THW permit all religious conversions

Background :

In recent years, more and more states in India have enacted laws to restrict religious conversion, particularly targeting conversions via "force" or "allurement."

In Tamil Nadu,
"People using money or other benefits in conversion efforts targeted at these groups would receive four years imprisonment, and a one lakh (one hundred thousand rupee) fine."

In Gujarat,
Legislation goes a step further, making conversion ceremonies contingent upon advance notice and the permission of a district magistrate, given once the magistrate is satisfied that the conversion involves no force or allurement.

In HP,
Those wishing to convert to another religion will have to give a month's notice to the District Magistrate who, after enquiry, will grant permission for the change. It imposes a minimum of two years imprisonment or a fine of 25,000 rupees, or both, on "anyone found guilty of abetting and indulging in conversion from one religion to another by use of force, inducement or fraudulent means.

--------------------------------------------

Teams

Prop : Hardik, Monil, Ankur, Tejas

Opp : Suzie, Suddu 'The Loved One' Bhatija, Moti, Jhonny

---------------------------------------------

Prop 1 by Hardik -

The motion before house today is – This house will permit all religious conversion.
By this house I mean the government of India. “Religious conversions” is when a person decides to convert from one religion to another, and does so through a procedure(if there is one). The person will have to simply register with the government regarding the change of religion.

The status quo is that in India many states have different kinds of restrictions on religious conversions. This curbs liberty of a person. There is also the problem so called "forced conversions." We shall deal with it in the course of the speech and tell you how what we are doing will help the situation.

I shall use the words faith and religion interchangeably.

The status quo is that many Indian states have restrictions on religious conversions. Some states permit conversion only when approved of by the state.

We propose as follows-

1)Liberty - We believe in the right to personal freedom of thought, conscience and action. These are the fundamental human rights every human being is entitled to. The Indian constitution ascertains these rights and we abide by it. A person may think and act in any way he wishes as long as it doesn't hurt the interests of the society and the state. The state should in no way interfere with an individual’s personal life if it is not a matter of concern.

2)Secularism - We believe religion is a personal matter and a person has full right to choose his own faith. The state of India is a secular state. Abiding by the essence of secularism, we believe the government should not promote or oppose any religion. We believe in giving the individual complete freedom in choosing his own religion, if he wishes to follow one.
Being a secular state and abiding by the principle of personal freedom, we shall permit all religious conversions.

3)Consequence – Every person has the right to choose for himself and lead a life with liberty. Suppose a person wishes to change his faith, but the government does not allow him to do so. That person is going to be unhappy because he is not allowed to do what he wants to. A person in distress is not going to contribute to society and economy the way he would if he was allowed to. The government definitely does not wish to be the cause for such distress.

4) Now many people believe there exists this problem of forced conversions. This view of mass conversions or even individual conversions is unreasonable. No one can force a person to change his faith. There might be different reasons, completely a persons discretion, as to why a person wants to change his faith. But at the end of the day its the person's choice. Even if masses decide to do so, its still a matter of independent choice. We believe that every individual is rational and is making an informed decision in his own interest. As far as there is no physical force involved, we respect the choice of an individual. Going by our first constructive, we permit all conversions for reasons whatsoever.

If there is physical force involved, then, of course, the person can approach the government, and that shall not be accepted as conversion.



Opp 1 by Suzie -




Note: Government’s stand is not clearly defined. Gathering from the information provided, the following stance has been assumed for the government

1.The government wishes to make conversion completely unregulated
2.Under the new plan, conversions for money will be legal

Principle arguments:

1. In India, religion is an extremely sensitive issue:
a.A large part of the country is religious and cares deeply about its faith
b.Religious inclinations are often strongly linked to political alignments
c.A large part of the riots and disturbances in the country have a religious flavour to them

Essentially, religion is not an issue that can be toyed with. Leaving the field for conversions open and unregulated would be a simple-minded error. The issue requires serious thought whilst keeping in mind the consequences of rampant and unchecked conversions.

2. India is secular and religious freedom should be given to one and all. At the same time, the interests of society as a whole should not be affected negatively by our policies. In essence, it is acceptable for anyone to practice/preach/spread his/her religion as long as the interests of society as a whole are not compromised.


Line of argument:

1. Religious conversions are completely acceptable so long as they are for faith and not for monetary gains or performed under force/coercion
2. Status Quo ensures the above
3. Opening the field for conversions for “any reasons” will have disastrous consequences for society


Rebuttals:

1. Concerns for Liberty, Secularism and religious freedom: Status Quo does not in any way infringe upon these freedoms. In the current situation a person may choose to convert to any religion/faith. The regulations do not disallow conversions. So religious freedom is not hampered. The regulations merely:
a. Ensure that by pre-registration all conversions are inspected. In the plan proposed by the government the onus for reporting coercive/forced conversions depends on the converted individual. The individuals being converted are often poor and uneducated. The parties responsible for conversion are very often powerful and possess political clout. It is unreasonable to expect these people to stand up to these powerful organizations. At the very least, not all cases of coercion will come to light if the onus for reporting cases is left upto the individual.
b. Ensure that conversions are not being performed in return for monetary or material benefits. Why this is essential will be explained later.

Within the regulations, it is very possible, simple even, for someone to convert to another religion if the reason is not monetary or material benefits.


