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

I apologize to Pro for the forfeit. I had a plethora of homework piled on top of me for the last four days. Ergo, I will present my Case and Rebuttal to Aff's Contentions in Round 3. Again, my apologies for truncating the round. Case: Before I begin, I offer a blanket of warm thanks to the audiences/judges, as well as my adversary, for making this debate possible. Good luck to both of us! Today, I stand on the firm negation of the resolved: "high school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues." My standard for the following round will be the maximization of preventing societal transgression in the US. Its criterion will be defined as maximizing the practice of righteous duties (as defined by the US Constitution and its Amendments) by the government and its citizens in the United States as much as possible. My criterion is directly correlated with my standard because the US Constitution has been the quintessential foundation of America's system of justice, citizenship, and most significantly, freedom. If citizens cannot uphold its obligations, then the entire infrastructure falls down. My first contention is that any limitation or restriction upon the free flow of ideas and subsequent discussions upon these ideas is both a blatant and unacceptable endorsement of censorship and hence an attack on the US Constitution. Furthermore, such prohibition means that America would be embracing a paramount tenet of dictatorship, communism, and other anti-democratic governments. The First Amendment in the US Constitution clearly states: "Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech." It makes absolutely no statement whatsoever that puts a limit on the citizen's liberty to discuss "controversial" topics, and explicitly states that the freedom of speech is an inherent, unalienable right given to all citizens. Nor does it unambiguously establish "separation between church and state" – it mentions that Congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Now, since Public Forum is an unbiased debate in which claims must be supported by proven, factual evidence rather than arbitrary, abstract ones, it will not burden the students with indoctrination or propaganda upon a certain religion. Now, if citizens were to undermine it and materialize the atrocious idea of verbal suppression, the preferred criterion of fulfilling the obligations given by the Constitution can no longer be achieved (and the standard can no longer be attained). My second contention is that such resolutions addressing religious issues will provide debaters with unprejudiced, accurate information about various religions, ergo promoting religious tolerance. In fact, according to USA Today, only 47% of the surveyed adult knew Dalai Lama was Buddhist; 52% knew that Ramadan was the Islamic holy month. This is an astounding series of figures. And lack of knowledge in religions will ultimately lead to intolerance and prejudice. For instance, in America, the religion of Islam carries a very negative connotation ever since a small extremist faction caused 9/11. This intolerance is literally an "intrusion" to the freedom of religion given by the Constitution, because it grants all religions protection. Now, since Public Forum is a debate based upon unbiased, impartial facts that must originate from credible sources, no outrageous stereotypes (i.e. All Muslims are bad people because a tiny faction of extremists caused 9/11) or offending remarks will be brought into the round. Rather, it will provide exceptional educational value to Public Forum debaters (which is the primary goal of high-school debate) by giving proven, impartial facts about the both sides of the debate. If we can give these debaters an exposure to the truth, rather than biased stereotype, their tendency to be religiously-biased will be curtailed tremendously, ultimately effacing religious intolerance. This phenomenon fulfills the preferred standard and criterion in the round, because by reducing religious intolerance, we are defending the First Amendment in which the protection of freedom of religion is guaranteed as an inherent right to all Americans; ergo, we will be preventing societal transgression because by upholding the virtues of the Constitution, we are fulfilling our rightful duties/given laws as citizens. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REBUTTAL: I would like to point out to the judge that my opponent has not provided any standard, weighing mechanism, paradigm, or criterion for the round. Henceforth, my standard and its criterion shall automatically set the parameters of this debate; that is, the debater that best fulfills my standard and its criterion (maximizing the prevention of societal transgression in the US and fulfilling the duties/laws defined by the Constitution by the government and its citizens, in respective order) shall claim victory. O-C1: "Freedom of religion ensures that debaters are not forced to attack their religions in debate." Debate is all about taking both sides of the debate and exploring each side. If we decide to follow her logic, then all debate forms should be banned. For instance, someone who lost a cherished one due to a wrongful death penalty has all rights not to speak for the affirmation of the resolution, "Death penalty is moral." However, due to the nature of debate, it is inevitable that debaters speak for the side they oppose. Unless we reduced the resolutions to a very elementary level, all debate resolutions violate the 1st Amendment (in my opponent's logic). This is completely fallacious. O-C2: "Separation of church and state applies to the high schools in US." My opponent fails to address the fact that NFL is an INDIVIDUAL ENTITY that is not bound by the US government. It is an unrelated third party. Although schools DO hold debate clubs, debaters are NOT forced to participate in NFL tournaments. The church & state argument is not applicable due to the fact that NFL is not directed by the US govt. Furthermore, the Constitution does not explicitly state "the separation of church and state." It mentions that Congress shall make no law establishing a specific religion; however, since PuFo debate is an impartial debate BASED UPON impartial, unbiased facts, it does not violate the Constitution, hence fulfilling the preferred standard and its criterion for the round. O-C3: "Cultural sensitivity." I shall like to belabor the point: ALL resolutions will entail some kind of a sensitivity issue for the debaters. Topics such as abortion, health care, and death penalty are all "sensitive" subjects. Unless we minimize resolutions to an elementary level, all debaters will have a strong PERSONAL opinion. It is INEVITABLE, and obviously, it is not an exception for religious issues. On to her point about the previous Nov. topic. It is illogical as well. All can agree that Public Forum is a debate that must bring to table UNBIASED and CAREFULLY RESEARCHED facts from VERITABLE sources. One cannot, per se, state that "Muslims are all terrorists, so building a mosque to honor that religion is ridiculous," since this is an unfounded stereotype. The nature of Public Forum debate will ensure that no offensive remarks will be said, only FACTUAL evidence. Voting Issues: Opponent failed to provide standard and criterion, and automatically my standard and criterion become the preferred ones in the round. Hence, since I have given impact as to how my contentions link back to the preferred standard while my opponent FAILED to do so, I claim victory. I also rebutted all three of her contentions, using the given standard and criterion. Most of her points were either non-applicable or fallacious in its core idea. For these reasons, I urge a strong vote on the negation of the resolved.