High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues.

I will be addressing my opponent's answers to my answers, maybe briefly refute his points over again, but most importantly explain why I have won. We are not forced to debate, but to have more education, should we be not doing anything to change when an "overwhelming" amount of debaters leave because of a sensitive religious issue? I don't see how "God exists" does not derive from religion. It is obviously an issue that comes from religion. I will try to address the other problems in my summary/final focus. The Negation has not actually proved how public education relates to debate. I have presented the issue here, as debate allows switch-side debate. This means that one will have to (or leave public forum) debate against his or her own beliefs. We, I agree, are not forcing them to debate, we are providing them an alternative, which is to leave. My opponent has repeatedly attacked my points with that these issues do not differ from political issues. I will state again, religion is a way of life for many. It may be a basis for their morals or what they do. Politics isn't. We are being more sensitive when we attack a way of life, not just a belief. Now to refute her refutations to my contentions. I have emphasized over and over that religion is more sensitive than politics. My opponent has stated that those who cannot handle this debate of sensitive religious issues has a fantastic chance to learn. If they cannot handle it, they cannot learn from debate, they can learn from general knowledge like public education or asking someone. Then they may be able to debate. My opponent has brought up the single reason to vote for her in her first case, and I will ask the voters to only address this issue, which is if it is included in public education, why not include it in debate? I have already refuted this point as debate incorporates switch-side debate. I will ask to disregard the point about tolerance, which by the way I have refuted, because it was not brought up in the first case. In her first case there was also no talk about education, so I will ask to disregard this point, which I have also refuted. She has no credibility whatsoever for what she says. I'm not attacking her honesty, but I have no reason to believe what she is saying with no sources to support her quotes, her statements, and her evidence. Now, to wrap it all up. What the Negation side is supporting is discrimination. My not doing anything when people refuse to participate in this debate is discrimination. We are ignoring the absence of many debaters, and the Negation wants to do nothing about it. It is first priority to provide a safe and fun environment for debaters in public forum, and to do that we should try to include as many people as possible. Religion is a way of life, and to offends these people's way of life is unimaginable. We need to include the debate community into our tournaments before we try to incorporate what the Negation is saying. The Dalai Lama once said, of all the various delusions, the sense of discrimination between oneself and others is the worst form, as it creates nothing but unpleasantness. High School Public Forum Resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues. Please vote for the Affirmation.