Extreme religious symbols ought to be removed from public places.

To road map this last round first I'm going to address the debate over the definitions and my observation one, and then I will over view the round, and then go into the rest of the debate. ========= Definitions ========= First on the definition of public I thought that this word in the resolution was self explanatory, but I guess it wasn't. First defending my interpretation because of the word "place" in the resolution you have to group the 2 words together and define public places which are places that are publicly owned not places privately owned. This was the definition that I was using though out my first round ("rather then what they see on the street", "thus by allowing for these symbols to be in public it would be respecting this religion.", "public place it means that these people are trying to show this deeper meaning to the general public.") these examples show how I was defending this definition form the start of the debate. Secondly even if you think that I can't do that the definition that I use can still support this interpretation because a public place must be a place "open" to all people, thus privately owned places are not public because the person that owns the place can not allow people to go there, thus not meeting the definition of public as being open because they are not open to all people. Next on extreme I do agree that extreme symbols do have positive aspects to them but they still have negative ones as well, but more important then this is what is an extreme symbol. Now the definition of extreme is something "exceeding the ordinary" meaning something that is widely used like a church or a cross are not extreme because all Christians use these symbols, thus all of my opponent's examples about churches and crosses don't apply to the resolution. Things like burning crosses would be an extreme symbol because they are out of the ordinary. Because of this definition, yes these symbols will have some positive effects, the fact is that they have a much larger negative effect. Next my opponent argues that the government would not be supporting a religion using how the government allows people to have displace of religion but if they saw these symbols to be too extreme they wouldn't allow people to do these things. ======= The Law ======= On this point first I will defend the RLUIPA and the show why you will use it in the round Yes the US congress did get rid of the RFRA but then they instated the RLUIPA which use many of the same ideas. Now while the RLUIPA does focus to the right of prisoners it still applies to the resolution because of the land use part of the bill. It states that if the government proves that the symbols have negative effects on the public the government can remove them. Talking on the Sherbert Test 1.This point doesn't mater 2.Again cross apply what I said above that the examples that my opponent are not valid examples 3.Cross apply the same thing as from my second point 4.And because these are extreme symbols they go beyond what is needed and removing them wouldn't burden worshipers. Next my opponent continues to try to say that churches are extreme symbols, but I would like to point out a huge contradiction in my opponent's logic "Roman Catholics love their grand cathedrals and the Mega Churches that Evangelicals are springing up everywhere hardly count as non extreme symbols (an extreme symbol being something out of the ordinary for a symbol. Again, a large church is a very extreme way of showing a symbol)" she claims that these churches are extreme but how is that possible if the definition of extreme is something out of the ordinary while they are "springing up everywhere" meaning that these are not a valid example. The next 2 points are justified with to 2 contention that I will get to latter. Even if you buy that legally this bill doesn't apply to these debate it still a good why to evaluate the debate because it show how the pro side can defend that these symbols have a negative effect while the con has the ground to show otherwise, secondly my opponent has no other way to weigh the round thus you should fall back to mine as being the best way evaluate the round. ======== Overview ======== In this overview I will divide the debate's arguments into offensive arguments or defensive ones. On the pro side you have the 2 offensive contentions that show how the government can benefit from the removal of these religious symbols, now on the con side if you look at all of here arguments there is no offence, alls he says is that is no point while presenting no negative effect that the resolution would cause. Now point I'm trying to get at is that my opponent has no chances of winning because there is a 0% chance that anything negative can come from the resolution because my opponent makes no argument that shows how something negative can happen, now because of the fact that it is imposable to prove something to be 100% false that means even if you don't believe my offensive there still is at least a 1% chance that something positive will come from the resolution. Meaning that you as the judges are going to weigh that 1% chance that something positive happens over the 0% chance anything negative will happen. And because of this fact my opponent has no chance of winning =================== Freedom of no religion =================== First extend this point that my opponent has almost failed to answer that these symbols do have a large effect on people. She claims that I have no support for this contention, but look to my last speech when I use Wikipedia to show how more then 10% of the US population says they are Christians because of all the symbols that they se around them like the pledge and our money, I use the example of Christianity because it is the largest worshiped religion in the US and it has a large effect on the government but not in a conspiracy theory why. The point of this argument is to show how so many people who don't know what they truly are have there mind changed because of these symbols thus not allowing people to have the freedom to be neutral. ================= Disturbing the peace ================= On this point all my opponent does is use non extreme examples to support her claims, but extend what I have said above that churches are not extreme symbols because they are used everywhere Christians have churches, Muslims have Mosques, and Jews have Synagogues these are widely used and not out of the ordinary thus are not examples of extreme symbols. Things that are extreme are things like a burning cross that are not ordinary these symbols can cause much rioting and dislike. Secondly even if these symbols don't cause riots they can still disturb the peace if they cause people to feel uncomfortable they violate that persons right to feel at peace. One the second point, the fact is that first the last supper is not a extreme symbol because it has been reproduced many times and is not out of the ordinary, secondly there examples of art work that has offended people and if these pieces are found to have a large enough negative effect then they should be removed. On this next point cross apply what I have said though out the round that churches are not extreme because the are used in all religions and that they are everywhere thus meaning they can not be defined as extreme. To close the debate you as judges are going to vote for the pro on the resolution because the fact my opponent has no offense thus it is imposable for her to win and because of the 2 contentions show how the government will benefit from the resolution and it is justified under the Sherbert test. and the pro is the only side that has any form of evidence that support their cause my opponent has no support her arguments.