High school public forum ought not confront sensitive religious topic

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.