There should be a Ram Mandir (Temple) in Ayodhya

JUDGES PLEASE NOTE: First thing that should be understood before I begin my argument is the fact that my opponent while making his argument refuted my arguments in Round 2, at the start of the debate I had clearly stated that round 3 shall be utilized for rebuttal, not round 2. This is a clear infringement of rules, and failing to abide by the conduct for which he should be penalized. This round is to be utilized for rebuttal and closing arguments. My rebuttal, I must say is a cakewalk, for my opponent failed to argue as to why a Ram Mandir should not be built. He provided arguments like, “I think that the temple should not be built because it is, quite frankly, a waste.” You can see my opponent has not backed his claims by any sort of facts. My case on the other hand was legal, sociopolitical and based on facts and realities. What does India, or even the Faizabad community, gain from building a temple? It has immense to gain, just think about this simple fact: how many people around the world are hindus who accept Ram as their deity? Even if the tiniest bit of that category comes to visit this prospective temple, wouldn’t Faizabad become a tourist attraction, a place currently known for Babri Masjid riots would be transformed into a sacred attraction of Hinduism, imagine the kind of money the locals can make from this, the number of jobs and errands this temple will create, it will boost the small enterprise owners in Faizabad. Everyone from a cobbler to owner of hotels are to gain from this move. “In a rapidly modernizing world, we cannot be spending valuable money, resources and manpower to build a temple of an ancient time of an ancient religion.” Hinduism is an ancient religion but one which still survives and thrives. Giving the followers of this faith would surely not do any harm, and the question of money is churlish, it would be just one temple, how much do you think will be spent on building one temple, I’m sure it would not be significant enough to affect the deficit of the country of the value of the rupee. “The money could be used to fund education for the 287 million illiterate Indians.” I am sorry you just stopped making sense. You want to educate 287 million illiterate Indians from the money you would save by not building a temple, sir even if we were building a World Trade Center in Faizabad, the money that would be used in the project of that kind would be unparalleled, even that wouldn’t be enough to educate the number of illiterates in our country. While I understand and appreciate your intent, your arguments lack logic in the context they are being stated. “The quality of education of public schools which is terrible, could be improved[2]. Education is in major need of reform. The focus has always been on getting children some education, a degree on the wall and get a well paying job.” Okay, let me remind you, sir we are debating whether a Ram Mandir should be constructed in Ayodhya. Your argument about educational reform is incongruous. “Also note that the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh is shockingly poor. With 32.8% of its 200 million people living in poverty. Which means that Uttar pradesh has 65.6 million people living in poverty. This expensive Ram temple is going to be built in this shockingly poor state. For goodness sake, improve Uttar Pradesh's (UP) infrastructure instead of building a temple which, quite frankly, does not help anyone or improve the situation.” I reiterate, being a resident of UP myself, I agree with your assessment of UP’s poverty, but if need be, the state which was at one point the largest state in the country and had to be bifurcated for the same reason cannot spare the funds for construction of one temple, there is a provision for the funds of construction of the temple being issued by the central govt. and I am sure the BJP would be more than happy to do so. “India has far bigger problems than a holy site dispute” Yes, it does, but you still did not tell us why the Ram Temple shouldn’t be built. Is there any moral reason? Think about it, you may just find one. And if I were to rebut your statement, like I am obligated to do so now, communalism is a big problem that India has faced, that can be put to bed by construction of the Ram Temple. Now coming to the issue of BJP’s relation with the Ram Temple issue, the Ram Mandir issue is one issue BJP has associated itself with for more than two decades, issues like abrogation of Art. 370, formulation of a uniform civil code, and construction of the Ram Temple are what form the crux of the BJP’s election campaigns. “Uttar Pradesh is one of the poorest states in India, it cannot be spending money on glorifying a mythological character when it could be improving the living conditions of its 200 million people.” You just called Ram a myth, it is like calling Jesus a myth in a society where Christianity governs the society. By doing so sir, you have not only challenged the faith of the hindus all around the globe, you have also insulted their beliefs. The living conditions of 200 million people cannot be improved by the funds that would be required to build a temple. For god’s sake we are talking about a temple, not a skyscraper. “India is not the world's richest country, there are better places to use money than a Ram temple.” What is your definition of richest? Are we going by the size of the GDP? I would assume we are, yes we are not the richest, but surely we are one of the biggest economies of the world, and one of the most promising countries on economic ground Even though these arguments were not related to the issue at hand, I felt compelled to rebut them. I think my opponent has had enough. Cheers.