Wednesday, June 1, 2011

This house believes that religion should be modified to suit today's necessities - rebuttal speeches

Second proposing speech
Religion depends almost only on people’s interpretation of it : it can be a peaceful one or a terrifying one such as terrorism. Of course, as my fellow partner and my dear opposer said, we don’t want to change the basis of religion but the way people are using it. Too many people are acting blindly in the name of their beliefs and don’t want to contradict them, because they are afraid to go against their religion. For example, do you know why pork is forbidden in Muslim food? It is only because a  longtime ago, it was responsible of many diseases. […]
 

by MB

Second opposing speech
I will start by saying that we are very pleased by the definition the first proposer gave of religion because it’s really accurate: religion is about gathering people over principles. However, I have no choice but to disagree when he says that those principles are not what matters in this debate. Actually, it’s the only thing that matters in religion. Principles, beliefs, dogma are what make a religion, a religion. […]
 

by AB

Second proposing speech
In this second proposing speech I will talk about the reasons why we should make religion evolve and I will then end my talk with what we should do.

Religion depends almost only on people’s interpretation of it : it can be a peaceful one or a terrifying one such as terrorism. Of course, as my fellow partner and my dear opposer said, we don’t want to change the basis of religion but the way people are using it. Too many people are acting blindly in the name of their beliefs and don’t want to contradict them, because they are afraid to go against their religion. For example, do you know why pork is forbidden in Muslim food? It is only because a  longtime ago, it was responsible of many deseases.

This is why I disagree when AMo says : “We all know what religion means and cannot sincerely affirm that its principles are unhealthy”.  What about the principles about women for example ?

Religion is not against the society, but it is part of it and because the society is evolving, it has to evolve too. 

About AIDS for example : of course it is not written in the Bible that we should use condoms but people shouldn’t say blindly that because of the respect of the Creation of life we shouldn’t use them even if it leads to one of the worst disease in the world. It is the same for abortion : what would you say to a girl who has been raped and who is pregnant ? Because of all those specific cases related to the evolution of the society, people should evolve towards religion.

Furthermore, how should we consider the fact that in some religions such as the Jewish or the Muslim ones, marrying with someone whose beliefs are different, is forbidden ? This can definitely be considered as racial discrimination (which means making differences between people according to their skin color, or their religion for example). Plus, in this global world in which everybody is travelling, meeting new people every day, faster and faster, it becomes much more difficult to respect.

Now we should talk about how we could modify our behaviors : first of all we could expect people to change naturally, because they are smart and responsible but according to me this quite an utopian view because it should have already started and it hasn’t.  The changes should come from the communication within religions : the Pope should stop talking about condoms the way he does it now. The same for abortion, euthanasia  and scientific progress such as the development of Genetically Modified Organism to create medicines. We could also take the example of the Mollah in the chiite religion.

I will end my talk with some rebuttals. The first oppose has said that today’s necessities are not different than yesterday’s ones. On the contrary, the world is evolving faster and faster: AIDS appeared at the beginning of the twentieth century,  medical abortion was legalized in France in 1975. Marriages between religions appeared because it is easier and easier to travel and to discover new cultures, thanks to globalization. But it remains a violent struggle with religions, deaf to any changes.

Thank you for reading me, and make the best choice, vote for us ! 

MB

Second opposing speech
First, I would like to rebut what the first proposer said and then we will see how religion is perceived by the believers. Finally, I will show that religion is actually needed today more than ever.

I will start by saying that we are very pleased by the definition the first proposer gave of religion because it’s really accurate: religion is about gathering people over principles. However, I have no choice but to disagree when he says that those principles are not what matters in this debate. Actually, it’s the only thing that matters in religion. Principles, beliefs, dogma are what make a religion, a religion. When we speak of Christianity, do you picture yourself a fool with a sword killing and raping during a cruse or do you imagine a message of love, of forgiveness and deep respect for your comrade? Moreover, I will add that the real problem nowadays is that there is an action “in the name” of religion. You can try to change how someone should act in the name of his religion if you wish to. Nevertheless, no one should ever act in the name of people gathering and sharing principles. You said that for many people an action in the name of a religion is forgiven by the whole world. I cannot more disagree with you. I know more Muslims that were shocked by 9/11 than anyone else, simply because some crazy desperate extremists brought disgrace on a religion that withstood time, space and evolution but whose image was destroyed by the actions of a group representing less that 0.0000001% of the Muslims.

