Resolved: H.S. PF Debate should not confront sensitive religious issues

Hello! I am a Policy debater (so I apologize if I screw up), but I have done Public Forum (and got second place! We would have gotten first, but there wasn't enough time for the finals so they decided the results based on speaker points :| ). Before I begin, I request that when this debate is over that no one vote for his or her self. Seriously, in my last debate on here, they voted for them self so I voted for MYself to even it out; they changed their votes and made it look like I was the bad one. So if we could do that, that would be great. I would like to begin by defining "sensitive. " Requiring tact or caution; delicate; touchy: a sensitive topic. Source: . http://dictionary.reference.com... First, confronting about sensitive religious issues in H. S PF Debate is inevitable. EVEN if we do the plan and not confront them, then they will STILL be confronted in the future when future debaters debate that H. S. PF Debate SHOULD confront sensitive religious issues. Also, by debating about it now, we are confronting sensitive religious issues, so no matter what, it is inevitable. Quoting my opponent: "this goes against his freedom of religion and his choice to defend his beliefs, therefore, the resolution is unconstitutional" I would like to quote the U. S Constitution itself, from the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. " The Constitution says that the freedom of religion is the freedom to BE in that religion. By confronting sensitive religious issues, debaters are not denied their religion; thus, your argument is invalid. My opponent stated that: "If we are forced to debate on this topic, then we are leading towards the communist ideas of Soviet Russia, along with the dictatorship ideas of 1936-1945 Germany (Adolf Hitler), and totally negates the work of our founding fathers! Who are we to annul work that is not ours? " I would like to point out that the Russian communism my opponent is talking about controls private property; being forced to debate on this topic (which we are not) in no way leans towards the communist ideas of Soviet Russia. My opponent said that it also goes along with the ideas of Hitler. I would like to quote Hitler himself (he was talking about his political views): "We are enemies of cowardly pacifism because we recognize that according to the laws of nature, struggle is the father of all things. We are enemies of democracy because we recognize that an individual genius represents at all times the best in his people and that he should be the leader. Numbers can never direct the destiny of a people. Only genius can do this. We are the deadly enemies of internationalism because nature teaches us that the purity of race and the authority of the leader alone are able to lead a nation to victory" I beg the question: How does being forced t debate on this topic (which we aren't) lead to the United States becoming an enemy of democracy? I fail to see the connection there.