Resolved: High School Public Forum Debate Resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues

As my opponent wanted to run this argument as close to Public Forum style as possible, each side must present his or her case in Round 2. That means all contentions and major points must be brought up during Round 2. You may expand upon existing contentions or provide new evidence for those contentions in later rounds, but no new points may be made. Because my opponent has forfeited his round 2, he has, by the rules, given up his chance to present his case and points. Thus he will no longer be able to make ANY points of his own. He may still try and rebut my points in later rounds if he desires to. If he does make contentions and points in later rounds, please ignore them, as this is breaking Public Forum rules. Now I shall present my case, which will be summed up in two contentions and an argument block. Contention 1: Conflicts over sensitive religious topics have caused war and genocide in the past, and religion has been an excuse to pursue extreme violations of human rights. ï¿½ The use of religion as an excuse to pursue war, and religious conflicts resulting in war and death is no new thing. It is common knowledge that religion has been abused for these purposes countless times throughout history. Nearly every religion has examples of violence, both modern and old, even the beliefs that are proclaimed to be "pacifistic." ï¿½ In the Old Testament of the Bible, God told Joshua to wage war against the Canaanites, despite that coming into conflict with God's own teachings (the Ten Ammendments: thou shalt not kill thy fellow man). Christianity and the fear of Satan led to a series of absurd witch hunts in Colonial America that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of innocents. In more modern times, President Bush Jr. used his newfound "Christian beliefs" to justify going to war with Iraq to millions of Americans, although the true reasons behind his invasion are certainly questionable. Islamic extremists shout the name of Allah during bombings or combat, and in extreme cases are willing to die for their god. Even Budhism, widely thought to be a completely peaceful religion, is used as an excuse for violence. For example, the Buddhists of Sri Lanka have openly taken up armed combat against the Tamil Freedom Fighters. ï¿½ These are just a few of the endless examples of conflict caused by religion, or conflict where religion was used to justify violent action. A few more would be Christopher Columbus bringing "enlightenment" to Native Americans in the form of Christianity, enslaving them and forcing them to mine for gold, and killing them in droves. And what about religious crusades? Those are littered throughout nearly ever religious book in existence: the Bible, the Koran, and yet others as well. ï¿½ The point is that religion has nothing to offer to Public Forum debate but a series of hypocritical sayings and "morals," all of which are contradicted by their own religious texts. Every religion I listed earlier strictly forbids the killing of another Human being, and yet wars are waged and innocents are killed throughout thre remainder of the book. The only purpose religion serves in a Public Forum setting is an example of hypocrisy. Because religion has nothing to truly offer High School Public Forum debate, Public Forum resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues. ï¿½ Contention 2: If a person in a Public forum debate setting is forced to debate against his or her own religion, he or she could be placed in an extremely emotionally upsetting situation, and personal emotions may be dragged into the debate. ï¿½ When a person feels strongly about a particular topic, it is extremely difficult to argue against his or her own viewpoint, even in a formalized debate setting. Being forced to argue against something you feel strongly about can lead to mixed feelings and being upset, and could even cause conflict among the people debating. Public Forum debate is a formalized debate setting intended for fun and stimulating debate. It is not intended to make people upset or angry, or make them feel personally attacked. ï¿½ By bringing up sensitive religious topics in Public Forum debate, we either risk insulting the people involved in the debate, or end up excluding particular groups from joining Public Forum debate. For example, if a topic is "Resolved: The Islam Mosque should be built at Ground Zero," people who consider themselves strongly Islamic may choose to not enter the event because they may have to represent the Negative side of the argument, and then they would be debating against their own religion. On the other end of the spectrum, people who are strongly against the building of the Mosque for their own reasons, religious or not, may also choose not to debate as they would likely be forced to represent the Positive side of the argument. If we choose to allow sensitive religious topics in Public Forum arguments, certain groups of students may be excluded from debate. We can not exclude groups of students; Pofo debate is a public event, hence the name "Public Forum." ï¿½ On the other hand, if the issue is sensitive to a particular student or group of students, and they still choose to get involved, emotions could raise to the point of shouting or personal attacks. Public Forum debates would cease to be enjoyable academic events, and would instead become the staging grounds for a verbal war. As was seen last year at this very event, when the Public Forum topic actually did regard the building of the Mosque, many of the students involved became frustrated and angry. Emotions became a ruling factor in debates, rather than intellect. These situations destroy the entire goal of Public Forum debate: to provide a fun, non-threatening, intellectual setting for debate. In order to preserve the integrity of Public Forum debate, we must not confront sensitive religious issues in debate resolutions. ï¿½ Argument Block: The moral values taught by many religions are hypocritical, and the holy books that teach these values are often heavily laden with examples of such hypocrisy. ï¿½ As was stated in the first contention, religion is often used as an excuse to pursue war and conflict, despite the fact that nearly every holy book strictly forbids the killing of another Human. There are several ideals that are generally universal in most major religions: do not kill, do not steal, respect the beliefs of others, respect nature and the world. Not only are both the Bible and Koran rife with killing and war, some of which was commanded by the same god who ordered "thou shalt not kill," but religion is used in modern times as an excuse to violate some of the other ideals. It is common for people of a particular religion to try and force their beliefs on another. Nowhere in the Bible does it tell Christians to force their beliefs on others. They are told to spread their faith, but at the same time to respect the beliefs of their neighbors. And yet Christianity was forced upon Native Americans, African slaves, and Asians. And respecting the world? Many modern religious groups, especially Christians (Pentacostal Christians most of all) have lost all respect and concern for the world. They oppose movements to protect and conserve nature, instead saying that God provided us with a world for us to use and drain to our pleasure. ï¿½ Ezekial 34:2-4 - Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally.