Muslim women should be able to wear hijabs/headscarves wherever and whenever they want

Let us observe what, exactly, has occurred in the Round 1-2. Who met the burden of proof, who failed to do so?The correct answer is that Pro failed to uphold their burden of proof whilst Con undeniably did so.I shall now show the framework of logic within this debate and explain why the Con case is rested upon far deeper foundation than the flimsy one of Pro's.Pro literally concedes to the entirety of my first contention but adds in, as a last comment, that the aftermath of banning the Hijab would be to devastating to any private property owner to do so. This is not only irrelevant but is also incorrect in and of itself.The IrrelevanceThe irrelevance of this point is that as long as Pro concedes that any, one, private property on Earth is entitled to ban the wearing of Hijab within their premises at a given time, then he concedes that any Muslim woman present on those premises should not be allowed to wear the Hijab "whenever and wherever they want". Thus the entire debate has already been won at this point but I shall, nonetheless, endeavour to cover my bases on the other, equally futile, lines of attack.The Severe FallacyAny Bar/Pub in a Neo-Nazi neighbourhood of any nation would lose customers form banning the Hijab. Instead, they'd lose very many, as well as tarnish their reputation, if they were to allow anyone to wear it (apart from Islamic nations but no Neo-Nazi gangs exist there). Now, since Muslims do not drink alcohol (generally speaking) it is still applicable to any Muslims dining at the Bar/Pub as many do offer this facility.In actual fact, any Church on a Sunday proceeding, Hindu or Buddhist temple, Synagogue, Church of Scientology or any other place of worship than a Muslim one allowed Hijab wearing at the time of their worship would severely lose popularity and people would be willing to move to the ones in surrounding neighborhoods to avoid it. It's disrespectful to wear a hijab in another place of worship just as much as it is to flash your tits in a Mosque.Regardless, there are literally infinite scenarios whereby an organization may end up less profitable if they allowed Hijabs than if they banned them, so this is an endless and flawless win for Con so far.So, to counter my second point, Pro irrelevantly mentions that USA is allied to Saudi Arabia. Unless Pro can explain why this is remotely relevant, they should apologize for even raising it and let it drop. Pro agrees that the Saudi policy on not wearing Hijabs is more dire than the policy on wearing Hijabs anywhere else in the world. Not only does Pro agree to this but he furthermore asserts that my argument does not make sense to him. Pro indirectly admits that it probably does make sense but that they fail to grasp it. They were merely requesting clarification.I will now fully clarify why if Islamic nations have no respect for other culture's fashion (especially in their workplaces and schools) then other nations should most definitely treat them the same way. The answer lies in the fact that the justification for allowing women to wear Hijab is that their religion's way of life demands it. On the other hand, their religious way of life demands no respect for ways of life other than one's own. This is furthermore supported by the fact that Iran also has compulsory Hijab wearing, meaning that the most Sunni and most Shi'a nations on Earth both force women to wear the Hijab against their will and discard their own culture's values and traditions. Even more ironic is that [1] in 1936, the ruler Reza Shah deemed the chador and hijab as incompatible with his modernizing ambitions. The police arrested women who wore the veil and forcibly removed it. Many women refused to leave the house in fear. So, tell me please why if nations of Islam resort to this sort of force to ensure their dress code must be worn, that others cannot do the same to them? Please give a reason.[1] Abrahamian, Ervand (1982). Iran Between Two Revolutions. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. pp. 123–163. ISBN 9780691053424.As for the third point, people can be asked to take shoes off, in fact they can be strip searched [http://www.duhaime.org...] forcibly in many nations if there is reason to believe they are carrying such weapons. The resolution says whenever and wherever meaning that even in such an extreme situation, Pro would have Muslim women exempt from such safety precautions, putting everyone at risk. Niqabs and Burqas are very relevant since most of the Western world is coming averse to them and alerting security whenever someone wears them. Thus, the Hijab will become the next line of attack inevitably (think like a terrorist for a minute).In regards to the USA argument. This debate is not about American law, it is about laws of any nation anywhere at any time that may possibly ban Hijab for any given reason not being allowed because Pro asserts that Muslim women should be permitted to wear Hijabs when and where they please. Technically speaking there would be no persecution if they were forced to dress like the rest of the people around them, it would actually eradicate the possibility of persecution altogether. So, the argument falls flat. This isn't about persecution, it is about the right to enforce your culture's dress code on your citizens being wrong to do to a Muslim while it's fully accessible in their culture to do to non-Muslims.