Ethics classes are a good alternative to Special Religious education in Primary Schools.

For my closing argument, I would like to answer my opponents assertions to my assertions. "For this debate 'Ethics Classes' are defined as: Secular classes in which a qualified instructor leads children in a structured discussion about the question 'what ought I to do?' in varying situations." My opponent claims that I've misunderstood the definition of a Ethics Class, yet if we look at the definition he gave and I agreed to, we can see all of the problems I've brought up about Ethics Classes are valid. Yes, there is a discussion amongst students, however, a teacher is still presiding over it, allowing for intervention. My opponent claims that a class would be untouched by the teacher, but what if the class is wrong about an issue? Say the class is filled with raging homophobics and they come to the conclusion you should shun them and humiliate them at every single turn? Is the teacher supposed to sit there and watch? Of course there's going to be teacher interaction, and that's where bias comes into play. My opponents second point state's we are moving towards a secular society. Although this isn't really an important point in the first place, I'll respond. I have brought up a statistic that proves 84% of the world is religious. I did not prove whether that stat is moving up or down, because that's simply not the point. The point is that 84% of the world is religious, and children should be taught what the world believes in at a safe environment, not urged to pick one. On a side note, my opponent challenged the validity of my statistic. However, all that he's done is tried to cast doubt. If you check the link, you can see a comprehensive study on major religions that has several cited sources to validate it. It's not bias as my opponent states. I'd also like to bring up that my opponent failed to bring up a counter-statistic to the 84% religion stat. We can see several reasons why my opponent is simply wrong. It's true that I've stated that Special Religious Classes offer everything Ethics Classes do. It's true, and they also teach more. When studying a religion, the religion's morals are brought into question. Insightful discussion on the matter can be instigated. Are Christians right with their moral code? Should we follow the Hindu's moral code? We can teach students to look at religious morals, which I've proved concerns 84% of the world. Lastly, my opponent states that Special Religious Education is my fit for high school. I would actually contend that it's fit for both. There is no reason to not offer basic Special Religious Education to primary school students. My opponent simply asserted that it was fit just for high school. Which is better? An primary school student being taught what's around him, or a high school student being taught what's around him? We can see that both are good. My opponent has stated that this debate concerns if Ethics Classes should be considered for an "alternative." I've proved multiple times the merits of Special Religious Education and the flaws of Ethics Classed. My opponent stated that bias also affected Special Religious Education. Can a teacher teaching math really show any bias in her set curriculum teaching already know facts? The same applies for Special Religious Education. Are Ethics Classes a valid alternative? No. If you child had the choice between Calculus and Gym class, you would urge him to take up Calculus. Calculus is rarely used. One class is obviously more important. Special Religious Education teach students valuable lessons that Ethics Classes simply do not. Are ethics classes good by nature and goal? Of course. Yet we must ask ourselves what is more important. Special Religious Education is just as important as core academic classes. It's like offering sports against math. Both are a good thing, yet one prepares you more for the world. I'd like to thank my opponent for this interesting debate, and I'd like to thank the reader for following. For the reasons stated above, I urge a Con vote.