The Book of Bunny Suicides should be banned from public schools.

I have not, out of respect for him & the debate, in the posting below. I will begin with some overview arguments that I have made many times in the first 3 RDs. I won't address these arguments individually after this, but will refer readers to them by title & #. 1. Pornography: The Bunny Suicides is not pornography. My opponent has done nothing to prove that *this* book is obscene, graphic, or sexual in any way. He has listed examples of erotic literature & Zionism, & then tries to equate these things with Bunny Suicides, which is nothing like them. Any arguments made about pornography, as I have argued in all 3 previous rounds, is non-applicable to the topic at hand. Cartoons of cognizant bunnies setting up surrealistic situations in which they will *probably* die in the next, unshown frame is not illegal. 2. Porn Source: My opponent's crux source on pornography being allowable in schools (. http://www.khou.com...), which he applies to all of my arguments stating that pornography is both illegal and non-topical, is highly flawed. This Texas school is currently deciding if the material in the article is pornographic or not. Right now, all we have is the parents' word that it is. Check out my 100 Most Challenged Books list. Parents managed to get Where's Waldo on that list. Individual parents can be and often are wrong. Besides, one article from one school district in highly conservative Texas does not prove that pornographic material is legal in public school libraries. 3. Pat McConnel: The issue of Pat McConnell's vote: I don't know why this is mentioned so often, but this source really does flow to my side of the debate. My opponent misquotes her, stating that she voted against "her better judgment. " She says, and check the source, that she voted "against her personal beliefs. " That is exactly what the first amendment asks us to do, as citizens of the US: we protect freedom of speech unless it conflicts with other people's liberties. Since Pat McConnell saw no reason to censor this book other than her own, isolated objections (rather than harm to students, etc. ), she voted *with* her better judgment. 4. Public Libraries: The ability to check out a book somewhere else does not justify unnecessary censorship. That's like telling people to move to another country if they object to their government violating their rights. The point is that all rights must be protected properly. This goes cold dropped as of RD 4. Now, onto responses as needed. Keep in mind: I have introduced no new arguments here. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MY CASE Contention 1: A. 1. Topics that my opponent listed, such as suicide, racism, and slavery, are not categorically banned from high schools or their libraries. That's a blatant falsehood, and I list watershed books on these subjects within high school curriculum to prove this true. I teach these topics regularly, and I am not breaking any US laws. The other topic listed in RD 2, pornography, is governed by federal statute in its accessibility. 2. The source is the American Library Association. It does not limit itself to only public, non-school libraries. Unless, of course, my opponent contends that public school libraries are not American libraries. The assertion made by my opponent is unwarranted. The study conducted and reported on that page is an amalgam of libraries, and was only used to show that the literature that schools teach as classics are challenged all the time for relating to controversial topics. Hence those topics are not banned from high schools. B. See OV: Pat McConnel (#3) C. See OV: Pornography (#1) D. 1. See OV: Public Libraries (#4) 2. The Virginia argument holds absolutely no water. School, despite my opponent's assertions, is not where we gain most of our knowledge about topics like sex & suicide. He is drawing a completely unwarranted correlation between the presence of a class on a subject & a total lack of comprehension of the students prior to entering that class. The reason for the class is not because kids don't know about the topics. It is to guide their higher order understanding of the topics, so that their knowledge is not from a singular source: their peers. If my opponent seriously contends that kids have no knowledge of sex prior to their first health class, then he lives in an enviable fantasy world. E. See OV: Porn Source (#2) Contention 2/3: A. 1. The ad hominem attacks are unwarranted and reportable. Avoid them, or I will report you. 2. I stand by my statement that pornographic and erotic literature is governed by strict federal statutes. See OV: Porn Source (#2) 3. See OV: Pornography (#1) B. Actually, as noted in my Seattle Times source, as well as the parent's report that I held in my hands, that is one of the main reasons Taffey Anderson chose to challenge the book. She stated that it had no educational value whatsoever. Hence, my argument is particularly applicable. We aren't arguing about every book. Just this one. And my burden of proof is to show that this book *has* educational value. I have. C. No, your source did nothing to prove that Bunny Suicides is pornographic. That's what I've been asking you to prove since RD 2. (See OV: Pornography [#1]) Contention 4: A. See OV: Pornography (#1) B. Short of re-writing my RD 2 case, I can do little else to convince my opponent that I have stated this book's educational nature in many ways, not just its ability to introduce the topic of suicide. My word count is precious, so I encourage readers to keep my original case in mind. C. I didn't ever say that this book teaches kids to read, either. I said that it encourages reluctant readers to pick up books, which empirically leads them to pick up more and more difficult books, and encourages a life-long love of reading. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MY OPPONENT'S CASE Contention 1: Response 1: See OV: Pornography (#1) Response 2: A. He vs. she was merely a request, and a matter of respect. B. See OV: public libraries (#4). C. I wasn't aware of a federal statute governing the distribution of "dark humor. " Perhaps my opponent could give me the code so I can reference it? The argument that I made in RD 3 was to point out that Bunny Suicides, in its treatment of suicide and its general form, shares many qualities in common with other perfectly acceptable graphic novels and the like. Response 3: A. See OV: Porn Source (#3). I'm not wrong. I would be wrong if two things occurred: 1. Some legal body (like a court) were to deem the material as pornographic; 2. Despite this *legal* ruling, the school kept the book in its classrooms. B. I don't understand my opponent's argument here. As I've stated before, Bunny Suicides is a book of cognizant rabbits who have set up visual scenarios that will (if all goes to the rabbit's plan) lead to their deaths. Graphic and illustrated are not the same thing in this case. Graphic, in your usage, means overtly inappropriate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Extra Responses" (? ) A. See OV: Porn Source (#2) B. 1. See OV: Public Libraries (#4) 2. See OV: Pornography (#1)