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

I affirm the resolution. RESOLVED: The Student Nondiscrimination Act of 2010 ought to be enacted. The debate will be as follows: ROUND 1 Pro: Introduces contentions Con: Negates Pro and introduces own contentions ROUND 2 Pro: Refutes Con and defends own contentions Con: Refutes Pro and defends own contentions ROUND 3 Both sides: Impact analysis- why did Pro/Con win this debate? New new contentions/evidence should be introduced in this round. Responding to a question or clarification from the previous round is okay. ========== BACKGROUND ========== The Student Nondiscrimination Act of 2010 (I will refer to it as the SNDA) throughout this debate) is a bill sponsored by U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) in the House of Representatives and Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn) in the Senate. The intent of the SNDA is "To end discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity in public schools, and for other purposes." The full text of the bill can be found here: http://thomas.loc.gov...: ========== MY CASE ========== ---------- Contention 1: The SNDA Is a Necessary Counterpart To the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ---------- The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination by public schools on the basis of race, gender, religion and ethnicity. It is time that these provisions extend to sexual orientation and gender identification. Growing evidence indicates that sexual orientation and gender identification are not influenced by social criteria as much as it is hardwired into the subject (1). Because of this, for the most part, one's sexual preference is as innate as one's ethnicity. Furthermore, religion is clearly more of a conscious choice than homosexuality, yet the former remains protected under the Civil Rights Act. Therefore, sexual orientation and gender identification remain as much a civil right as race, gender, religion and ethnicity. ANY harassment on such a basis that a student may face while trying to get an education should not be tolderated (2). It is time for the federal government to acknowledge and protect this basic civil right. ---------- Contention 2: Lack Of Negative Effects Resulting From the Passage of the SNDA ---------- This may be a defensive argument, but I am presenting it anyway in an attempt to initiate early clash in this debate. I challenge my opponent, whomever he or she may be, to point out any harms that would occur if the SNDA were passed. Hypothetically, even if sexual preference or gender identification is a conscious choice and not a protected civil right, what negative effects would the bill produce? No student would be receiving priority over another. The majority's rights would not be transcended by the minority. The rights of the minority would simply be raised to the level of the majority. Furthermore, the SNDA does not entail "indoctrination" of any kind. No one will be forced to befriend homosexual students or even express any welcoming of homosexuality. The SNDA simply guarantees that homosexual and transgender students fulfill their legal education requirements free from physical or psychological abuse on the basis of their sexualities. The resolution is therefore affirmed. The Student Nondiscrimination Act of 2010 ought to be enacted. I look forward to my opponent's response. Sources: (1) http://www.sciencentral.com... (2) http://www.tolerance.org...