We invented planes, trains, space shuttles, but whenever we meet with our friends, we do not boast about these inventions (and if you do, I bet you won’t have enough friends in the near future to continue). Actually, we want to speak about life, about death sometimes, about what we did. People feel happier to say that they helped an old man than to say they made a lot of money. This is why religion, as it is, is good for our society because it doesn’t change. Our values that we share with others religious comrades are something that do not change. They are the stones that don’t move in this never-ending flow of water of the river of life. This is quite important because religion is a point of reference for anyone that dares to believe.

Nowadays, people tend to be more religious than before and they seek a belief in which they can recognize themselves. This fact is simple but really meaningful. Indeed, people need to believe in something more than ever and need to feel part of a much larger group of persons: it becomes a necessity. This shows that religion should not be modified because it is useful for today’s necessities. It is better for society to have more religious citizens than to have more members of an extremist nationalist party. It is better for people to share a point of view on life, love, sex, marriage, and afterlife than having them share hate and death.

I believe that you will vote for us. 

AB

4 comments:

  1. "When we speak of Christianity, do you picture yourself a fool with a sword killing and raping during a cruse or do you imagine a message of love, of forgiveness and deep respect for your comrade?"

    ----> i'd go for the 1st

    Just a little anecdote : my grandfather was excommunicated (that's a very offensive move in western france, it's like a ban) from his village in western france because he and some friends owned a clandestine place where people could dance. Church in the area forbid dance at that time, hence the excommunication. The guy from the church a few years after proposed him to cancel the excommunication in exchange of a big amount of money.
    I wish we had the same experience as you of peace and love with christianity


    "We invented planes, trains, space shuttles, but whenever we meet with our friends, we do not boast about these inventions. ... Actually, we want to speak about life, about death sometimes, about what we did."

    ---> Actually i'd also go for 1st. Can't believe i'm the one coming from a business school here =)

    François

    ReplyDelete
  2. For the first answer :
    It just shows how some men have changed the true colors of a religion. It's, without a doubt, really sad for your grandpa if he were attached to the church. Don't you think that religion is about self spirituality? This kind of story is also one of the reasons that protestantism was born. But I think that's another debate. Don't hold a grudge against beliefs because men soiled them.

    For the second answer :

    Shame on you.

    Sam

    ReplyDelete
  3. MB,

    1) Your side says that you don’t want religions' dogmas to be changed. But, how can you then expect the Pope to speak positively about the abortion? Indeed, in the Christian Church teachings, a fetus is already a human being, the life is sacred and only God has the right to take it away. Since the both sides in this debate write that modifying dogmas is out of question, do you expect the Pope to contradict them?

    2) Your side writes a lot about people who use religion to legitimate their crimes. Prop 1 has promised that you would explain how we could change “the way people act in the name of religion.” I had been very impatient to read what you would propose. I’m very disappointed since your only proposition is that the Pope should change his views on abortion, euthanasia and similar topics. First, as above-mentioned, I don’t see how it could be possible. Second, even if it could, it doesn’t have any link with the use of religion as an excuse for terrorism.


    AB,

    1) I can understand your point that it is useful for society to have as many religious citizens as possible. But, if we don’t change anything about religion, don’t you think that since some teachings don’t go along with the today’s necessities (i.e. abortion, mixed marriage, use of condoms …are considered as sins) people tend to turn their backs on the Church?

    2) “Nowadays, people tend to be more religious than before…”, “People need to believe in something more than ever…” I thought that the tendency was the opposite. With the scientific progress didn’t we see a drop in religious devotion?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Ivana,

    1) I think that people have difficulties to make the difference between the Church and the Christianity. Who said that in the Christianity , power should be centralized and the religion should be represented by one man? I don't know and I don't really care. Christianity is described by the book, and thus the Book should be representative of the religion.


    2) Here is a picture really interesting : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:AdherentsReligionsPourcentageMondial.png
    Where you can see that there is still more religious people today.However, the non religious people are for the most part believers that don't practice the religion, which is not the debate here. I also want to point out the fact, that in these numbers agnostic people are put with atheism, which is actually a big mistake because agnostic people believe in something. That's what i meant, people tend to believe in something nowadays whatever it is.

    AB-Sam-Whatever

    ReplyDelete