This may be a somewhat fundamental article for some people since they already know what would happen when they argue on these topics, but I'll talk about it anyway. Let's start on their similarities since this will lead us to the main topic. What does religion and politics have in common? They both can't be argued with facts and statistical data, and there is a higher tendency that anybody would insert their personal bias when someone would like to say their side on it. (I was trying to make a joke out of it, but sadly I can't, sorry for that inconvenience.)
Anyway, religion and politics are entirely controversial topics since there are no fixed claims and data, and they often vary from person to person when being asked about it. Although those instances also often happen in history, at least you have some numerical data to rely on to inform you, at least in the general sense, on what was going on during those times through an approximated amount of data released by other sources. You may also come across on credibility issues when gathering data for studying history, but let's just talk that in a different article. Returning on the topic, those are the reasons why religion and politics are not allowed to be argued on formal debates as they lack empirical evidence to support their claims, and they are very subjective topics to be discussed in the first place. Even if you don't know that topics related to religion and politics are banned to be argued on, you can still see why in common scenarios such as in social media, day-to-day conversations, written texts, and so on.
In terms of inserting personal biases and gradually getting irrational with it, topics concerning with religion and politics are considered to be the most prone out of others, another reason on why you shouldn't get your nose into these so-called claims relating to these topics. You can't always get your point across when arguing with people who support and are convinced that their biases and claims are absolute on such topics. The argument starts to turn sour when the person defends his/her stand with a statement like "Fuck you, my religion/politcal candidate is the best, and all other religions/political candidates are shit because I said so." or other similar statements such as "People are having depression because they don't pray enough to our religion's deity/didn't have enough trust in that political administration.", and the next thing would be most probably that the whole argument that you spent on constructing would be pointless and the conversation would just be rolling downhill from there. Those claims are invalid to be present in an argument because they usually are only true in one person only or a certain portion of the society, is very subjective, and cannot be proved through logical means and statistical data.
As a takeaway, people shouldn't be really arguing on topics related with religion and politics because everything will just most likely go downhill from there and the whole argument would be pointless, illogical, and incomprehensible. It would also defy the purpose of the argument, which is to learn something from arguing, and would most likely end up in a very spicy conversation.
If you had reached this point of the article, please like and considering give this post an upvote. Follow my account for more articles like this and thanks for reading.