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

As i have had little room to type my previous arguments, i will try and make this post brief. But to be fair, i shall also bring up no new arguments. 1. My opponent has still yet to discuss as to how Suicide is a laughing matter, that Suicide is not a serious subject. The only criterions as to whether or not a book should be allowed in school, isnt just Obscenity, graphic or Sexual content. Those are not the only content that are harmful to children. After all, as my opponent has pointed out, what is graphic, sexual or obscene in The meetings of the learned elders of Zion? What is illegal in the The meetings of the learned elders of Zion? Nothing. Yet, regardless, we keep it away from our school libraries, not because of the controversy, but because of the content. This is hate speech, and we cannot possibly have our children understand why this is wrong, without placing it in the proper context. 2. The Teacher in question has had the book as a study material for over a decade. As seen here(1), there are many books which have contained much vulgarity, sexuality, and have been challenged many times. Clearly my other source stands up, if "Whale Talk" has also been challenged many times but has been failed to be taken off. Furthermore, my opponent STILL fails to understand the difference between a PUBLIC library, and a public SCHOOL library. The reason the 100 most challenged books, were challenged but FAILED, was because they were trying to ban such books from the PUBLIC libraries. However, as i have said before, public libraries are different than that of public school libraries. 3. People can utilize a bad reason in order to make a decision. Pat McConnell has stated that what changed her mind, was the censorship argument. And i have clearly stated my reasons why her decision was made with bad reasoning and logic. 4. I am glad you made this argument, because now were through. What youve basically advocated here, is to allow ANY book to be inside a public school library, as the ban and removal of ANY book, no matter how graphic or sexual, is a direct cenroship in its own right. Im sorry, but no. A removal of a certain book from a certain location, such as Sexually explicit book from Public School libraries, is not censorship, and is not the same as "If you dont like our laws, move to a different country". Those specific books are removed FOR A REASON. My opponent has clearly advocated to ignore that, and has compared a superfluous analogy, or more aptly, a straw man, in order to prove his point. A. 1. My opponent has placed words in my mouth. Never have i said that topics such as Suicide, racism and slavery are banned. Infact, it is for that very reason, that i brought up a specific course outline for the Virginia School district that teaches Suicide. 2. My opponent has completely missed the point. The point about the ALA website, is that it is not EXCLUSIVE to High school libraries. There is a difference between PUBLIC libraries and high school libraries. My opponent has still yet to comment on this. B. Refusal to address the argument at hand. C. Refusal to address the argument at hand. D. 1. Refusal to address the argument at hand. 2. My opponent has placed words in my mouth again. I have clearly stated, and i quote: "Children are not in any sense, knowledgeable about sex, before their first Sex ed class. They know a few things, but their knowledge is limited to "Insert penis into vagina". " First off, the very first Sex Ed class for me was Grade 5. I barely knew anything about sex. (If you think we dont teach Sex Ed at grade 5, you are wrong(2)) Kids barely know anything about the topic, therefore the discussion exists to INFORM them. That is what Teaching is. Second, i never said children no NOTHING about sex. They are hardly knowledgable, and they barely know the basics, as I, along with my entire class, did. I didnt even know what Masturbation was, let alone how to do it, and our teacher actually had to tell us what it was. E. Refusal to address the argument at hand. A. 1. Please explain where the Ad Hominem is, instead of just saying that i made an ad hominem attack. Claiming someone is making an ad hominem, and actually showing where and why it is, are two different things. 2. And i stand by my statement that there are clearly many instances of schools which introduce literature that have sexually suggestive content, to which many parents have tried to ban, and some successfully, but most unsucessfully. If my opponent believe these books to be wrongfully included in public school libraries, I would like to point towards my opponents comments about how both children apparently already know everything they need to about Suicide, therefore allowing the Bunny book of suicides in, and compare how children are fairly knowledge about sex by the time they are grade 10, and ask why the sexually suggestive books should be banned as well. 3. Refusal to address the argument at hand. B. Yet my opponent still refuses to comment on how claiming that educational value is produced via discussion and creativity, as those can be found in any book no matter how lame, as well as erotic and sexually suggestive novels, and how my opponent is unable to find any other aspect of the book that could possibly be educational. C. I have never claimed that the Bunny suicides is pornographic. My opponent still has not addressed why Suicide is not a graphic, serious topic of discussion, as is pornography. A. Refusal to address the argument at hand. B. Again, there is this refusal from my opponent to address the main point of my argument, that is, that discussion and creativity can be found in any book and thus is not an argument to support the educational value, as the same can be said of any book. I would still like to hear what makes this book educationally superior to the Kama Sutra. C. By "teach children to read", i meant it as a euphemism, as in "Teach children to understand why reading is important and enjoyable". Anyways, again, my opponent has failed to address my question. Contention 1: Rs1: Refusal to address the argument at hand. Rs2: A. Although respect is earned, i am interested more about the argument, and less about the gender. I wouldnt care an inch if my opponent referred to me as "She", as that has no bearing on the argument whatsoever. B. Refusal to address the argument at hand. C. The Television rating of every standup or television comedy series which includes Dark humour has been rated M or R. Although there is no direct federal statute that enforces that parents must ban, or that children are not allowed to watch such televition shows, the ratings exist for a reason. As for Suicides in graphic novels, although id be a stickler if i mentioned that my opponent has used the word "Graphic", which was one of my opponents criteria, my opponet STILL has not addressed why Suicide is not a serious, dangerous matter that must be dealt with within the proper context. A.1. Literature will never be deemed pornographic unless the main theme of the book is sex. Books like "The pillars of the earth" are not categorized as erotic or pornographic at all. B. Apart from the fact that i find it ironic that you used the world "Graphic novel", yet now claim that there is nothing graphic, my opponent still has not addressed my point about the topic of suicide. The rest, my opponent has simply refused to address the argument at hand. Sources: 1. . http://www.newszapforums.com... 2. . http://www.washingtonpost.com...