2. “Conversions for any reason”: The government admits that conversions should be free and unhindered “as long as it doesn’t hurt the interests of society and the state”. We will now prove why free conversions for “any reasons” (monetary, material etc.) will in-fact hurt the interests of society and the state.
a. Rapid conversions, if done in exchange for money leads to rival camps feeling cheated and gives rise to tensions between religions/communities, inevitably leading to clashes/riots between people of different religions (e.g. Kandhamal in Orissa, where a spate of apparently forced/bought mass conversions lead to violent clashes and widespread carnage between opposing religious groups). In a situation where it is legal to convert for money, it is not hard to see that communal clashes will be commonplace.
b. In India religion is intrinsically linked with politics and vote banks. Conversions are often sponsored by political groups to rapidly gain large vote banks and change the political demographic of a community/region. In their eagerness to win votes, these groups often employ money or the promise of material benefits in return for conversion. Essentially, conversions for money are in most cases, are a buying of vote banks, which is anyway illegal. So allowing conversions for money is equivalent to allowing buying votes for money.

From these two points it becomes clear that to regard religious conversions for money as merely a personal choice that doesn’t affect society is wholly naïve.


3. Government’s issue with regulation? The government has offered no reason to oppose the regulations that are in place in various states (such as pre-notification for conversion etc).


Constructives:


1. Stick to status quo while encouraging the introduction of regulations in states where it currently does not exist.


Summary:

1. The government’s plan poses a real threat to the stability and law order in the country
2. The government’s plan does not promote religious freedom or liberty any better than status quo, which is an aim the government has set for itself while introducing the plan.


Proposition 2 – Ankur -



The opposition agrees with our belief that freedom to personal faith is sacrosanct, and the contention therefore is only in whether the current set of laws is curtailing it or not.

The chief thrust of these laws is evidently to check conversions by force or allurement, otherwise referred to as illegitimate proselytism.
Going through the wordings of these laws, we find that they make some unwarranted assumptions.
Firstly, it is assumed that if a large group of people seeks conversion at the same time then it must be via force or allurement. What about if an enlightened Buddha preaches his sermon to a bunch of lost souls who all find their path to salvation through it? Will they not be allowed to convert because some law presumes there must be ulterior motives behind it, and actually penalizes them for it?
Secondly, these rules assume that certain groups of society such as lower castes, tribals and women are more susceptible to be lured into religious conversion, and therefore exercises tyrannical regulations preventing their conversion.
I hereby refute the opposition's stand against "Conversion by Allurement".
An individual's decision for religious conversion will always be motivated by gain. People throughout history have converted to new or different religions because they were sick of complicated rituals, or sought their promised land, or wanted to have an equal status with others in society--which the target religion could offer. In the most 'ideal' circumstances, the motive is spiritual gain, but it is gain nevertheless. Now, there is nothing wrong with seeking higher quality of life, so there is nothing inherently wrong with such conversions. For instance, several low-caste Hindus convert to Christianity or Islam as a way of having social equality that they fail to find in Hinduism. If these bills are to be enforced, these people will all face denial of secular freedom.

Let me elaborate the perspective of secular freedom, which the Opposition says is not being violated by the present set of laws.
A secular nation allows each person the right to any faith, and the right to NO faith, as well as the right to a faith so weak that the offer of a cow and a bicycle is enough for that person to change his or her religion.
The problem stated by the opposition is that of communal disharmony which springs from such conversions. This is an extraneous issue--a social one, and justifying the denial of a fundamental human right (which it is according to the UN as well as the Indian constitution) to an individual due to external consequences is unacceptable.
At the core of it, those who are opposing free religious conversion are orthodox religious leaders who are concerned about the change of religious demographics in favour of missionary religions. Instead of "feeling cheated" these people should understand their roles as leaders and do something about the causes which are encouraging followers to become apostates. For example the Sikh community runs ‘langars’, so that none is destitute. If you think and feel for your religion as a community, then do something about its welfare rather than riot about people leaving because they don't have food.
And the government should do their part in the upliftment of people who are so poor and uneducated that they are ready to change their faith in exchange for benefits. Enact laws to provide a certain quality of life to these people rather than stopping them from conversion, for next they will be found selling organs, committing mass suicides or becoming militants, which are worse consequences than even riots.
Questioning the motives of politicians is easy and does not strengthen the opposition’s case. While on the one hand religious conversions are seen akin to purchasing vote banks (as the Opposition states), on the other hand we can see in the bill an attempt to "polarise the state along religious lines" or to "using communal issues to deflect attention from economic and social problems".

As for conversions by force, commonly manifested as powerful factions threatening weaker communities toward conversion, there is certainly no justification. However, the problem in “forced conversions" is with the "force" and not the "conversion", just as treating a person to ice-cream is such a nice thing but force-feeding one isn't. There is nothing wrong with sexual intercourse, but when forced on someone it constitutes nearly the most grievous crime in the book of law. And there are laws to prevent it. The point is that these laws don't require you to submit a CV and an SOP for buying ice-cream or require you to give the government a month's notice before having intercourse.

Lastly, anyone who is falsely misled in some way into religious conversion against one's true will, shall probably soon realize one's folly and long to return. And return he shall with a faith stronger than that which he left with, with certain hope that the all-forgiving god he worships shall take him back. He certainly will not expect to be thwarted by laws other than those of the religion itself, and should not.

