Religion as a form of worship should be banned

There is a big difference between prohibiting religious worship (which is the resolution) and abolishing a civil rights law. Let’s define the resolution more accurately, when we say ‘Religion as a form of worship should be banned’, we can automatically assume that Religion in general should be prohibited in all places, which CON argued on R2, but, my argument is that, banning Religion under a specific jurisdiction, with the support and protection from its local laws which are correlated with the international laws, is unlawful. Since the beginning, CON hasn’t mentioned anything in his arguments against refuting the argument supporting the law of religious freedom. In fact, I was the first one to introduce these arguments in the debate. The Burden of Proof of both sides is clear since the beginning. CON has disregarded them and decided to try and change it, which is unacceptable since we’re already in the clash and climax of the debate. To clarify, as PRO, my BOP is not to argue that the laws supporting religious freedom shouldn’t be abolished or taken away, no, my BOP is to argue that religious worship shouldn’t be banned and give reasonable and legitimate/legal arguments supporting these claims. I have done it in the previous round by arguing and supporting laws for religious freedom and by arguing that there could be a negative impact on society if we ban it. CON’s BOP is to prove that religious worship should be banned and prohibited regardless of religious freedom under international law, not to argue as to why the laws should be taken away, because if this is his BOP, then we’d see him argue and give evidence as to why freedom of religion laws are unbeneficial, unnecessary, nonessential and undesirable, but he didn’t, all he did was to give baseless arguments with irrelevant sources and complain on the negativity or Religion in general, not laws on religious freedom. As I said, the BOPs were clear on both sides since CON failed to clarify both positions and the BOPs since the beginning, so, CON is wrong on saying that my arguments are invalid, because they’re valid, acceptable, legitimate and reasonable ones negating the resolution, which basically means that my argument still stands. Now, to proceed with my opponent’s responses on my previous rebuttals, he gives various definitions on words which is a small thing and is irrelevant, which brings the debate off course. He goes around trivializing what 'faith' is, and as I said in the previous round, there are many definitions of faith, and I’ve defined faith as a trust in something or someone, faith can also mean hope but they have no differences, some people consider faith as an important aspect of life, William James, a philosopher regards faith is important and that life is impossible without it. (SOURCE: . http://en.wikipedia.org...) Next, CON then counters my statement of the possibility of God’s existence saying it isn’t a fact but he previously failed to give factual evidence on his assertion on denying God’s existence. Now, about the propaganda issue, it’s still unclear on what he’s talking about, but having propaganda like what Hitler can’t happen again so violently like what happened then. Oh, and I, in no way, accused him of being a Hitler supporter and CON saying so is purely insane. I'd also like to point out that Hitler’s Religion and his ways of conquering and governing is argumentative and therefore irrelevant. CON states: “The problem is people grow up accepting what the church has to say and they don't build up their own opinions. ” We have secular laws, where the church and state are separated in most countries, and the church is accepting it, most people aren’t robots who are controlled by the church, they have minds too, they can choose to believe in the church’s teachings or not, it’s their right to do so and no one has the right to deprive the people of their beliefs. CON states: “I'm simply asking that people be forced to think for themselves; a paradox, though, it may seem. ” Again, as I said in the previous round, no one has the right to coerce or force people into leaving their faith and belief, because the people have their right to choose on what to believe. Most of CON’s rebuttals lead us to another discussion, which makes them irrelevant to the debate. He states that I do not have some sources to my implications, but he’s talking about some of my hypothetical and logical reasons, they don’t need factual sources. Ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion, I’ve clarified my position and my BOP and argued thoroughly and CON failed to refute them and instead, turns this into a play on technicalities, which means that my opponent still needs to refute my argument that freedom of belief, conscience and religion is a fundamental right, a human and civil right protected by international law and other laws worldwide and that he should argue that it should be prohibited regardless of the laws, which CON needs to prove using credible, legitimate and reasonable arguments. CON also needs to negate the fact that freedom of Religion is not a fundamental and well-deserved right to have. If CON can't decently and convincingly argue his position, then it's okay to assume PRO has won the debate. I urge the readers to extend and consider my previous arguments, thank you. I await my opponent’s response. Thank you.