Resolved: The Student Nondiscrimination Act of 2010 ought to be enacted.

I negate the resolution: "RESOLVED: The Student Nondiscrimination Act of 2010 ought to be enacted." I'd like to thank my opponent for initiating what I expect to be an enlightening debate. Before getting started, it is important to note that I do not condone the bullying or harassment of a student regardless of the motivating factors. Schools should foster an atmosphere conducive to learning. Schools should not be environments where students are threatened or intimidated. I agree to my opponent's format for this debate, and I shall adopt a similar heading structure as my opponent for ease of reading. ===MY CASE=== There are several reasons why this bill should not be enacted, but for the sake of making this a more targeted debate, I will limit my contentions to three: ---Contention 1: SDNA Potentially Limits Free Speech--- According to SNDA, "the term ‘harassment' means conduct that is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive to limit a student's ability to participate in or benefit from a public school education program or activity…" [1] SDNA fails to explicitly define harassment. Potentially a student who voices his opposition to the gay lifestyle can be held in violation of this law if another student "feels" harassed as a result. Even one of the bills primary sponsors, Sen. Al Franken (D-Min), has difficulty in explaining harassment. When asked what specifically constitutes harassment under the bill, the Senator's response was, "Uh, I think that harassment and bullying is really, uh, it's one of these things that you know it when you see it." [2] ---Contention 2: SDNA Takes Power Away From State and Local Communities--- Homosexuality is an extremely controversial subject. Many different communities view homosexuality differently and should be allowed to address conflicts in a manner which best meets the needs of their community. Most if not all schools and school boards have policies which address bullying and harassment in schools. It is more appropriate for these issues to be dealt with at the state and local level, rather than attempting to mandate a Federal one-size-fits-all policy. ---Contention 3: There is No Constitutional Right to Homosexual Behavior or Cross-dressing--- Civil rights and homosexual rights are not synonymous. Civil rights focus on the right to vote, the guaranteed access to public accommodations, and desegregation of pubic facilities and schools. They have never been, nor should they ever be, about attempting to have the federal government mandate acceptance of a particular lifestyle. If we should allow a special law addressing harassment of homosexual behavior, should we not also address harassment of: overweight kids, kids with bad acne, or kids with nose rings? ---Conclusion--- We should seek to protect ALL students from bullying and harassment rather then specifically identifying a special class. This protection is more effectively accomplished by state and local institutions and individuals who are more intimately knowledgeable about the needs of their communities. This protection should occur while also protecting the right to hold differing views and the right to express those views. Sources: [1] http://www.opencongress.org... [2] http://online.wsj.com...