[honorable schoolboy]

You can't debate this since the premise that there are two sides of the debate is false. All legislation is value laden, and it is impossible to disentangle values from religious belief. You could frame a debate such as,resolved: No legislation should be based on Judeo-Christian morality. or, resolved: No legislation should be based on pinhead liberal secular humanism. or, maybe even (though this is tough) resolved: No legislation should be based on the moral tradition of any of the 4 major world religions. But the debate you posit is a nullity. Another and related example of a poorly defined debate would be "no legislation should be enacted for other than purely objective scientific reasons". By the way, good luck. You should never have been suckered into this charade.

[Notwithstanding]

It won't be so bad - the professor knows where I stand and most people in the course understand that laws are always based upon morals. The issue is really whether the historical practice that the king's religion dictated the religion of the people is also part of our discussion.

We are simply trying to make sure we understand all arguments on all sides.

I am shafted only becuase it is impossible to legitimately argue that law is not essentially based upon morals and morality is driven by the religions in the culture.