High school Public Forum Debate should not confront Sensitive Religous Issues

For a brief Roadmap I would like to rebuild my case and attack my opponents case His attack on my first contention was that Tabula Rasa is not a required style of judging and that Public forum Debate Shuns Experienced judges I wasn't saying that experienced judges are needed to judge this Type of Debate when reguarding this issue.1st let me define Tabula Rasa. Its a Hypothetical state of mind empty of all outside impressions until the evidence is provided. When dealing with Religious issues this happens to be a VERY opinionated topic making judges not able to put aside the way they live their life. Religion is a way a person lives their life and demoralizing their culture as a judge would completely bring bias so my first contention still stands. 2nd Contention- My opponent pointed out that the teams get two months(if they arent actively participating in other topics) to research and learn about the religion and material. This just goes to support my case even more by stating that christians for example can't even interpet or learn all about their religion in a lifetime. How is a high school student suppose to be able to successfully learn and educate their self in the course of two months without giving a false interpretation? My opponent also refuted my arguement on religion by saying that the reason the opponent lost was because their arguement wasn't good enough My refute to that is this all ties in with my first contention. They lost due to a judgement or opinion of a judge who used his/her values making them feel like the way they were brought up wasn't good enough. My two sentences to switch side debate meant that arguing against your religion could not provide equality. In the words of Ghandi he states that,A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes. If the team argues against their everyday values it wouldnt be as strong and offer blasphemy. Contention 3- I never said the NFL was goverment funded. The schools that hold these events are suppose to uphold the Separation of Church and state and the money that is alotted for debate to exist IS from the goverment. This goes to show that this is topical. The dominance of one religion over another is UNconstitutional and this is promoted when resolutions consists of sensitive issues. Now I attack my opponents contentions 1st&2 Contention- His first contention is talking about how switch side debate betters the education of the youth when talking about religion. I do not see how this betters the education with giving false interpretations of the religion. I stated this in my case about how two months isn't enough time to grasp the religion and better the youth. Teachers have to take special courses to structure the classroom when teaching it and in public forum debate there isnt a structure. Anything can be expressed or said offending many. When stating false interpretations tolerance is not bound to happen. This just makes it worse if anything. 3rd contention- My opponent state that "almost every topic is inherently religious" which I agree. BUT we are debating "SENSITIVE" Religious issues. Not everything is sensitive and this makes the contention fall. In PF Debate political issues should hold the higher standard. Not Sensitive religious issues. Political issues have the final say by the goverment. Religious issues have the say of the people. My opponent shows great ignorance to people and their beliefs. If religion is a way a person lives on a day to day basis then why question it?