THBT it is a sin for moderate followers of religion to not publicly and actively criticize

extreme interpretation of their religion

Potray how extreme they are

Why its urgent to do it ?

Public speaker = done by someone who chas power to impact people (well known)

GOV

Ladies and gentlemen as the prime minister I would like to set up this debate and bring my
arguments why we should agree to this motion.

First of all let us see what happen to the status quo. As we know that right now society who
claim themselves as moderate followers usually get social sanction when they publicly
share their opinion about religion. Society not get used to their act in critizing religion
intepretation especially one that come from the extremist. So once when they speak out to
the public, the society will have bad thought about them like they fight againts their religion
teeaching which it is totally untrue. And even the worst they will be bullied by the society
and received negative comments.

Second, let’s move to our idea. There are two main ideas that I would like to bring. First,
let’s see to the purpose of religion itself which is become the direction of our life in doing
anything. It brings good and guide us the way of life but we believe that if a religion become
extreme it will give harm rather good to the society. We are also believe that the value of
religion is based on the personal belief and experience. As the present of religion, the
human life will be more aimed because they care for their religion, they believe at religion
as the pillar of their life. Beside that religion accepts the difference that come from inside it,
the teaching of religion is actually flexible and neutral so people may have their own choice
to do the teaching of religion.

Second what we mean by publicly and actively criticize extreme interpretation is people can
share their own opinion about the religion teaching and believe to the public through public
speaking or sharing. They can share their narration and share it to social media which is
easily reached by society. The other way, they can also hold a forum for them to speak
freely. And by this, we believe that extremist can accept the logical critics that come from
the society without having denial. The extremist will get the understsanding to be more
open to other people’s opinion which are not same as them. Moreover, in this 21st century
not all society will relate their life to the extreme interpretation of religion so there will be a
discussion between moderate and extrimist in order to talk over their believe, to discus
what the moderate think its exagerrate to do and the extrimist think it a must to do. So in
the end both of them can accept it.

Third, our stance is clear. We want to encourage the moderate to publicly and actively
criticize extreme interpretation of their religion. And here we are focus to two actors. The
first is the government and second, the society itself which we divided into moderate and
extremist follower of religion.

Well, its time to talk about my argument.

First, criticism is the key to the resolution. When someone criticize something means that he
doesn’t agree or have another opinion about that thing. In this case, society who are
typically moderate follower criticize the extremist’s interpretation because they believe that
it is exagerrate and can’t be accepted to their daily life. For example like to the extremist it
is a must to wear niqab or long cloth that covers all of the body part include face cause they
believe it is our obligation as Muslim to cover our genital parts of body, but for the
moderate wearing such cloth all the time can obstruct them to do their activity. They can
wear ordinary cloth like loose pants or t-shirt as long as it can covers their genital part of
body. We believe that the critics from moderate can solve the problem among the
moderate and extremist which is sometimes become complicated. When the moderate
criticize extreme interpretation, both the moderate and extremist can have a discussion to
talk about the problem, to change their perception so it can change way of thinking of the
extremist to be more open minded so they can accept the differences. By their critics we
can find another way which is more flexible to obey the teaching of religion, which can be
accepted by the society.

Second, it eliminates social sanctions within the society. As to social sanctions brings a huge
impact to how a part of society reacts to a particular problem, it’s stands as a limitation for
society to be able to experience that freedom of speech just because a part of the society
does not and cannot accept the opinion made by another particular part of the society.
Social Sanctions is primarily based on the bias knowledge of people that believes their
stance is always right regardless of seeing the other perspective. These social sanctions
could be in words (public bullying, humuliating) and actions (beaten up, killed) that harms
the subject that’s expressing the opinion. We believe, this motion not only protect the
society that expresses their opinion towards a part of the society that is too bias to accept
what they already believe than to what they have just recieved. Extreme interpretation of
their religion not only give harm that consists of bullying but terrorists actions made by
these extreme since they believe that their belief is correct impacts not only to moderate
followers but non followers of that religion. We as the government would like to create a
enviroment that doesn’t only allow freedom of speech but protect these society that do the
freedom of speech.

So in the end of the day, it can encourage society to do the teaching of their religion without
having doubt or fear of the extreme interpretation.

THBT it is a sin for moderate followers of religion to not publicly and actively criticize
extreme interpretation of their religion

OP

Missconduct

Ladies and gentlemen as the leader of opposition I would like to deliver my rebuttals and
tell you my argument why we should oppose this motion.

Firstly, our stance in this debate is clear that we want to make the act of moderate followers
of religion in publicly and actively criticizing extreme interpretation of their religion as their
right. They can choose whether they want to criticize or not.

Secondly,I have some rebuttals to the goverment side. They said critize extreme
interpretation will make the extrimist be more open to other’s opinion so they can have
discussion. We believe that it is not true. Criticizing the extremist interpretation will not
make them have a discussion because extremist are tend to belive more for things which
are lead into merit and based on what they know and learn. Even if they have discussion but
still there will be no way out to both of them because religion comes from their heart, from
what they believe and based on their faith. You may pursue the extrimist to not being much
extreme and vice versa but what will be the best result of the discussion? Nothing.

Well third, let’s move to my argument. First we believe that crticizing is a free speech which
is risky. We can’t force moderate follower to actively and publicly criticize extreme
interpretation. They have right and freedom of choice to decide and have opinion. They
have a right to dispose of their privacy and thought as they see fit. If actively and publicly
criticizing extreme interpretation count as sin we believe that it is not fair. It just like the
government doesn’t give them space to do whay they are want to do or not to do. We
believe that not all society want to actively and publicly criticize because they have to take
risk for their action. For example like, after they share their critics to public there will be an
extremist who takes vengeance on them and want to find and kill them as we know that
exremist will defend their belief. Then, all of their statement and opinion should be credible
and justified so all society can accept it. If they only talk bullshit, well what they do will be
useless. Beside that, why we should talk it to public if the most important thing is we can
just applied our belief to our daily life.

Second, we believe that criticizing can cause disunity between both moderate and
extremist. Why? Because actually we believe that critizing can only provoke people to
debating and heating the tension of both followers. And it can lead into something more
serious like fighting each other among the followers of same religion, even the worst it can
harm the harmony of society by starting a war because of the different opinion and
interpretation which is actually come from the same thing from their religion. Such kind of
thing is unecessary to be critizied. Back to the value of religion itself which is come from
each people’s heart and personal belief so we have to learn to respect the interpretation
which are not same as ours. Let people follow and do the things that they think its good for
them. Let we just increase the tolerance rather than starting a new problem.