Ban astrology

I will answer it and provide rebuttles in a step-wise format, below: I didn't mean that you had said religion should be banned, only that the next logical progression of your argument would be that it should be. Your first four paragraphs affirmed that religion and astrology are tightly connected in the ways that become important for our debate, but don't actually provide a reason of why you think they are different and should be treated differently in terms of the ban you are proposing. Your fifth paragraph then begun with: "But what I"ve been arguing about is not ban religion, astrology. .. for non-profit uses. ". This suggests that you would in fact like to ban religion as well as astrology in terms of both their commercial use. You then followed by saying "So every profit organisation would be banned or at least regulated. ", but did not address my previous point that astrology is, in fact, already regulated! Religion also undergoes a light amount of regulation, as I pointed out earlier. You did agree with me that raising the taxes is a good option if we can't ban these activities, which I appreciate, but that seems to further all of the points I have made. I am having a hard time making sense of your sixth paragraph, because it seems to align nicely with many of the arguments I made in my last statement. As I mentioned in the tail-end of every one of my previous arguments, astrology and religion are synonymous in the discussion of banning a profit-based, scientifically-unproveable, spiritual business. You have to either make a logical argument that can divide this so that religion goes free but astrology can be logically shown to deserve a nationwide ban, or you need to include religion in the ban you've proposed we'll be stewing a whole new kettle of fish. I maintain that the former cannot be done in a logically progressive manner, and that the latter is a tough, perhaps untenable, argument that (now that we are in the final stages of this) would require an entirely new debate. Paragraph seven is again difficult to address because it hinges on your point that these business should be regulated, and this is not a sound argument because it provides no response to my previously stated fact that they ARE already regulated. Furthermore, I would like to point out that there are many disanalogies between a fortune-teller booth and the tobacco industry. For starters, tobacco is very much harmful to one's person. Banning tobacco is an entirely new argument, and not without its own difficulties in today's world, but is irrelevant to this discussion on astrology. "China for instance, has since 1978 (the year of its economic liberalisation and market orientation) made a big economic growth. The second perspective however is Scandinavia, especially Sweden. The Nordic countries have made a big success with their social democracies. Aldue the Norwegian economy rose by the help of Oil. But progressive policies and regulation of food industry have lead to better health conditions in average. " Response: Again, these are facts and I can agree with them- however, they are not relevant to this discussion on the grounds that other countries aren't economically thriving because they've banned astrology (because they haven't banned astrology), and also that, as I have mentioned a number of times now, the industries we are talking about are already regulated in the present tense and so arguing that they need to at least be regulated is going to be uphill. In paragraph 8, with the opening statement "Religion or spirituality or similar actually isn't that needed. Why? A quite secular, atheist or at least agnostic country/ organised society based on science works. ", I am now getting the vibe that you ARE at this point arguing that religion should be regulated by the government. However you have also said "But the freedom of religion is important. ". Therefore, because your later statement "I believe that regulating religious business is needed, but allowing the freedom of religion and freedom of choosing your beliefs. " is contradictory of and within itself, I cannot address it. Finally, your final line was: "People still can do astrology and related but not for profit. ". Again, though I think I've beaten this point to death, you haven't address many of my arguments that show that if you can have a valid reason to ban astrology being done for profit, you should also be able to logically show that any profit in religion (ie. the minister's salary, or the secretary's wage) should be banned as well. Since astrology does not have any cost associated with performing it, you're really not even arguing that it should be regulated into a non-profit exclusive type of business: you're just saying that fortune tellers can tell fortunes, but only for free. Because fortune tellers make the money they use to buy their food by telling fortunes, this equates to just banning fortune telling. To summarize, I would submit to the voters that the majority of my points in previous arguments went ignored or otherwise unanswered, and my opponent's arguments became increasingly devoid of logical structure (please see above point that religion should be regulated, when it is). On a more playful note, what if I want to make a paper fortune-teller with my son and tell him he'll be rich someday to support me in my old age? If you don't agree with the pseudosciences, that makes two us- but banning something is a pretty extreme measure and calls for enforcement, and ultimately more money put in to get less out of your economic system. Thank you Pro for the healthy debate, and to voters for taking the time to vote! Cheers!