for Babri Masjid riots would be transformed into a sacred attraction of Hinduism, imagine the kind of money the locals can make from this, the number of jobs and errands this temple will create, it will boost the small enterprise owners in Faizabad.

Everyone from a cobbler to owner of hotels are to gain from this move.

“In a rapidly modernizing world, we cannot be spending valuable money, resources and manpower to build a temple of an ancient time of an ancient religion.”

Hinduism is an ancient religion but one which still survives and thrives. Giving the followers of this faith would surely not do any harm, and the question of money is churlish, it would be just one temple, how much do you think will be spent on building one temple, I’m sure it would not be significant enough to affect the deficit of the country of the value of the rupee.

“The money could be used to fund education for the 287 million illiterate Indians.”

I am sorry you just stopped making sense. You want to educate 287 million illiterate Indians from the money you would save by not building a temple, sir even if we were building a World Trade Center in Faizabad, the money that would be used in the project of that kind would be unparalleled, even that wouldn’t be enough to educate the number of illiterates in our country.

While I understand and appreciate your intent, your arguments lack logic in the context they are being stated.

“The quality of education of public schools which is terrible, could be improved[2]. Education is in major need of reform. The focus has always been on getting children some education, a degree on the wall and get a well paying job.

Okay, let me remind you, sir we are debating whether a Ram Mandir should be constructed in Ayodhya. Your argument about educational reform is incongruous.

“Also note that the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh is shockingly poor. With 32.8% of its 200 million people living in poverty. Which means that Uttar pradesh has 65.6 million people living in poverty. This expensive Ram temple is going to be built in this shockingly poor state. For goodness sake, improve Uttar Pradesh's (UP) infrastructure instead of building a temple which, quite frankly, does not help anyone or improve the situation.

I reiterate, being a resident of UP myself, I agree with your assessment of UP’s poverty, but if need be, the state which was at one point the largest state in the country and had to be bifurcated for the same reason cannot spare the funds for construction of one temple, there is a provision for the funds of construction of the temple being issued by the central govt. and I am sure the BJP would be more than happy to do so.

“India has far bigger problems than a holy site dispute”

Yes, it does, but you still did not tell us why the Ram Temple shouldn’t be built. Is there any moral reason? Think about it, you may just find one.

And if I were to rebut your statement, like I am obligated to do so now, communalism is a big problem that India has faced, that can be put to bed by construction of the Ram Temple.

Now coming to the issue of BJP’s relation with the Ram Temple issue, the Ram Mandir issue is one issue BJP has associated itself with for more than two decades, issues like abrogation of Art. 370, formulation of a uniform civil code, and construction of the Ram Temple are what form the crux of the BJP’s election campaigns.

“Uttar Pradesh is one of the poorest states in India, it cannot be spending money on glorifying a mythological character when it could be improving the living conditions of its 200 million people.”

You just called Ram a myth, it is like calling Jesus a myth in a society where Christianity governs the society. By doing so sir, you have not only challenged the faith of the hindus all around the globe, you have also insulted their beliefs.

The living conditions of 200 million people cannot be improved by the funds that would be required to build a temple.

For god’s sake we are talking about a temple, not a skyscraper.

“India is not the world's richest country, there are better places to use money than a Ram temple.”

What is your definition of richest? Are we going by the size of the GDP? I would assume we are, yes we are not the richest, but surely we are one of the biggest economies of the world, and one of the most promising countries on economic ground

Even though these arguments were not related to the issue at hand, I felt compelled to rebut them.

I think my opponent has had enough. Cheers.

Theunkown

Con

I think my opponent has had enough. - is this appropriate? I leave voters to decide.

On the part about me rebutting in round 2, I only said that we should not make our points because the majority think it is right. If I did not say it there, we would be wasting time on it in this round and Pro would have stuck to that point throughout the debate which would hinder his case. If anything, my rebuttal only helped keep the debate moving along. Furthermore, I did not rebut his point about there being a Ram Temple before the Mughal Empire and I did not rebut his point about the temple being destroyed in previous centuries.

