There should be a Ram Mandir (Temple) in Ayodhya

I think my opponent has had enough. - is this appropriate? I leave voters to decide.On the part about me rebutting in round 2, I only said that we should not make our points because the majority think it is right. If I did not say it there, we would be wasting time on it in this round and Pro would have stuck to that point throughout the debate which would hinder his case. If anything, my rebuttal only helped keep the debate moving along. Furthermore, I did not rebut his point about there being a Ram Temple before the Mughal Empire and I did not rebut his point about the temple being destroyed in previous centuries.When I said Ram was a mythological character, I did not mean to say that he is 100% fake. What I meant by mythological is that it is a traditional story which is what myths are. Of course, the other definition of myth is something that is unreal. I DID NOT MEAN THE LATTER DEFENITIONBesides how is it insulting? Everyone who is not hindu believe Ram to be indeed 100% fake, does that mean that all Non-Hindus insult Hindus just because they do not have the same beliefs? Either way, my implication was that Ram was a tradiontal folktale character.Pro says that the (bad) state of India's economy and education system has nothing to do with building a temple.What I meant to say was that since India's economy is not a developed economy (its not quite there yet, despite the 'high' GDP) and the education system is dismal as I explained in round 2, India must spend wisely. Where else is better to spend than education? Education is the country's future. My main point was that instead of spending money on a temple, India could use the money to modernize its infrastructure, spend it on public education or healthcare. This means in the long run, the situation of the poor will improve.You want to educate 287 million illiterate Indians from the money you would save by not building a templeOf course 287 million Indians cannot be educated with money used to build a temple (albeit, a huge temple). I simply said the money could be used to improve the situation. Even if it is a little bit, it is worth it. More worth than a temple.Pro says that calling Ram a 'myth' (as in unreal) was the equivalent to calling Jesus a myth in a society where Christianity governs the society. Hinduism does not govern society, India is a secular republic. Yes, the majority (lowering majority) might be Hindus but there are other religions too. The Ram temple only serves to satisfy the Hindu population, but not the others. Pro argues that the temple could become a tourist attraction and help the economy that way as well. While I am not in denial of this, it does help the economy but not as much as we would all want.Let's look at Agra which is thriving ('thriving') of Taj Mahal tourism(Yes, I used sarcasm) If a city with a wonder of the world cannot generate enough tourism money to clean up river pollution and clean the streets, then I seriously doubt Ram temple will create tourism money to actually benefit the people. You still did not tell us why the Ram Temple shouldn’t be built.The reason is simple: There are better things to spend money on.If a private religious organization was building the Temple, then I would still be upset (simply because it is not an organization funding schools) but I would probably not consider it 'wrong'.The thing that bothers me the most is that a modern-day secular democratic government would be spending money on a religious structure when it has literally millions of other problems which should probably take higher priority.Let me list a few things India should defenitely spend more on1) Education (as I mentioned countless times)2) Infrastructure3) Social Programs4) Environmental Sustainability5) Energy (preferably renewable energy)6) Technological Research. I think we can all agree that the money used to build temples could be far better used in these 6 things. Not just Ram temple, but religious structures in general. Besides, its not like India has any shortage of temples. Pro says that India is one of the most promising countries on economic groundIf India is so promising and does have much potential, we should be spending on things that improve the economy (and temple's improvment to the economy is miniscule)In other words, should we not be trying to unlock the economic and intellectual superpower lying within? instead of building temples?To conclude:A developing secular democracy (key word - secular) must use its money for more useful investments than a temple, and investments whose benefits can be enjoyed by Hindus, Muslims, Atheists, etc and not just one religious or ethnic group (even if majority).