Summarizing:
1. Restricting conversions IS a breach of secular freedom.
2. Present laws not clearly serving their purpose and restricting legitimate conversions.
3. Conversions by Allurement--attack the cause (wretched conditions of communities), not the effect. Else, more severe effects will follow.
4. Forced Conversions--Not possible to evaluate beforehand. The law should punish those found guilty of illegitimate proselytization which, in essence, is preventing misuse of force and not the prevention of conversion.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Opp 2 By Suddu



The Government’s stand in this Debate:

1. The government wishes to make conversion completely unregulated
2. Conversions for money will be legal
3. Conversions by coercion are punishable but the onus to report such coercions lies on the person itself



The Government’s last response:

1. Laws on religious freedom make some unwarranted assumptions
2. Justification of conversion by allurement, banning of which will infringe secular freedom
3. On conversions by force – problem is with the ‘forced’ and not the ‘conversions’
4. People misled into conversions will realize their folly and want to convert back



Rebuttals:

1. Laws on religions freedom/conversion making some unwarranted assumptions:
1. Laws asssuming force/allurement in cases of mass conversion: The proposition needs to realize that these laws were made keeping everyone in mind. The fouding fathers of the constitution felt it reasonable that if a large group was seeking conversion, there were overwhelming chances that it was by force or allurement. And given our background before independance, the extent to which groups are driven for political gain and length to which people will go for personal gain, this was perfectly reasonable. As we have shown earlier, in cases like Kandhamal, such forced/bought mass conversions can cause violent clashes and carnage. Given the likelihood of force/allurement in case of mass conversion, and the violence and damage it can cause, it is reasonable to err on the side of caution and make this assumption. In any case, status quo allows the genuine cases by requiring a pre-emptive investigation into the cause of the conversion. It is safe to assume that the “enlightened” ones will clear this investigation and be allowed to covert. Neither does status quo, nor are we suggesting that these cases should be disallowed in the future.

2. Laws assuming that people of lower castes are more susceptible to conversions: Well, aren’t they? A number of laws have been enacted to protect, yes, protect, the rights of the lower castes and for good reason. They by far have had the worst deal, have been the most ill-treated and exploited category of individuals in pre-independance India. Their social and economic conditions have made them the most susceptible to be coerced (by threat of bodily harm) or lured by material gain into religious conversions. It is our duty to protect these people from such happenings (coercion) which would severely curtail their freedoms which we so passionately defend. Disallowing luring by material gain will be justified as a rebuttal to the next point.



2. On conversion for material gain:

The proposition claims that a secular nation allows each person “the right to any faith, and the right to NO faith, as well as the right to a faith so weak that the offer of a cow and a bicycle is enough for that person to change his or her religion.”` Religion is an explosive issue in the country. Even in the past, conversions have lead to violence and loss of life. This will simply add fuel to the fire. Even if we assume a best case situation where there is no violence, as Tarun mentions, the repeated buying and selling of people’s faiths will inflate the price to buy a conversion. No self respecting religious person would come to terms with his religion being commercialized. In our country, where groups will go to any extent to gain political power, we would be, by virtue of the law, be allowing people to buy votes (which is illegal – I hope the proposition understands why).

The proposition is making a leap of faith by equating spiritual gain with monetary gain. They are not the same and cannot be compared. Even if we allow them to be equated, pursuing gains, by law, has it ethical limits whether it spiritual or monetary. While there is nothing wrong with seeking spiritual gain, we do not allow human sacrifices for religious/spiritual gains because they infringe the right to life of the unfortunate few. While there is nothing wrong with seeking a higher quality of life, we do not allow fraud and prostitution. Any pursuit of gain has to be limited by ethics and the greater interests of society. The proposition seems to be going on about how a fundamental human right is being denied. There are 2 ways to counter this.

1. The laws which are enacted in the constitution in this regard are for the better of society as a whole. All our freedoms have limits for the same reason – absolute freedoms for some means greatly curtailed freedoms for many. Suggesting that an “extraneous” social issue, that can cause catastrophic loss of human life (as we have seen in riots which are religiously motivated), is no reason for curtailing a “fundamental human right”, is as outrageous and deluded as suggesting that we should allow absolute freedom of speech even though it may trigger rioting and violence, not to mention the death of thousands of people. The government needs to keep in mind the larger good of society. If an act like this can (and it has as Sushant exemplified), cause great harm and loss of life, we need to keep that in mind and disallow it.
2. The proposition claims that these bills deny people the right of secular freedom. In this particular case, status quo doesn’t prevent legitimate conversions. The fundaemental rights are by no means denied. They are limited, as are all fundaemental rights. This brings us to the core question of this debate – is this limitation – disallowing people from converting for benefits justified? The fact is that, by not allowing people to convert for economic benefits, we are simply ensuring that people do not convert to wrongly benefit from laws and institutions – benefits that were not rightfully meant for them. Allowing them to do so would be very akin to legalizing fraud – we are simply disallowing people from benefitting from somethings that are not rightfully theirs – we are simply disallowing something that is ethically and morally wrong. And given that in our country, religion is intrinsically linked with politics and vote banks, we are saying is that it is okay to sell you vote for money or other benefits. In a democracy such as ours, where the state encourages its people to be responsible, make an informed choice and vote to decide the government, this would be contradictory to the very goal of this process. We will be allowing money to dominate politics and the governance of our country.