When I said Ram was a mythological character, I did not mean to say that he is 100% fake. What I meant by mythological is that it is a traditional story which is what myths are. Of course, the other definition of myth is something that is unreal. I DID NOT MEAN THE LATTER DEFENITION
Besides how is it insulting? Everyone who is not hindu believe Ram to be indeed 100% fake, does that mean that all Non-Hindus insult Hindus just because they do not have the same beliefs? Either way, my implication was that Ram was a tradiontal folktale character.


Pro says that the (bad) state of India's economy and education system has nothing to do with building a temple.
What I meant to say was that since India's economy is not a developed economy (its not quite there yet, despite the 'high' GDP) and the education system is dismal as I explained in round 2, India must spend wisely. Where else is better to spend than education? Education is the country's future. My main point was that instead of spending money on a temple, India could use the money to modernize its infrastructure, spend it on public education or healthcare. This means in the long run, the situation of the poor will improve.

You want to educate 287 million illiterate Indians from the money you would save by not building a temple
Of course 287 million Indians cannot be educated with money used to build a temple (albeit, a huge temple). I simply said the money could be used to improve the situation. Even if it is a little bit, it is worth it. More worth than a temple.


Pro says that calling Ram a 'myth' (as in unreal) was the equivalent to calling Jesus a myth in a society where Christianity governs the society. Hinduism does not govern society, India is a secular republic. Yes, the majority (lowering majority) might be Hindus but there are other religions too.
The Ram temple only serves to satisfy the Hindu population, but not the others.

Pro argues that the temple could become a tourist attraction and help the economy that way as well. While I am not in denial of this, it does help the economy but not as much as we would all want.
Let's look at Agra which is thriving ('thriving') of Taj Mahal tourism(Yes, I used sarcasm)


If a city with a wonder of the world cannot generate enough tourism money to clean up river pollution and clean the streets, then I seriously doubt Ram temple will create tourism money to actually benefit the people.


You still did not tell us why the Ram Temple shouldn’t be built.
The reason is simple: There are better things to spend money on.

If a private religious organization was building the Temple, then I would still be upset (simply because it is not an organization funding schools) but I would probably not consider it 'wrong'.

The thing that bothers me the most is that a modern-day secular democratic government would be spending money on a religious structure when it has literally millions of other problems which should probably take higher priority.

Let me list a few things India should defenitely spend more on
1) Education (as I mentioned countless times)
2) Infrastructure
3) Social Programs
4) Environmental Sustainability
5) Energy (preferably renewable energy)
6) Technological Research.

I think we can all agree that the money used to build temples could be far better used in these 6 things. Not just Ram temple, but religious structures in general. Besides, its not like India has any shortage of temples.
Pro says that India is one of the most promising countries on economic ground
If India is so promising and does have much potential, we should be spending on things that improve the economy (and temple's improvment to the economy is miniscule)
In other words, should we not be trying to unlock the economic and intellectual superpower lying within? instead of building temples?

To conclude:
A developing secular democracy (key word - secular) must use its money for more useful investments than a temple, and investments whose benefits can be enjoyed by Hindus, Muslims, Atheists, etc and not just one religious or ethnic group (even if majority).

Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sashil 2 years ago
Sashil
Damn browser mess up >_< screw you google chrome!! _!_
Posted by Sashil 2 years ago
Sashil
" it is not a picture of Mumbai because you can see the Taj Mahal in the background"

Nu-uh It could have very well been photo-shopped there yo!! Here's a pic of Obama munching a hot dog fer ya http://i.imgur.com... .

just kidding back there :p but really the underlying point is that, images are poor supplements in proving your assertion, always prefer using empirical,factual or numerical evidences in your case, over images.

I have finished reading this debate once and at first glance, I was more inclined to CON's case and found it more convincing than PRO's, nevertheless I am going to sternly go through it again and will be voting soon and hopefully before the voting period ends :p
Posted by Sashil 2 years ago
Sashil
" it is not a picture of Mumbai because you can see the Taj Mahal in the background"

Nu-uh It could have very well be photo-shopped there yo!! Here's a pic of Obama munching a hot dog fer ya http://i.imgur.com... .

just kidding back there :p but really the underlying fact is that, images are poor supplements in proving your assertion, always prefer using empirical,factual or numerical evidences in your case, over images.

