High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues.

In my last speech I will prove that I have one. First, I will refute the answers of the Aff. 1. "My definition of sensitive was simply something that triggers an emotional response in many people." I agree with this. 2. "Sorry, we are not forcing them to debate. It's jsut that to eupport educational value it is assumed that they will debate the topic presented. What is a backwards case? They can choose to debate another topic, but LD is very different from PuFo as it is more morals and less religious issue-based, i believe. Correct me if I'm wrong." Thank you for realizing that no one is forced to debate. A backwards case is the same thing as a case that doesn't directly address the resolution or addresses it in a round-about way. LD is not very different from LD, and that comment has no relavancy as the option to do LD instead of Pofo is still there. 3. "Debate is advocacy, and for example, a sensitive religious issue >God exists. This requires a side regarding atheistic and theistic religions." You have forgotten the definition of Religious issues. It is a issue that comes from religion, not debating religion itself. No person would be forced to argue that god is not real. So, not only would someone not have to participate in debate at all, but even if they did choose to debate, they would never directly address religion itself. 4. "This leads me to my 2nd contention, which is about being able to handle these things. Also, we cannot increase tolerance when we bend every fact about these issues towards a case in order to win. The point of debate is to win, and people may give misinformation. Misinformation is worse than no information at all." You didn't answer my question. I asked if the fact that America is so bias means that we should debate to decrease that bias and increase tolerance. Also, information falsification is present in EVERY SINGLE DEBATE. If you continue to argue that, to avoid hypocrisy, you have to debate that we should never talk about anything ever, which, isn't true. 5. "Religion is taking it another step further. I can say that Obama is a bad president, though we probably will not get into a fight like that. I can say you God is bad, which will be a lot more sensitive. Also, are there any people praying to politicians? Religion is a way of life for many people." If you said Obama was a bad president, we would get in a fight. And what is the difference between religious and political views? By saying that we should only be sensitive to people religious views, you are denying the non-religious people the right to not practice a religion and be treated fairly. Political views are often as sacred as religious ones, and praying isn't the determining factor to wether a issue is sensitive! Religion is a way of life for some people, but so are many other things (such as politcal veiws) that we pay no special attention to. Religion is no different then another view, such as being a communist, and should be challenged like any other. 6. "If we choose not to debate, we lose valuable education. I think i answered the other question in the previous questions." It is only the person who CHOOSE to opt out that will lose education that has been proven to decrease bias. And, you're right, you have allreadly conceeded that contention. 7. "We should not debate religion not because some are offended by it. Many people are offended. Many people dropped out because of the original November Resolution. Anger makes lashing out and offending people more likely, and the debate enviroment is ruined." Not only do you have no evidence saying people dropped out, but you ignore the fact that every topic has the potential to be offensive. Arguing that resolutions involiving senstive religious issues should be avoided because they can offend students is hypocritacal, as every resolution has the potential to be offensive, and every debater has the potential to offend his opponets. Throughout NFL history, resolutions have addressed issues of race and sex. Offense comments have been made. In each resolution, there is a tie to religion. Last months topic about wether NATO's presense improved the lives of Afghan citizens certainly addressed religious issues and issues about sex. Certainly, offensive statements had been made during many debates, and banning the debating sensitive religious issues will not prevent particpents from becoming offended. 8. "http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com...; Not only is that not a viable source, but it doesn't even give the evidence i asked for... "I have provided 7 citations for my evidence on my case. I don't see how this has no reasoning. Please explain." You have provided tibits of facts, but have no warrant for your claim. 9. "Debate is not the best venue to foster education and tolerance. There are many other ways, like talking to people of another religion, being educated in the other religion. There are more direct ways to learn this. Public education also helps a lot." Debate is a form of public education, debate is talking to people, and no other venue exists to foster tolerance like debate can! Debate has been PROVEN to increase tolerance. In many cases, the debater wouldn't have ever considered the other side of the arguement unless he was in debate, and this leads to more understanding and less bigotry. I will return to my contentions, and show how they have not been refuted. The AFF has not adressed that religion is taught in schools and that debating it futher does no harm. He only asked for clarification. The AFF has conceeded that students are not forced to debate in this quote, "we are not forcing them to debate." The AFF has repeatedly said that we should refuse to debate religious issues because they are sacred, but my third contention and arguements clearly show that religion is not the only offensive topic, that all topics can and are offensive to some people, and that religion is a personal belief that should not be exempt from being debate like every other personal belief as religion is no different then any other personal belief. Now, I will show how the contentions the AFF made do not stand. They claimed that debating sensitive religious issues can offend people, and I have clearly shown that its power to offend is not unique. They claimed that adolescents are not able to debate because of maturity. I quote them in saying that most people are mature enough. The few that aren't are presented with a fantastic chance to learn, and those who can should nto be punished for their maturity. Clearly, the Con has won this debate and I urge you to vote Con! Thank you for debating! It was very fun!