High school Public Forum Debate should not confront Sensitive Religous Issues

I have no reason to believe how any of his contentions actually uphold this standard today. Before I begin I would like to make some clarifications. When we debate, we are not debating about religion itself. We are debating about sensitive religious issues within the debate. The difference is that we do not actually need to attack a religion. In fact, we can have a reasonably fruitful debate without contentions that contain religious issues. I apologize for misreading the contention about the separation of church and state. I stated in my definitions what we are arguing for the arguments in the resolutions, not the resolution itself. I will not rebut everything my opponent has said. Contention 1:The Affirmation side has not addressed the issue that all political issues are also under bias in the judge's eyes. He has not touched on the attack on his case that he is implying to ban all judges from Public Forum Debate. Therefore, I will assume that he agrees with me. Ladies and Gentlemen, he is proposing to ban Public Forum altogether. Every judge is biased on every issue. We cannot prevent that. He proposes that we remove the problem, which removes Public Forum as a whole. Contention 2: Two months is adequate time to learn about a religious issue. We are not arguing the basis of religion in itself. I agree that this will take more than a lifetime. We are arguing a sensitive religious issue, which is different. It is not hard to make a good case in two months, and I don't see how this is different from any normal resolution. We do not need to attack religion itself to argue about religious issues. In addition, ones who may feel it unfair can simply argue another contention. For example, the Islamic cultural center can be debated on property rights or educational value. The October topic had a religious contention: women rights. This is against the Taliban religion, which is the limitation of women rights. Yet many people who may feel offended by this can simply not use this contention. He is also assuming that we will make a false interpretation in religion. This has obvious consequences and is already shunned upon. To make false interpretation can be called upon by the opponents and he or she will lose points on the debate round. The Affirmation has understood what I have said about arguments not being good enough wrongly. I said that better arguments should win. This is up to the debaters to decide which one is more important than the others. This is not a matter of whether the judge thinks the arguments is good enough. The same evaluation standards are still held, and the basic structure of Public Forum is still held true. I would like to oppose the Ghandi quote. If I think about being a bear one day, will I actually become one? Rather, I must say it is more reasonable to say that a man is the product of what he believes. You do not have to believe in a case to argue for it. In fact, their everyday values will become even stronger. This is because they will know how to refute an opposing side's arguments, therefore a stronger belief. Contention 3: He has not addressed the issue of the first amendment regarding freedom of speech and freedom of expression and I will assume he agrees that the basic values in the constitution are being disregarded when we are censoring religious issues. The very constitution that is the core of his contention contradicts the separation of church and state. I also have no reason to believe that the debate about religious issues will result in the dominance of one religion over another. Now to defend my own contentions: Contention 1and 2: His core refutation for my first and second contentions is based on the fact that we will spit out "false interpretations" of a religious view. Remember, we are not not interpreting the Bible in a debate round. We do not have time to interpret holy scriptures. He has shown no evidence that debating these rounds will result in false interpretations. As a brief overview, I said that debate creates educational value and tolerance. The increase in educational value also increases tolerance. Tolerance increases life satisfaction and community service. Contention 3: I have put the Affirmation into the burden to prove that there is a difference in sensitive religious issue and religious issue in my introductions. He has not done so, so I will assume that he agrees with me that almost every issue is religious. Now we must examine a quote from his refutations. "My opponent state that 'almost every topic is inherently religious' which I agree. " He agrees that almost every topic is inherently religious. This means he proposes to take away almost all resolutions in Public Forum Debate. And does it matter is "political issues have the final say in the government" and religious issues do not? WE are debating current issues, ones that have not been solved yet by the government. My opponent's refutation is made up of one main point: the false interpretation of a religion. I have refuted this over and over again in my contentions. He has consented the agreement of many of my points by not bringing it up. A vote for the Affirmation is a vote for the abolishing of all judges in public forum and almost all topics in public forum debate. He proposes that we remove this thriving debate altogether. He also falsely interprets the resolution, which is about the debate of sensitive religious issues, not religion in itself. He supports the loss of educational value in debate. He also has not upheld the standard today, which is societal welfare. The Negation, however, has proved repeatedly that education achieved. This relates to tolerance and increased community service and life satisfaction. To uphold the growth of society and its welfare, we must encourage education and the acceptance of others of a different religion. This is the key to growth. Nothing will be achieved if we abolish Public Forum. For these reasons, I stand in the firm negation of the topic and urge a Negation vote. Thank you. I apologize for the previous spelling and grammar mistakes, as I did not click the "done" button on the spell check :(