A ban on the veil at work is not appropriate.

Thank you for your rebuttal. In the spirit of a fair and fun debate, my clarification was an attempt to clarify exactly what you intended by your debate topic. It is reasonable to assume that the opening to a debate won’t be a truistic one, and will at least afford the opposing side a fair chance. I did not “change the debate”; I only wrote out how anyone with common sense would have understood the topic.I did not specify one specific organization that would easily grant me the victory, nor did I provide the clarification in a way that assumes anything unreasonable and allows me to win by default. I even agreed to apply the debate to the U.K. where Pro lives (but I do not). By Pro's rules, he is allowed to go back and change any part of a debate topic he doesn’t specify. Pro had all the time in the world to form his opening statement to his liking, and yet he still failed to do that. Had Pro actually put what he meant, there would not have been any confusion—or even a debate, apparently. This is what Pro is trying to teach us: if someone fails to define something clearly, it’s everyone else's responsibility to help him fix it. However, even with that in mind, Pro then blatantly contradicts himself. If he has won the debate already, why continue any further? Simple: Pro actually had my clarifications in mind as the topic when he started the debate, but he took advantage of my explanation and is using it as a safety net in case his other rebuttals fail (and boy, do they fail). In other words, he is trying to have his cake and eat it too. I will now demonstrate not only why his rebuttals fail, but also that he actually agrees with my clarification and had it in mind all along, and is now trying to change the debate to his liking. “Con then lists some 'examples’... However, this is wrong. Everyone knows that religious rights overcome all of those other things.” France has banned veils in many contexts despite having “religious freedom” [1]. In countries that practice Islam, women are required to wear a veil. There are many countries in which religious rights do not overcome “all of those other things” at all. Is Pro talking about the whole world? If he is, as he pointed out, he is completely wrong. Religious rights don’t overcome “all of those other things” unless you are living in a country that allows freedom of religion, such as the U.K. Clearly, Pro is trying to play both sides. Even if we are, in fact, talking exclusively about the U.K. as I had intended (and I strongly believe Pro secretly intended as well), companies can ban veils in certain cases, such as for models and actresses, as I pointed out earlier. Employers are by no means required to hire people who want to wear whatever they want in every case. If a veil is in the way of work, they do not have to cave in to the employee and allow her to ruin whatever project they are working on. Then, Pro lists some advantages the veil has. This in no way refutes my argument that there are other ways of coping (see Rebuttal Part 1). The advantages of the veil have no bearing on my argument. In conclusion: -Pro has not refuted any of my points. The one rebuttal he attempted was incomplete at best. -Pro has not even addressed all of my points. What about models and actresses? What about bans on other forms of clothing? What about banning veils for reasons other than religion, such as morale and efficiency? -Pro does not have a clear idea of what he is arguing in the first place: if he is arguing for religious tolerance, he should have brought that up in his first argument. If he is arguing about a worldwide ban, he somehow incorrectly assumed that religion is a freedom everywhere and people make fun of each other for their looks everywhere. The blatant hypocrisy and attempt to change the topic at the very end is astounding. I thank Pro for the fun and fair debate. Sources: [1] http://www.nytimes.com...