The Fault In Our Stars should be banned from all public schools

Thanks to tennistanner. I'd just like to say that he has absolutely no reason to apologize - as long as Pro posts, I'm simply happy to have this debate in any time period that is effective for him. I appreciate his clarifications in the comments, which make it clear that we are solely discussing middle and high schools in the U.S. That is entirely reasonable. I'll delay rebuttals to next round, so I will instead present my case. But before I do, I'd like to spend some time emphasizing the burdens we're presented with in this debate. Pro carries a heavy burden in this debate. Fundamentally, this means he must show reading the book is objectively harmful to public school students of all levels. This means he must show: 1) that there are objective harms to reading the book; 2) that those harms are applicable at every level of public school education across the country; 3) that those harms are substantial enough to warrant a ban; 4) that those harms outweigh the benefits of reading the book; 5) that those harms are unique to this book, and therefore are less likely to be engendered by any other available book; 6) that the ban should be engineered and instituted by schools; 7) that the ban will be effective at preventing access to the book; 8) and that the ban's enaction won't cause more harm than good. If Pro fails to prove any single one of these true, then he has failed in his burden and should lose the debate. It is not my burden to present any specific benefits to reading this book (though I will), nor is it my burden to establish that a ban on any given book is inherently harmful. I'm not advocating a change from the status quo, I am merely defending the situation that currently exists in school districts across the U.S., where TFIOS still remains available for reading among middle and high school students. So let's get started. 1) The theme I think the best way to start this is with a quote from John Green himself, who responded to a ban on the book in Riverside Unified School District with the following awesome quote: "I guess I am both happy and sad. I am happy because apparently young people in Riverside, California will never witness or experience mortality since they won't be reading my book, which is great for them. But I am also sad because I was really hoping I would be able to introduce the idea that human beings die to the children of Riverside, California and thereby crush their dreams of immortality."[1] Now, why would he go about using such an interesting bit of dark humor? Well, in order to understand that, we should look to what the book is actually about. It's a story, narrated by a 16-year-old cancer patient (Hazel Grace Lancaster), who is pressured to join a support group where she falls in love with another cancer patient and amputee (Augustus Waters). In other words, this is a story about two cancer patients who face down their own mortality and try to find beauty in each other and in the world. It's a tragic and realistic story with many ups and downs. At its most basic level, it provides a strong appreciation for the lives adolescents live. If they don't suffer from such a disease, they acquire a strong appreciation for what they have, and view the obstacles they face as simpler to overcome. It humanizes an inhuman experience that is often beyond their comprehension, allowing them to see those around them who suffer as more than just victims. If they suffer from a deadly disease or face constant pain, they find the character to be someone they can empathize with, which is especially important given the fact that many of these patients feel socially isolated.[2, 3, 4] Considering this social isolation can demonstrably shorten lives, this is a huge deal.[5] These characters provide an important role model of someone facing chronic pain and near certain death who manages to maintain family bonds, build friendships, and even a romantic relationship. Each of the main characters provides a very different role model for these young adults to feel a kindred bond with. Hazel is constantly treated with kid gloves, incapable of participating in the broad world around her to the greatest extent due to the weakness of her lungs. She's a dynamic character who seeks to isolate herself at first, but realizes the importance of making her life worth living by experiencing it with others. She is easily the best role model for escaping isolation. Augustus is high functioning, but his lost leg represents the baggage he carries around as a result of that threat on his life, and towards the end of the book, he represents someone befallen with a sudden resurgence of their cancer, struggling to remain independent while flailing against his own mortality. Watching him fail and plummet into despair from his usually ebullient nature is one of the most troubling aspects of the novel, though he also gains strength from his friends, having them eulogize him in his final days. Isaac, a mutual friend of theirs, represents a person who doesn't face their own mortality, but loses his ability to interact with the world around him through the loss of his eyes. He also has to endure a crushing break up with his girlfriend as she seeks to insulate herself from the specter of her own disease and heartbreak at the expense of his despair. Each of these characters represent not only incredibly different experiences, but dramatically different ways to address those experiences, and through it all their friendship becomes a rock on which their lives remain grounded. 2) Freedom to Read There's a reason that we have a "Banned Books Week," focused on preventing censorship and book banning. The First Amendment, at its most basic level, requires that people not only have the freedom to publish, but that that published material be available to everyone. This group has no problem with the decision of parents to decide what their children read, but the government itself should not take part in that action, and since public schools reflect the legal structures of that government, they are effectively defying the Bill of Rights. Removal of that basic right in the school system is actively suppressing freedom of thought, and thus precludes and damages any learning that follows on it. I think that Gene Berkman describes this right best: "People should have the right to be exposed to whatever information or even misinformation they can get access to " and then make up their own minds. You don"t get rid of bad ideas by suppressing them. You get rid of bad ideas by exposing people to good ideas." Of course, this is all assuming that a ban is effective at preventing access. The fact that the book will still be readily available at bookstores across the country and in libraries, not to mention that it has its own feature-length film with what is basically the same story, makes it unlikely that such a ban would prevent access. The very fact that the book is being banned only increases interest, as it creates huge news stories (as the Riverside School District's decision has) that make a broader audience aware of and interested in the book for the controversies it engenders. This means that not only is Pro's case leading to harms to the basic freedoms of students, stunting their growth as thinkers, but it is actually likely to have the opposite of its intended effect, leading to the book's garnering a larger audience. With that, I hand the debate back to my opponent. 1. http://www.al.com... 2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 3. http://www.cirpd.org... 4. http://www.psychologysarasota.com... 5. http://healthland.time.com...