The proposition suggests that this bill is an attempt to “polarise the state along religious lines” or is “using communal issues to deflect attention from economic and social problems". The fact is that the proposition is using economic and social issues to deflect attention from communal ones which in our country are undeniably real. They are trying to make this a debate about whether or not these people should get benefits under the law. What the proposition is telling you is that since these people are economically and socially challenged, due to country’s very pronounced caste system, we should allow them to change their religion to gain on benefits originally meant for others. They are saying that these people will go on to other worse means of livelihood, if they are not allowed to benefit economically from conversions. This is just escapism. No doubt, there should be laws to make sure that these people are benefitted – but that is not the issue of debate. We cannot use the absence of these laws a justification to allow them to swindle money and benefits from public systems – money and benefits which aren’t rightly theirs. Their economic and social issues don’t change the fact that this is morally and ethically unacceptable. Or, that the ramifications this will have by essentially commercializing religion, not to mention blowing an already opened lid on communal violence will be nothing short of catastrophic. Do these people deserve to be liberated from the shackles of the caste system – yes they do. Do these people deserve to live respectfully as people of that particular caste – yes they do. But, realistically speaking, is this what is happening? By a simple allowing people to change their religion, we are simply skirting the issue. Even after conversions, people of that particular caste are still looked down upon. This is not the pervasive change that is required to sort this out both permanently (as we aren’t able to rid society of its notion of castes) or temporarily (where by allowing this, we are opening the lid on even more violence and discontent).

3. On conversions by force:

As Tarun very rightly put it, the connotations of ‘forced’ when it comes to religion are much different from its connotations anywhere else. This is mainly due to the fact that religion is a very touchy issue in our country. Nobody cares about what we do in the privacy of our homes. But when it comes to religion, everyone cares. So when the government requires that any religious conversions be investigated and approved, they are simply taking the necessary precautions, and very rightly so, to ensure that there is no force/allurement involved. The consequences of not enforcing this measure can be tragic.

The government claims that it won’t be possible to evalute these forced conversions beforehand, and that some people guilty of illegitimate proselytization will not be caught. They go on to claim that by allowing the ‘forced’ conversions and investigating later, we are preserving the right to freedom of religion. We find this claim to be absurd. Firstly, in case of a ‘forced conversion’, the conversion wouldn’t be happening if it wasn’t, by definition, coerced. Secular freedom was being violated anyway becuase the conversion itself was forced. We are simply trying to protect secular freedom and a preventive measure is definitely more effective than a detective one, where the onus to report such coersion lies on the coerced itself, who could still be under the perpetual threat of bodily harm. Secondly, a legal investigation into a conversion will definitely be able to detect conversions involving force/allurement. Even if we admit that some cases will not be detected, that is no reason for scrapping the process completely. In order to justify change of status quo with regard to forced conversions, the burden of the proposition is to prove that status quo is harmful / insufficient to the current situation, and provide an alternative. Scrapping investigations because they feel it insufficient, and suggesting detective and not preventive measures doesn’t satisfy this burden.

4. On follies and re-conversions:

Even after 3 responses, the proposition seems to have a deluded idea of what status quo is. Status quo as elaborated in the earlier responses allows any religious conversions as long as they are not forced or allured. Whether or not people realize their follies is not in quesition. The fact remains that status quo doesn’t prevent people from otherwise converting to any religion of their choice (except in case of coersion and allurement), any number of times as they choose to.

To Summarize:

1. The laws limiting religious conversions, keeping in mind the background of our country have made very sound assumptions
2. Conversion for material reasons remains unethical and immoral. Let not the social and economic ineptness of this category of people be used as a justification to allow this. This law doesn’t address their issues in the long term (caste issues still exist) or the short term (lid on communal violence and discontent being blown open)
3. Even though the proposition do not condone conversion by coercive means, their system of dealing with it is inadequate
4. People, by the current set of laws, are not thwarted from conversion or re-conversion any number of times as long as their reasons are genuine



------------------



Prop 3 by Tejas

Ladies and gentlemen,

This debate has seen some extremely flimsy argumentation from the opposition. For one, the opposition doesn’t seem to make up its mind whether it wants to actually argue against the case in practice or for the case in principle. In the course of my speech, I shall show you how the opposition has managed to come up with some inherent contradictions in their argumentation. I shall also go on to do a case benefit analysis to prove how the case run by us, viz. the proposition has been much superior.

POINTS OF CLASH-

1. The nature of status quo.
2. The nature of assumptions made by the laws restricting/regulating/limiting conversions in the country today.
3. The morality involved in religious conversions from the perspective of the individual or the society.



In my speech, I shall take up each of the following points and explain to you how the proposition’s stand on the matter is not only valid, but also superior.

REBUTTALS-

1. The opp seems to have missed the proposition’s point on investigation of conversions. The proposition’s 2nd speaker made it clear that with regards to the issue of what is labelled by the status quo (the one which my worthy opponents propose and that we don’t accept, for reasons I shall explain) as “forced conversions”, it is not possible to evaluate beforehand whether the conversion was ‘forced’ or not. The opp seems to have gone on a tangent with argument on the semantics , and that too without actually getting the point. Hence they come up with flimsy argumentation like “in case of a ‘forced conversion’, the conversion wouldn’t be happening if it wasn’t, by definition, coerced. Secular freedom was being violated anyway because the conversion itself was forced” . Actually , they have not only misunderstood the point, but have conveniently tried to bluff us into believing that they protect secularism, when in fact they are championing secularism with riders( and thus effectively contradicting themselves).

Moreover, their proposal on legal investigation seems to have the same problems that they accuse us of-

1. It can be a biased case, wherein the same high and mighty people may buy off the judiciary. If my worthy opponents talk of practicality, then today’s legal system is nothing but a testimony to the fact that their argument is flawed, for it is often that we see cases going in favour of not the wronged party, but the more influential.
2. It is the judiciary’s word against the individual’s/group’s. What if the conversion wasn’t forced, and yet the judiciary, for some technical proof or lack of it, deems it a forced conversion? By now, we have argued enough on the drawbacks of the legal system to understand that this is a fair possibility. What do my opponents-the protectors of secularism- then do? Ban that conversion?
3. The ‘even if’ argument of the opp itself shows their lack of confidence in their own argument. Hence, all the premptive talk about burdens et al .



2. The opp seems to think that ‘forced religious conversions’ lead to religious clashes. While this may be true in cases, equally true is the fact even non forced religious conversions lead to clashes. Moreover, it is common knowledge that most religious riots have occurred not during the conversion process, but out of the spite born out of the conversion. The conversion may have been perfectly consented, and yet there are religious clashes. If my worthy opponents wish to stop/curb/restrict this sort of occurrence, they should rather be arguing for banning of religious conversions rather than merely placing a check on it. There is in fact a downside to the check-
1. The aggrieved community may feel that the law has been unjust in allowing/disallowing the conversion(as the case may be). In this case, there will not only be factional violence, but also a clash between the individuals and the government. This is in fact a far worse situation.
2. The check, if it does certify the conversion, may well be an indication to the masses about the bias in the state. This is again a worse alternative.

Hence, the opp has failed to show how judicial intervention and the status quo managed to stop the problem of religious clashes. Thus, the opp has effectively failed to defend its status quo. The rape of a nun in Kerala and the ensuing violence is an apt example to show that the problem of religious conflicts is inherent to society and mindsets and doesn’t stem from ‘forced’ or ‘regulated’ conversions . In general, any sort of conversion may be a trigger. In this case again, the opp has failed to hold its fort.

CASE BENEFIT ANALYSIS-

1. The opp seems to be reeling under the notion that the status quo existent today (as they see it) is one where religious conversions have optimal regulation and hence they believe that this regulated scenario is the best. We have told you, as the prop, that the status quo today is an impediment in the process of religious conversions. Our notions have been-

1. liberty. The opp seems to concur with us on this- the only difference being that they propose a regulated form of liberty. They argue against conversion for money and say that this is akin to legalizing fraud. On the other hand, they tend to treat religion rather exclusively and as a sensitive issue. The contradiction is evident- either religion is exclusive and sensitive and hence people must be allowed to make their choice( under whatever parameters they may deem fit) . In this situation, we have clearly won the case. Else, if conversion is materialistic and maybe akin to fraud, the opp has made a blatant contradiction of themselves. Either ways, we have clearly won this point.

2. Secularism. The opp has accused us of making a ‘leap of faith’ by equating spiritual and monetary gains. This is rather strange, for it is evident that it is the opp that is indeed trying to draw unnecessary parallels( as I have mentioned in the previous sub point). We have told you that secularism in its essence empowers the individual to make a choice. The law gives an individual the option to decide his/her religion. If the law has to now decide on the question of permitting conversions, then where is this freedom? The opp tells you that unrestricted freedom is bad. We agree. But does this mean that we must pre-emptively curb freedom? The opp also says that religious conversions shall become a vote bank mechanism. Ladies and gentlemen, by allowing intervention between the follower and the faith-that is when people have a chance to capitalize on the scenario and unjustly manipulate vote banks. If an individual has choice, he/she may choose not to be a part of a vote bank even though he or she may belong to a particular faith. I quote the opp “we would be, by virtue of the law, be allowing people to buy votes” . This is exactly what we have been saying since the outset. This is another blatant contradiction in the opp ranks.



2. The opp seems to believe that the assumptions made by the law today with regard to religious freedom are appropriate. They propose erring on the side of caution- the absolute correct thing to do. However, what they so blatantly fail to see in their quest for restrictions is which is the side of caution. In their argument, they have cited the fact that the “founding fathers of the constitution felt it reasonable that if a large group was seeking conversion, there were overwhelming chances that it was by force or allurement.” We, the proposition, have shown you how it isn’t really reasonable to assume such a fact without proof to the contrary. The very laws that my worthy opponents talk about proposes innocence of any under-trial until proclaimed guilty. Then, by their logic, this law must also be flawed- and it certainly can’t be in the interests of everyone. The fact remains, ladies and gentlemen, that allowing an individual the freedom of choice is the best way to err, if at all. As we have already mentioned, these very laws that my opponents propose can be used in case any malpractice is found out. After all, a pre-emptive use of such laws is likely to result in fallacies of post-hoc. Moreover, in case the allurement/conversion was by force, the individual/group has the power vested in him to appeal.

With regards the alluring of the lower castes, the opposition’s argument about luring by material gain has already been aptly countered by us. We have proved to you how an individual has the right to choose what is good for him. If he/she wants material gains for personal growth, it is not for us to sit on judgement on whether this is right or wrong. Morality is an individualistic concept. It is not the prerogative of society to sit on value judgements. At most, society may approve or disapprove. However, the onus to act is on the individual alone.

The entire argument of religious clashes has already been dealt with by me, so I shall waste no more time on repeating myself.

3. As an apt continuation of my previous argument, as we have mentioned how morality is an individual’s prerogative and not something for society to sit on judgement on- I shall now prove the point.
1. The opp seems to be mixing up religion,politics and economics. Regardless, for the sake of completion of argumentation, I shall first tackle this redundant point. Firstly, the simple reason that these three topics are related is because they are all a consequence of an individual’s right to choice. I cannot stress more on the fact that a restricted freedom of choice is basically no freedom of choice. It is, in the opposition’s terms, akin to giving a baby a lollipop and preventing him/her from eating it. Restrictions of freedom of choice in fact have more severe consequences. For one, there is always the option of subverting the law if an individual is willing. As the opp seems to suggest that some of the population in our country are in dire straits, this is a very realistic possibility. We do not want to unnecessarily start filling up courtrooms with cases of people who made a personal choice for personal gain, do we? For another, restrictions do nothing more than just reflect the regressive mindset of society. An individual makes up a faction , not the vice versa. By curbing/regulating/restricting this process, all that we do is first make life difficult, and if things ‘seem’ to be normal, then we go the apology way. Else, we assert that the law is right and the individual(no matter how genuine the case is) is wrong. Either ways, the situation is far from pleasant.
2. I have already shown to you how different individuals may have different morals and values. To say that selling my vote for money may be wrong to me- to someone else it may be his only remaining means of survival. Again, morals make up society, society doesn’t make morals. Hence, society has no business to sit on individual judgements.

Sreedharan Discussion

Lots of feedback that a discussion on something current would be fun. So lets go for it.

"This house would not have E. Sreedharan as the chief guest of the IITB convocation on account of the recent quality failures at the Delhi metro site."

The best points for the motion will be compiled and a copy given to the DoSA, courtesy Rahul Dash.

Define this!

Below are some open-ended motions. Come up with funny, wacky, interesting defintions of these motions, that ?may actually?! be debateable?

THW do the moon walk.
THW just beat it.
THW get rid of Ronaldo.
THW dance to Rakhi's tune.
THW stick to the walls.
THW shave our heads.
THW fiddle on the roof.

Hey guys,

Rajat is making merry in Canada enjoying maple syrup and Terrence and Philip ... so we continue the debate on this post. We have the final constructive speech from the opposition below.


How will this debate end now?

If you have some ideas, do mail me at pranaybhatia02@gmail.com. For now, here's the plan - After this, each team gets the opportunity to make a final closing speech. No new points are allowed in the reply speeches.

We then invite all of you to judge this debate and vote for one of the sides. Put in a comment with the side you think won and do explain your decision as well. Vote on the arguments presented by the teams, not your personal opinions! The winning team members get these delicious foreign chocolates from me. So your vote is very very important!


Funda of the closing speech :

Reply speakers give a recap of the debate and a convincing biased adjudication. A reply speech is a review of both your own and the opposition's case. It represents a chance for the teams to show their arguments in the best light and to summarize the flaws in the opposition's case. The aim is to emphasize the major points made by your own team and to show how these contributed to a logical progression of argument in support of your theme line. At the same time the flaws in the opposition's argument must be outlined. This can be done point-by-point, or by taking a more global approach to the arguments.


Funda of judging a debate :

The team which presented a better argument for its side of the debate did the better debating. Better arguments can be presented with better style or more logically appealing, but the substance of the arguments should outweigh purely superficial style. A team which looked good did not necessarily win.
Please note, that the Judge does not have to agree with the side which did the better debating, the judge merely has to recognize that their arguments were superior. If someone decides to propose the case "Abortion is immoral," the judge may dislike that debater. The judge may know of twenty reasons why abortion is not immoral. But the judge must decide if the Government's arguments for the case statement outweigh the Opposition's arguments that abortion is not immoral.
The judge should adopt a convention known as tabula rasa, the blank slate. A blank slate perspective means that the judge has no preconceived notions about the round and brings no knowledge or arguments to the round. The Government does not lose because the judge can beat their case. The Opposition does not lose because they did not beat the case as well as the judge could have or in the same way the judge would.
The only time the judge should use any outside knowledge would be when one side asserts bald-faced lies or when one side makes arguments which are so illogical that no ordinary person would believe them. Otherwise, the debaters must tell the judge why something does not make sense or why one argument outweighs another argument. The judge makes their decision about who won and who lost based on whether the arguments made in favor of the case statement outweighed the arguments against the case statement.



And here's the opp3 speech by Ishan Shrivastava -

Ladies and gentlemen, my speech primarily comprises of how the proposition is playing with morality and science to justify a completely illogical move of banning non-vegetarianism.

The prop, according to its own convenience has justified the reason for discriminating against plants as 'emotional pain'. Hasn't the same Creator who has given us the 'responsibility' of 'guarding the weak', given life to them? Plants, being the weakest of them all should be given A+ security then. But the opp does not believe in such baseless theories and considers our survival to be the top most priority, hence we defined meat as a 'luxury' food item. Thus, our point on the prop's hypocritical morality still stands. They are hopping about Science and Morality to suit themselves alone. My competent friend here says that Bose's claims were philosophical, then what are yours?

'...and then the opposition expects the government to waste more land resources for the animals! '- Proposition
and we thought that animals were equal to us... Shouldn't they have an equal right to these lands? Here I would bring into light the 'toddlers and aged' example again. These are members of our species, who will contribute or have contributed to the society in one way or another. Therefore, it is govt's duty to ensure their protection.

