Resolved: The Student Nondiscrimination Act of 2010 ought to be enacted.

I will now refute my opponent's case before defending my own. ========== OPPONENT'S CASE ========== ---------- C1: Free Speech ---------- My opponent makes the claim that the SNDA will hinder a student's right to voice his opposition to homosexuality, which is a violation of free speech. I have two arguments against this. First, the SNDA is not concerned with discriminatory acts by fellow students. The text of the bill explicitly refers to cases "when school officials engage in discriminatory treatment or are indifferent to discrimination, including harassment, bullying, intimidation and violence, on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. " In other words, LGBT students have the same access to school activities and a safe learning environment as their heterosexual peers. If Billy, who is gay, is harassed by Joey, who is not, then that is a disciplinary matter for the school itself. However, if Joey repeatedly harasses Billy, and the administration condones Joey or refuses to take action, then that can open the doors to a federal lawsuit. Secondly, free speech is not absolute. Verbal harassment against individual students is not protected by the First Amendment. Legally, harassment is defined as "a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such a person and serves no legitimate purpose" (1). Under the SNDA, Joey will not be allowed to yell "Billy is a f*g" in the school hallway for the same reason that he cannot yell racial slurs at African-American students. ---------- C2: State and Local Community Values ---------- The first part of this argument is really a personal opinion. The fact that different communities view homosexuality differently is not sufficient grounds to deny any student the right to be homosexual. Furthermore, the SNDA does not dictate in what manner communities must address cases of discrimination or harassment. The bill just says action must be taken to stop such cases. If discrimination or harassment is ignored or even encouraged, THEN such issues must be dealt with on a federal level, because the community has neglected to protect the rights of its citizens. No one can be mandated to like or support a particular lifestyle, but governments (including public schools) must tolerate the rights of people to practice such a lifestyle. Students have the right to lead whatever lifestyle they want, and such a lifestyle is only subject to restriction if it "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others" (2). ---------- C3: Civil Rights vs. Homosexual Rights ----------- I will go through this contention point-by-point: "Civil rights and homosexual rights are not synonymous. Civil rights focus on the right to vote, the GUARANTEED ACCESS TO PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS (emphasis mine), and desegregation of pubic facilities and schools. " That is exactly what the SNDA is protecting: the guaranteed access to equal accommodations in public schools for LGBT students. "They have never been, nor should they ever be, about attempting to have the federal government mandate acceptance of a particular lifestyle. " The bill does not mandate the acceptance by private individuals, but rather legal acceptance, in this case by public school systems. "If we should allow a special law addressing harassment of homosexual behavior, should we not also address harassment of: overweight kids, kids with bad acne, or kids with nose rings? " The SNDA was introduced as a response to cases of LGBT harassment in public schools (3). If there are widespread cases of harassment because of the reasons my opponent listed, those should be dealt with as well. Surely my opponent does not condone school faculty harassing or discriminating against overweight students, students with acne, or students with piercings! ========== MY CASE ========== My opponent never directly addressed my contentions, but I will still address any points he brought up that clash with mine. ---------- C1: The SNDA Is a Necessary Counterpart To the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ---------- My opponent argued in the previous round that there is no constitutional right to homosexuality or cross dressing. Although he never elaborated (he just compared civil rights to the right to be homosexual), history shows that the Supreme Court has struck down laws restricting or prohibiting homosexual expression (4). Therefore, it has been ruled that homosexuality is a constitutionally-protected right. This is mainly because of the Constitution's mandate of the right to privacy and equal protection under the law. My opponent never objected to my evidence that homosexuality can be biologically innate. Any claims that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" should be disregarded, as he never provided any supporting evidence. ---------- C2: Lack of Negative Effects Resulting From the Passage of the SNDA ---------- My opponent gave only two possible negative consequences resulting from the SNDA, both of which have been shown to have no merit. All claims my opponent made that the SNDA violates the First Amendment have been refuted, as the SNDA makes no restrictions on the rights of students to express opposition to homosexuality. Also, I have shown that the Supreme Court declared that the rights of homosexuals outweigh whatever views a community may have against them. ========== CONCLUSION ========== My contention showing that homosexuality is hardwired into one's DNA has not been addressed by my opponent, so I assume he agrees. All negative effects that my opponent speculates may result from the SNDA are baseless. Therefore the resolution is affirmed. I look forward to my opponent's response. Sources: (1) . http://www.uslawbooks.com... (2) . http://www.usconstitution.net... (3) . http://www.enewspf.com... (4) . http://www.law.umkc.edu...