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

Thank you for accepting my challenge, and yeah, I challenged somebody in the beginning and never changed my introduction paragraph. Also, I do agree with you, voting for yourself is a "low blow", especially when you put the blame on others for your wrong doings. Now, on to the debate: CROSSFIRE ROUND ============================================================= My opponent states: "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. " // First, this argument that you make is a bit touchy. You are not necessarily making sense when you say that future debaters will later debate that High School Public Forum debate should confront sensitive religious issues, when in the beginning you clearly state that we will not confront these issues. To clear it up, I'm basically getting that you are saying: "If we don't confront these religious issues at all, and agree with the affirmative side, people would still confront them anyways; no matter what the debate guidelines say. " Clear this up if you can for me, please. To my question, how are we debating sensitive religious issues now, exactly? How can our current debate be offending, or against what others believe? Next argument: "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. " //You say here that my argument is invalid because the freedom of religion allows one to BE in religion with no persecution, correct? Wrong, it clearly states that we have the right to the free exercise of religion; which includes us having the freedom to defend our religion, and/or the freedom not to oppose our religion in any way, shape or form. Our freedom, again, is slowly being taken away right from under our noses because we fail to realize that what's happening is giving us an ultimatum! Either we accept the resolution and debate on it, or we do not and quit for the month. We should not be given this ultimatum. We should make it where these sensitive issues not be brought up at all, and we debate other things. // In the next argument, I would like to say that I should have used the word tyranny instead of communism. Next, you ask: "How does being forced to debate on this topic […] lead to the United States becoming an enemy of democracy? […]" //My answer to this is that, again, we are given an ultimatum in which we are to choose to debate for a month, or quit; therefore we are forced, and you might ask me: "Well, don't you think we're being forced NOT to debate on these issues? " and my answer would still be no, and I will tell you why: we are being protected from coercive situations, being PROTECTED from impressionable high school minds being swayed against what they believe. This is the right thing to do, as opposed to forcing us to debate these issues which doesn't protect anything or anyone at all. //My questions to you: 1. )Do you believe that the United States was founded upon freedom and liberty in efforts to be independent from other countries? 2. )If you agree with the first question, then tell me, who are we to take away the freedom of other people? Who are we to annul our founding fathers' work? 3. )Since the human brain does not develop until about age(s) 21-24, why should we force things upon impressionable teen minds? 4. )High schoolers are the future of America, so why should we implant thoughts in their minds that contradict the U. S Constitution, in the event that any of them become congressman, presidents, etc. ?