How can the govt. impose its interpretation of the Creator's will (if we are to believe in any) and intervene in an individual's acceptance of the fact that He/She did not make certain species as anatomically superior as others and wanted us to enjoy some 'flesh'? But the government sees blood and considers animals as our brothers. The govt's sole purpose is to ensure welfare of their own kind. Therefore, the only debatable point of the proposition I see is the damage caused to the environment.

If we are to agree to the facts presented to us by the proposition-Let us for the time being! Some more facts, which do not need any source citation include the use of vehicles, manufacturing of each and every product, celebration of festivals and many more, which are sources of pollution and most of them come under the category of 'luxury'. Will the govt. go ahead and ban them too? No! It wont. It will rely on technology to come up with solutions as it has continued to do so throughout the ages. An example here could be 'The Green Revolution', which solved the problem of food scarcity across the globe. Where it failed, the major causes included corruption and the unwillingness of governments.

The govt. cannot go ahead and just ban something when there are measures to ensure a balance. Rules and regulations to ensure that there is a healthy balance is the need of the hour. Just because we are expecting a gloomy future for this planet due to way more hazardous causes than non-vegism, the prop sees the ban as a rebound option for a positive step. But what the prop fails to realize is that abolishment of an industry, which supports millions and has religious sentiments as pointed out earlier is an insane and illogical step. Too many cars. Ban them! Too much of furniture. Ban it! Too much of electricity. Ban it! I will not stretch my point and once again emphasize on the fact that the government has the power and resources to ensure balance. In this case, the law-framers can ensure a cap on the production of packaged meat, mark-off lands, provide education to the livestock farmers, ensure quality standards at industries with penalties for the wrong-doers. Such steps can be carried out in every sphere (e.g. promotion of public transport) to get things into a smooth scenario. Resources are bound to deplete, now or some time in the future. What the govt. should ensure is that it does not pass baseless laws, practices healthy economic and social methods, and supports the scientific researches.

Also, according to the 10% logic which the proposition put forward, the govt. should go ahead and ban all the veggie food products also, which give lesser energy/vitamins/minerals/

proteins/etc. than the ones, which give the maximum. Also mentioned earlier, the need of the hour is balance and not outright ban as most illogically suggested by prop.

Even though, our stand is based considering food as a 'luxury' item, we would like to bring into notice that in certain parts of the country/world, it is not possible to ensure an adequate protein intake without meat.

I would like to conclude my speech by re-emphasizing on the hypocritical morality of the proposition, as rightly done by my fellow opposition members. Also, the scientific facts are not at all conclusive for an outright ban on such a massive industry. The previous speaker/writer started his speech by being amused at the 'appalling' justification of the 'meat-eaters' statement. The highly narrow - minded pre-conceived notions of the proposition are evident through the title given to us. We could all be vegetarians for all you know.

-----------------------------------

Prop and opp each get one last speech to recap their case. Opp reply is furter down.

Here's the reply speech for the proposition by Pranay -

It’s been a long debate. Take a breath, relax, and let logic guide your thinking.

Allow me to show you why we on side prop have made several substantive arguments that more than discharge our burden, while the opposition has been too scared to take a stand and have responded to all our arguments with irrelevant, illogical or inhuman arguments.

Firstly, let me remind you of the assumptions of this debate. The opposition conceded that meat was a luxury, that it is not exclusively required to survive or for any other special dietary requirements. In other words, for the purposes of this debate, the only reason you might eat meat is because you enjoy the taste.

We made a very simple argument. We proposed criteria regarding what qualities a living thing must possess to merit moral consideration. Animals, as sentient beings, that feel pain, and have cognitive abilities that often exceed those of young children, deserve some consideration. To inhibit all their natural instincts, make every moment of their life excruciatingly painful, and then mercilessly kill them at the end is inhuman and frankly, pathetic. The opposition response? They rejected our criteria, but never once gave you their own criteria. That’s because they had no logical criteria. Their only statement on this matter was that we as humans owe nothing to animals. The opposition affords absolutely no moral consideration to animals! They say, and I quote, ‘we do not have a duty towards them.‘ If you feel like killing your cat, Opp says go ahead. Opp does not believe that breeding conditions in factory farms should be regulated. If you want to torture animals and charge others a fee to watch the ‘fun’, Opp says sure, why not. If you want to keep zoo animals in pathetic conditions, Opp says okay, your wish, the govt. shouldn’t stop you! In a world where the courts do not even allow the BMC to cull stray dogs; this is clearly not the will of the people in society.

We further told you how the practice of non-vegetarianism severely affects ecosystems and causes the large scale loss of animals’ lives. We told you why this is fundamentally more unsustainable than vegetarianism, and how it will come back to bite us as humans, if we do not stop destroying the environment for reasons as trivial as ‘I like the taste’. We also told you why these steps are depriving the poor of food because they are so wasteful. We do not pretend that the step we propose will solve all problems related to the environment or related to the poor, but it will be a huge step in the right direction. We have seen no rebuttal on that point. The funny part is that Opp doesn’t want species extinct, but it doesn’t mind their numbers getting severely reduced and that ecosystem destroyed. What benevolent moral principles guide this stand of side Opp?

Opp claimed that vegetarianism also causes pain to plants. We showed you why that is simply scientifically wrong. Moreover, plants are not tortured and inhibited from living their natural lives. Let’s not kid ourselves; there are orders of magnitudes difference between the two cases. Even if we assume for a second that plants do feel some significant pain, we should still make the choice to inflict lesser pain, a choice that obviously leads to vegetarianism.

