args

Women should not play a ministerial role that consists of teaching men

I would like to thank my opponent for continuing debate. To begin, I would like to address an inappropriate point of protocol used by my opponent. My opponent tried to defend the ambiguity of his topic with the remark; "everyone knows what I mean". To simply refute this statement I would like to say that I did not "know what you mean" thus deeming this statment false. But to further my rebuttal, I would like to point out the conceded bias expressed by opponent with this statement. According to religioustolerance, only 33% of the world population was Christian as of 2000. My opponent was obviously making the statement "everyone knows what I mean" under the bias of his own personal religious views and by doing this, he has disregarded 66% of the religious views of the people of the world. My opponent clearly composed this whole topic with little consideration to the majority of cultures in the world, and when he himself requested voters to put their religious bias aside, my opponent based his whole argument on a very self centered view of religion. Next, I did not refute your definition of church simply because it was not used in the topic OR the first round, and because I defined the parameters of this debate under the book of the pali canon, my opponents definition of church is null and void. I refuse to discuss the Christian religion with my opponent today simply because he established this debate on a blind, one-sided view of religion, and expected me as well as viewers of this debate to disregard 66% of the world. I take the con side in this debate to refute my opponents case with two simple points: 1: I defined the parameters in the first round, and my opponent did not 2: My opponents arguments as well as his topic were based on a conceded and bias view of the largely To simply refute this statement I would like to say that I did not "know what you mean" thus deeming this statment false. But to further my rebuttal, I would like to point out the conceded bias expressed by opponent with this statement. According to religioustolerance, only 33% of the world population was Christian as of 2000. My opponent was obviously making the statement "everyone knows what I mean" under the bias of his own personal religious views and by doing this, he has disregarded 66% of the religious views of the people of the world. My opponent clearly composed this whole topic with little consideration to the majority of cultures in the world, and when he himself requested voters to put their religious bias aside, my opponent based his whole argument on a very self centered view of religion. Next, I did not refute your definition of church simply because it was not used in the topic OR the first round, and because I defined the parameters of this debate under the book of the pali canon, my opponents definition of church is null and void. I refuse to discuss the Christian religion with my opponent today simply because he established this debate on a blind, one-sided view of religion, and expected me as well as viewers of this debate to disregard 66% of the world. I take the con side in this debate to refute my opponents case with two simple points: 1: I defined the parameters in the first round, and my opponent did not 2: My opponents arguments as well as his topic were based on a conceded and bias view of the largely universal term: Religion For these two irrefutable reasons, I have clearly won this debate and urge all viewers to vote Con. Thank you. http://www.religioustolerance.org...