I have finished reading this debate once and at first glance, I was more inclined to CON's case and found it more convincing than PRO's, nevertheless I am going to sternly go through it again and will be voting soon and hopefully before the voting period ends :p
Posted by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
@JayD, it is not a picture of Mumbai because you can see the Taj Mahal in the background :)
Posted by Jay-D 2 years ago
Jay-D
-----RFD Part 2-----
Con's argument about educating nearly 300 million with the money the nation saves by avoiding a temple's construction was a bit too far-fetched. Pro closed that issue effectively by saying the same thing, and also suggesting that the temple can (certainly, in my experience and opinion) give impetus to many small-scale businesses.
In the end, educational and technological reform was never the focus of the debate, and even with that, I don't believe Con made a great case of it. Even his point about Agra not making enough money from Taj Mahal tourism didn't quite stick with me. A Ram Mandir would be more of a place of worship than a tourist attraction. Beggars sitting before a temple (esp. a large one) tend to get paid well in India. But then again, that's just me speaking, and my views don't matter.
In any case, to make a more convincing case of tourism not generating enough money, Con should have provided more than one little photo. For all I know, it could be a picture from Mumbai.
To sum it up, I award arguments to Pro for pointing out that Con hasn't provided enough reasons, and also for countering Con's principal arguments convincingly. I award the debate 4-2 to Pro.
Posted by rjayx8 2 years ago
rjayx8
See, I am a student, who is very active in the debate circuit of India, this is online debating, which I use as prep.

Here I debate topics which are technical and need to be viewed using facts, laws, etc. my real challenge is extempore debating which is popular in the circuit, so knowing these topics from both perspectives as a proponent and an opponent helps. Now the general perception about Ram Mandir is negative, so it is a challenge for me to prove why it should be built.
Posted by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
You are against the Temple?! What the....
Personal perspective is exactly what debates are about, its about sharing your own perspective and convincing others to agree with your points. Play to win? The only 'victory' is getting people to agree with my perfect world view, to agree with my perspctive, that is true victory.

If you are against the construction you should not be arguing for it. (voters do not take this into account)
Posted by rjayx8 2 years ago
rjayx8
I understand completely, but in a debate, its not about the personal perspective, you work with what you have, and you play to win. Personally I am against the construction of Ram Mandir.
Posted by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
@rjayx8,
Yea I could have argued from the muslim point of view, but as an atheist and a progressive, I feel that the points I made were genuine from my beliefs. If I argued what you suggested, I may not have been as strong with it, even if I wanted to argue it.
Posted by rjayx8 2 years ago
rjayx8
While my opponent's arguments were brave, he failed to capitalize on the insecurity that the temple would cause the minorities, his social basis was flawed, it should not have been about the money, but the minorities, you brought down and demolished a mosque, a holy place of Muslims which had been there for centuries, just to make a mandir.

What gives the Hindus the right? Just because they are the majority means they can act like tyrants? It should be noted India is a secular country, we give no preference to any religion.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
rjayx8TheunkownTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I am disinclined to award conduct for Con's rule violation. Rebuttals are a form of argument, after all. I have a hard time penalizing someone for doing it, though I certainly understand those that do. As to arguments, Pro's mostly rested on a "majority rule" argument, while Con's rested on the notion of government serving ALL of its people, and that there are better things to spend the money on. Con even addressed the "slippery slope" aspect of such an argument, by pointing out the scale of the project. As I find Con's arguments regarding servicing all (not just a religious group, even if that group is in the majority), and regarding the better uses for the money, arguments to Con. I think all other categories were equal enough (though I really was on the fence with that Conduct point).
Vote Placed by Jay-D 2 years ago
Jay-D
rjayx8TheunkownTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD part 1: Sources must go to Con. Pro's sources MAY have been great and even more in number, but I really have no obligation to search for a certain book that Pro quoted, or a certain news feed from some older day, at my own time. Pro should provide URLs; taking entire quotes occupies too much space, and still doesn't provide a 100% reliability. Pro was slightly insulting in rd2, which Con pointed out in rd3. However, it is very clear that Con violated the initial conditions of the debate by providing rebuttals in rd2 (this is indisputable; Con even quoted Pro). S&G was slightly flawed on both sides. The rest of my RFD is posted in the comments under RFD part 2.