I realize you wrote this argument 149 days ago, however i must concur with the argument you're making due the rational premises you have based it on. Quite frankly your argument is not as biased as you or anyone might think it is. You have highlighted as many, if not all, of the crucial factors.

Your last point regarding people reading too much of Dan Brown's novels could not be far from the truth.

"The Catholic church did not commit any crime" Are you serious?

Don't come here throwing draconian-aged latin phrases to cover up this meglomanic institution's hidieous hypocrisy.

One exameple: Who supported the forced convertion of the indigenous people in the americas?

There is a compromise in this matter which can protect one's right to religious freedom and protect the person's dignity. This can be done by banning the burka, which covers a women's body entirely and allowing the Hijab, which covers only the hair to be worn. Whereas Islamic countries do whatever they see fit according to their religion. In western countries, it's high time ridiculous medieval customs such as this be given a cold shoulder by applying this restriction rather than include a ban altogether. Like with many other things, people will eventually adjust to this change and the whole thing will phase out in time.

We can all be constructive and/or destructive by our actions and their intentions behind them, more so by how we perceive the world we exist in terms of how we react to it's physical environment, the political and social constructs of our species and to a more profound depth, what each and every one of us goes through in those crucial early years in our lives of childhood. How we react and respond to the experiences during and in the aftermath. Any one of us could be as destructive as Adolf Hitler and even more.

For the sake of the argument, if you care to look at the definition of Islam, you'll see that submission is what it means and submission is how it's followers follow the belief

The claim of the Motion itself is merely pure spite towards people who aren't afraid of criticizing arrogant hypocrites who are too busy pretending they have the moral high ground over everyone else in everything they say.

Such people despise the very concept of acknowledging other people's right to their own opinions when they don't agree with them to the extent of resorting to personal attacks.

The title itself proves this: name-calling and a contradiction in the motion's claim itself is a clear agenda of a personal attack towards specific individuals solely based on their opinions.

The very notion that one's race and ethnicity defines his/her intelligence is merely another racialist fallacy.

One example: just because there are more white scientists, philosophers etc, than blacks doesn't mean that there won't be in the future. remember, blacks weren't exactly treated fairly until very recently.

Their lack of inclusion into higher level education and mainstream society is one of the many reasons why most blacks don't get the opportunity to prove their own talents and abilities or advance their intellect.

The catholic church is much more than just another religious organization.

It is a political institution with a very powerful influence over the political affairs and social policies and practices in countries with a predominant catholic majority.

Most critically however, the catholic church is also a nation state which is subject to International Law one of which is the obligation of taking accountability or being held accountable for it's actions and policies that threaten or violate the dignity and wellbeing of human beings.

Perhaps the whole concept of this debate would be better served if you kept irony out of it.

Why is it always perfectly fair for religions and their scholars, preachers and followers to say what they say and then it's harsh and unfair for non-theists such as myself to raise little questions?

To be blind is to believe something without question.

On the other hand criticizing with rational inquiry as far from bias and certainly not judgmental.

Your claim that the motion assumes dogma is either you haven't grasped the actual concept of the question and are therefore making an argument from ignorance or you're deliberately trying to twist the whole concept by shedding the victim light on religious people (I'm not saying you're ignorant, don't take it personally)

It's virtually impossible for someone to hold any dogmas if they place their conscious on the level of critical thought and skeptical inquiry because the person's mindset is constantly changing viewpoints into better ones, thus building a more robust outlook based on logic whereas dogmas are principles merely based on blind obedience and blatant ignorance.

What on earth are you talking about? My argument was way above 50 characters! Is this supposed to be an automated moderator's rule or a joke to try down booting the argument i made?

Perhaps in future and in the interest of the quality of debate, the moderator should also take the time to read the content of the argument as well as the number of characters used.