Government should ban the sponsorship of religious pilgrimage

The opponent keeps states that my rebuttal has no argument; in that case, I would like to request you to read it over again, and then think; is that really an argument? The opponent has clearly ignored most of my arguments by saying that I have no argument, and I really do think that the opponent should halt all these accusations, as I feel that they were shallow accusations with no proof whatsoever. Ignoring that, I would like to continue with my points and rebuttals. My opponent says that he agrees with my on my traditions argument. That only propels my point: stopping government sponsorship of religious pilgrimage or the banishments of all forms of sponsorship would destroy traditions of the country, because religion and pilgrimage is inherently the traditions of some religion; I have stated the example of Islam, but there can be many numerous examples; in Buddhism, every able bodied man is suppose to become a monk or enter monk hood at least once in their lives. Government sponsorship of this has enabled monks to encourage the teachings and passing on of ancient Buddhist texts to younger generations, making them morally and religiously aware of their belongings and their cultural identity. I would like the opponent to read the debate topic carefully: governments should ban the sponsorship of religious pilgrimages. The opponent says he never stated that going on a pilgrimage is bad, but by banishing all acts of sponsoring religious pilgrimages, government or private? That, right there, is too much for any person to bear; where is the liberty of supporting your traditions, culture and identity? There is none! This resolution (and the opponent) wants to ban the act of monks, who make their living by teaching morals to the younger generation, from talking about the "Great City of Mecca", "The Holy City of Jerusalem" or the "Ancient City of Sukhothai", as that would encourage them to go. Apart from being too rash, it also violates Article 3 and Article 18 of the Human Declaration of Human Rights, as the liberty to promote religious believes are outlawed and the freedom to practice religion has been banished because the government would ban all sponsorship of it. The opponent also thinks that government support of pilgrimages should be in the constitution: I can only say that not everything the government does has to be in the constitution. The opponent states that religious pilgrimages are unsafe by stating that "do you want the economy to advance with the determent of others?" Let me say two things: 1. The opponent has clearly ignored the fact that we live in an increasingly global and international world, where transnational transportation are given a priority. Albeit these might not be 100% safe, we can safely say that going on a pilgrimage in the 21st century is a different experience than going on a pilgrimage in the 13th century. 2. The opponent keeps using Nigeria as an example; it is a bad example. Nigeria's government is very corrupt, and it can be no fantasy to see that government officials taking bribes. But is Nigeria the only country sponsoring pilgrimages? No, there are many other countries whose sponsorship brought so many benefits. The opponent brings us one example, of chief Abomege, but there is no evidence of his story anywhere on the internet. Abormege is a road in Nigeria, and the opponent seems to be accounting and taking evidence from a fictional story. The opponent says what traditions: ending sponsorship of all religion would end the act of orally passing on information to our younger generation, who are already ignorant of religion. Ending all sponsorship of pilgrimages would severely limit the masses of Muslim going to Mecca to pay respect, to the masses of Hindus going to the Ganges to respect the dead buried there, to the masses of Buddhist going to respect the many temples in India and Burma, to the masses of Christian going to Jerusalem to pay their respect to the Holy City, and to the masses of Jews going to the New Temple. All of this would result in the complete eradication of cultural respect and would result in the limiting of religious interactions; a monk from Thailand who is denied the right of going on a pilgrimage will not be aware of the other types of Buddhism out there. All I will have to say about all the people who died while attending a pilgrimage in the 13th century is that they died going to the home of their faith. Since my opponent has given me no examples, other than a fictional story that doesn't seem to have existed, of modern pilgrimage deaths; I can only say that modern day pilgrimages are much safer than those pilgrimages of the 13th century. I will now answer all the questions that the opponent has asked me: 1. How many time has any country come to Nigeria? I would only reply that that question is so irrelevant I would like to answer with another question: is encouragement of going to pilgrimage the same as sponsorship of receiving pilgrims? 2. Or you want their economy to be rising at the determent of others? No I do not. But the opponent has not stated that at whose determent? The Jews? Muslims? Christians? Answer me, clearly and carefully; who is affected negatively by a pilgrimage to Israel? 3. Is the US government sponsoring pilgrimage? Then how do we account for the 10 billion dollars that US pilgrims have spent in the tourist market; it is because the US of A is a country of liberty, where the freedom to choose free will is present, is why the US does not need support. The opponent wants to ban the act of sponsoring pilgrimages altogether; that is no free will. 4. do we know that going for pilgrimage is not compulsory? So why must government sponsor millions of people to pilgrimage? Because there is always a steady flow of pilgrims coming to a holy site; that, itself, is an almost guarantee of steady income for the government and the people, what Nigeria needs. The opponent lastly that going on a pilgrimage is useless because you can do so in your room and your prayers will still be heard. I would like to answer by saying that going on a pilgrimage gives you a understanding of what your prophets had to go through, and some places are just holier than others, and some places gives you a deeper understanding of the world and your religion. In some religions, it is also mandatory, like Buddhism and Islam. In conclusion, the economic benefits of pilgrimages, along with the preservation of tradition and the violations of human rights that this would violate would bring in implications that the world would never know the solution. Implications like the loss of religious and moral identity, and the eternal hatred of humankind's eternal guiding light. Religion is important and it should never be forgotten; our ancestors and forefathers lived and died by it. Why should we be the generation that bears the shame of losing our identity? What if some religions are right? What if religion is actually a moral guide to society? Religion must be kept in place, and the government should sponsor all types of acts that would enlarge one's understanding towards religion. It is for these reasons, and many more that I am unable to present here, is why I urge you to vote con in the following ballot. I would like to thank the host for hosting this debate, and I would like to thank the opponent for participating in all rounds of this debate. Thank You and Have a Nice Day Citations: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.un.org... http://hrcak.srce.hr... http://en.wikipedia.org...