High school Public Forum Debate should not confront Sensitive Religous Issues

Before I state my own contentions, I would like to offer some definitions and refutations I do not know if he intended this to be one and the same of the November topic, but the main difference is in the fact that the November Public Forum topic has "High School Public Forum resolutions". I will adhere to the standard public forum rules, and if my opponent agrees we may have somewhat of a crossfire. Definitions: High School Public Forum Debate: Debates occuring in tournaments endorsed by the National Forensics league. Debate as contentions or arguements within the resolution, as the whole of debate cannot confront sensitive religious issues Confront: Oppose the resolutions containing Religious issue: An issue pertaining to one or more religions The reason i did not define sensitive was because i believe that all religious issues are sensitive, therefore the word "issue" Since the Affirmation has not provided a standard I will state the one I believe we should adhere to, which is societal (or mainly in the debate community) welfare. Refutations: Contention 1: Judge Bias Tabula Rasa is not a required style of judging. The judges of Public Forum are normal parents, in fact, Public Forum shuns experienced judges. The purpose of Public Forum was to appeal to normal American citizens. What the Affirmation is inferring is outrageous. Everybody has a political view. There is no one in the world that has no bias. What he is inferring is because "the only way to avoid bias is to avoid situations that produce it", we should eliminate all the judges from Public Forum altogether. This will contribute to the disintegration of Public Forum. Contention 2: Abuse of Religion While there are only 30 minutes to dicuss an issue, I'd like to point out that they have a whole month, maybe 2 months if they do not participate in the previous topic, to prepare for the tournament. I would also like to point out that that we are not debating the religion itself, but rather the political issues that revolve around religious issues. The Affirmation makes it sound like we are opposing religion altogether. We are not. Merely talking about a religious issue does not mean we belittle them. In fact, Muslims may feel that their side is now well represented in a topic like "An islamic cultural center should be built near ground zero". It is not accurate to say that "they LOST because their religion is not good enough". They lost because they had weak argumentation, speaking style, and/or refutations. He says Switch-side debate is a key issue in this debate, yet he provides 2 sentences as to why it is so. "The ability to argue against your religion wouldn't provide the equality throughout the debate. " I do not really understand this sentence, as he provides no reason as to why it is not equal. Contention 3: Separation of Church and State First of all I'd like to call this an issue on how far the separation of Church and State is carried. This only applies to public education. He says that the NFL is government-funded. This is absolutely false, as the NFL has no affiliation wiht the government. Because the NFL is a private entity, there is no separation of Church and State ground for The NFL. Even if it applied to the NFL, which it does not, the very constitution which is the core of this contention negates this contention. We are provided with the freedom of speech and expression, basic constitutional rights, which cannot be trampled upon. The Affirmation suggests following an untopical cause that violates our basic rights. Now I would like to state my own contentions: Contention 1: The opportunity of being able to debate switch-side provides a unique opportunity to gain educational value that cannot be gained elsewhere. At school, where do we learn for and against the very religion we follow? Debate provides the educational opportunity in the form of debating for and against debaters' own religion. This enlightens debaters of how people oppose their religious view. This educational value is much more useful, as we gain tolerance through this debate (explained in my next contention). Furthermore, debating these types of issues still provides the same amount of evaluation standards and the same skills. We still need to be better at argumentation, speaking skills, blocking, and delivering to win. Contention 2: The educational value can be applied to inprove tolerance. The knowledge we gain is used to be more informed about an opposing religious view, and therefore increases the tolerance. Many misconceptions which lower tolerance can be lost when we debate. For example, almost half of Americans believe half or more Muslims hate Americans (Pew Research, 2003). Many others still exist and only by breaking this barrier of misconceptions. General education is also linked to an increase in tolerance, by 12% from lowest education to highest education. An increased tolerance results in more life satisfaction (14%) and community service (12%). This improves society by increasing tolerance, and therefore acceptance for others in society, life satisfaction, and community service. Contention 3: Almost every topic is inherently religious. Abortion, a sensitive religious issue, has been a popular topic for about 30 years, yet we may be limited to debate important topics like these if we do not allow sensitive religious issues to be debated. Immigration, health care , poverty, environmental destruction, and almost all topics may be limited if we affirm this resolution. Anti-muslim sentiments alone took more than 1/5 of news coverage from September 6-12, representing the most talked about topic in news (pew research). The Affirmation wants to cut us out from one of the most talked about topics in the current news. There is no benefit to not allowing the debate of sensitive religious issues, and only unnecessary censorship. Not allowing these kinds of debates severely cuts Public Forum out from hot and trendy topics and hurts society, namely the debate community, by censoring very possibly educational and beneficial topics. Debating sensitive religious cannot be censored. It is too important of an issue to let go of. A vote for the Affirmation is a vote for depriving teenage minds of education and for them to become less tolerant. The Affirmation would like to boycott the recently most talked about topic in the news, and may also censor most of public forum. The vote would go against the very constitution we hold so dear, and calls for the disentigration of Public Forum. Voting for the Negation, on the other hand, teaches religious tolerance and educates young teenage minds. In today's world, barely 50% of the population can identify the Quran as the Islamic holy book. Lastly, almost every topic would not be able to be debated by restricting debate. For these reasons, I urge a vote for the Negation side of this debate.