The opposition has hidden behind lofty principles of ‘freedom of choice’. Opp talked about the ‘right to choice’ and how the government must respect individual morality and ‘religious freedoms’. Allow me to repeat myself - If that were so, Sati would still be prevalent, and I would be permitted to torture goats for fun. To this Opp says – ‘If you speak about Sati, it was never moral, it continued because it was enforced on women.’ Yes, and non-vegetarianism is enforced on countless animals who are made to suffer, just like those women were. But of course, Opp sees nothing wrong in that. Opp has ‘no duty’ towards animals. Opp also talks about cigarettes, drinking and the right to choice. In neither of these cases do you force the torture of animals in the manner you do while eating meat. Where cigarettes harm others through second hand smoke, the govt. does step in and make laws regardless of your ‘right to choice’.

Opp has no morality, no ethics and no sense of righteousness. They also have no case. The Government, considering the clear logic of the issue of unnecessary animal suffering, as well as the serious repercussions of non-vegetarianism on feeding the poor, on the sustainability of ecosystems and hence on our own environmental surroundings, can either take the right step or impotently turn its eyes away.

Remember, we are a rational people. Arguments like ‘It’s always happened that way’ or ‘I like that so I won’t stop’ or ‘I will accept arbitrary divisions that have no logic’ are not valid. That’s all Opp has offered, while we have given you several substantives. We rest our case.

-----------------------------------

Here's the reply speech for the opposition by Ravi Bhoraskar -

Ladies And Gentlemen,

As we come to the conclusion of the debate, the result must be fairly clear, and the opposition has clearly won the debate. During the course of my speech I shall list down the major issues around which the debate has revolved, and I shall show how the opposition's arguments have been far superior on each of the points, and hence how the opposition has won the debate.

The debate has revolved around the following points: One, the environment and how non vegetarianism harms it. Two, the economic viability of eating meat and the sustainability of non vegetarianism. Third, the effect of meat on health. Fourth, the right to choice and whether the government has sufficient justification to ban meat. And finally, morality and how non vegetarianism is cruel and unjust. I shall discuss each of these points and show how the opposition's arguments are stronger on each of them.

Let us begin with the environment issue. The proposition argued that consumption of non vegetarian food detoriates the environment. The opposition show that this fact alone does not justify a ban. Environmental degradation is caused by use of vehicles, manufacturing of each and every product, celebration of festivals and a lot more. However it would be preosterous to think of banning these. The fact is that excess of anything becomes an evil, and the aims of the government should be directed towards enforcement of moderation, and development of technology to find solutions. Enforcing indiscriminate bans can never be a solution, and when the government begins to interfere into each and every aspect of the affairs of its citizens, the society detoriates into anarchy, which should never be allowed.

The point on which there has been maximum debate and discussio n has beeen that of morality. The proposition has constantly shifted stance and has tried to conveniently frame a model of morality which proves their point. Under this morality, it is not okay to kill animals for food because they feel painand because it is wrong to take the life of one of God's creations, but plants(though they too are God's creation) are excluded because after all it is a matter of survival. Under this morality, humans are given weighty titles like “guardians of the weak” but we conveniently forget that plants too are weak and need protection. In this morality, it is okay that millions of humans lose their jobs and source of livelihood, so that animals can be saved from pain. Obviously it is a farce and hypocritical morality which they are talking about.

The opposition believes that people do not have a filet mignon because they want to prove their dominance over other species, nor because they want to show they are powerful. They have it merely because it is scrumptuous and they love to eat it. The opposition further believes that people should be allowed to eat what they want to. Morality is a matter of personal faith, and the government cannot and should not impose a collective morality on its citizens(unless there is a loss to the society as a whole, which in this case there clearly isn't).

The next area of the debate has been the economic viability of meat. The proposition has raised questions over the sustainability of non vegetarianism and has harped on about the harm injustice being done to the world's poor. The opposition believes that the government is trying to push forward a communist ideology. Following the same logic, the government would ban all luxury items in the world including strawberries, mangoes, vanilla and saffron. This would after all bring justice to the poor, which is what the proposition is looking for. They would also have us all eat plain steamed rice, for breakfast, lunch and dinner as this would reduce the hunger in the world. Totally ridiculous, ladies and gentlemen. The opposition has shown throughout the debate via arguments, rhetoric an analogies the fatal flaw in this approach of the proposition which is that the government has no right to control my mind and to tell me what to do.

The proposition also gave health as a reason to ban non vegetarian food. While it may be true that eating meat increases cholestrol level, there are equally dangerous problems with vegetarian food, if not worse. Fertilizers, pesticides and contaminated water have been scientifically proved to be carcinogenic. Also it is a matter of choice for the citizens whether they want to risk their health or not. The most the government should do is to print mandatory health warnings on the meat packets. A very effective example given was that of cigarettes, which shows that the individuals righ tot choose supercedes any health concerns which the government may have for its citizens. The proposition gave many fact and figures and arguments to prove their point, but no graph can beat the sheer common sense which says that the right to choose must prevail.

Ladies and Gentlemen, on each and every point discussed in the debate, the opposition has come on top and has exposed the baselessness and frivolity of the weak case put forward by the proposition. On these grounds, the debate has clearly been won by the opposition.

-----------------

And that's it. Now we await your verdict! See the judging fundae at the start of this post, think logically and tell us which side you think wins the debate and why.

Gotta say, this has been fun.