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

My opponent claimed all my contentions are illogical and not valid, but did not provide adequate reasoning why, just a "have my word for it". The Aff has disregarded my counterarguments and reasoning. "My opponent's counterpoint is irrelevant, though, because I am not suggesting that we remove all modern topics. That was an intentional misinterpretation, a cruel twisting if you will, of my original contentions. The topic is, "Resolved: High School Public Forum Debate Resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues. " The key work here is sensitive. " -Yes, but you did not read what I said to support my claim, and you claim it as a misinterpretation. People get emotional in every type of debate. Controversial topics are there so that it is controversial. If people don't agree and get emotional, what is there to debate about? Every topic offered by public forum is bound to get people of one side or another emotional. "Thus, only debate resolutions that are capable of producing such a serious state should be prohibited. This is what I am arguing, not that all topics in any way regarding religion should be banned. Thus, my opponent's rebuttals are misplaced. " -In none of your rounds have you addressed how political and other issues are not as offending or emotionally triggered as any other type of debate or what the difference between sensitive religious issue and a regular religious issue is. Is it really possible ot have a religious issue without having it be sensitive? "My opponent has said that the examples I provided for contentions that could offend students are illogical, as those students could choose not to use them. But I wasn't talking about students who were of that belief; I was referring to students who were not of the particular religion using contentions that could insult other students. In this case, such students would have no reason not to use such contentions, especially if they felt it might improve the case, and thus they may insult another student. Once again, my opponent is making a faulty assumption and has failed to rebut my contention. " - Yes, but would the people of the religion be offended? Of course not! They get to defend their own religion that their opponents have stated. It would in fact, be positive, that they be able to defend their own religion. "My opponent also has insinuated that I was lying when I spoke of a topic last year concerning the building of the mosque, or Islamic Cultural Center as my opponent so avidly points out, because it was not listed as one of the topics of the official tournaments regarding Public Forum. " - Okay, I just wanted to clarify. Anyways, its not a very important part anyways, so I won't ask for evidence. But I suggest that this piece of support not be regarded too seriously as it is a small sample size, not reliable (as it is just one area), and is anecdotal. "My opponent has stated that hypocrisy is not an issue because judges will detect it and deduct points. However, Public Forum debate was designed to be judged primarily by lay judges, who are often simply the parents of the students in the debates. They are not necessarily experienced at judging, and may not detect hypocrisy or deduct points from it. Thus, my opponent has still not denoted any value for hypocrisy in a debate. " -I'm pretty sure that parent judges can detect hypocrisy. Also, it would be very beneficial for the opposing side to actually point it out and emphasize it because hypocrisy pretty much ruins a case. Yes, Public Forum is mainly lay judges, but they can detect hypocrisy just like they are trusted to evaluate speaker points or weigh arguments. "My opponent has tried to prove that teenagers are more tolerant based on the Gallup poll. It is a poll conducted in which students simply say what they would do. It is not measuring actual action, and people can easily choose options that make themselves look better to the public. On the contrary, recent studies conducted based on actual facts have shown that teenagers and young adults commit more hate crimes than any other age group. [2] These hate crimes are based on everything from religion to sexuality, and thus demonstrate that high school students are not necessarily more tolerant to anything, including religion. [3]" -What? you rejected my evidence because teenagers want to look better? Look better how? It's an anonymous poll with none specified. Is there some conspiracy here? That teens are banding together to make themselves look better? I do not want to attack my opponent, but merely ask how this poll is unreliable. -Your hate crime evidence is based on race, not religion. And please, do not reject my poll because its not "actual facts". Gallup is a global organization based in Washington D. C. It has management consulting, human resources and statistical research services and over 40 offices in 27 countries [1]. None of your websites actually support tolerance and religion. Now I would like to bring up voting issues and conclude. The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion. (Henry Steele Commager) Censorship has no place in American society, let alone debate. We are brought upon a topic of morality when we debate whether we should allow sensitive religious issues or not. Ladies and Gentlemen, it is time to take a stand. A vote for the Affirmation is a vote for the censorship of valuable education, the disintegration of Public Forum Debate, the hypocrisy that is not only easily detectable by judges, but also may be pointed out by debaters, and debaters being emotional, which the Aff has not linked religion and sensitive religious issues. A ballot for the Negation, however, provides the resources needed to learn to gain a unique type of education, one which fosters tolerance. The Aff has stated about offending debates, but won't it be good for people of the religion being attacked defend their own views when the opponents pull out a contention that attacks the religion? The Affirmation has shown meager, if not negative, support of the resolution with the promotion of censorship, while the Negation provides no censorship while supporting education and tolerance. The Affirmation suggests censoring topics that all other debates can use, and suggests the elimination of Public Forum itself. The Aff contentions rely on religion in itself, not sensitive religious issues. I have repeatedly asked for the link between them, as religion is not the same as a sensitive religious issue, but the Aff has ignored my requests. I support my case through rebuttals and points of the Aff that help my case. Because of these reasons, I urge a vote for the Negation. High School Public Forum Resolutions should confront sensitive religious issues. Thank you for reading and I hope you vote :) 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...