The Instigator
yuri.ramocan
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
wweasel
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: H.S. PF Debate should not confront sensitive religious issues

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,342 times Debate No: 13558
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

yuri.ramocan

Pro

Hi, I decided to challenge you because you were the closest to my age and it seems that you are a good debater :D. So if you would, I'd like to debate with you, please?

Public Forum Format:
Round 1 = 1st Pro/1st Con
Round 2 = Crossfire
Round 3 = 2nd Pro/2nd Con (Summary/Final Focus)
=====================================================

I'd like you all to realize that having to debate on sensitive religious issues could negatively affect a person's family, social, and personal life. I will express why this resolution affects so many aspects of one's life throughout my arguments, which are laid out in two main contentions.

Contention 1) One should not be forced to debate against his religion

Contention 2) Endangers what America was founded upon and the future of liberty

C1) One should not be forced to debate against his religion
According to the National Forensics League (NFL): Normally, a debater is allowed to opt out of a debate if he finds the topic or resolution offensive, explicit, contrary to his beliefs, (etc.), and be assigned a new one; however, in this case, we find that this is not possible. In this instance, if a debater would happen to find a topic offensive and did not want to debate it, he would have to quit the debate for the month altogether.
Therefore, this debater must be required to debate against what he believes; as a result, this goes against his freedom of religion and his choice to defend his beliefs, therefore, the resolution is unconstitutional. Public Forum debate should NOT limit us to the choice of quitting for the month or debating a topic against our religion. What this does is that it gives debaters an ultimatum if they do not accept the resolution, which leads us to my next contention.

C2) Endangers what America was founded upon and the future of liberty
The United States of America was founded upon freedom. Freedom of religion, speech, assembly, and press. If we are forced to debate on this topic, then we are leading towards the communist ideas of Soviet Russia, along with the dictatorship ideas of 1936-1945 Germany (Adolf Hitler), and totally negates the work of our founding fathers! Who are we to annul work that is not ours?
If my memory serves correct, our high-school generation is the future of America, so why should we corrupt our minds even more and risk the future liberty of America? What we learn now, will determine what we believe in the future. We, as Americans, need to realize the risks that we are taking by restricting our freedom of speech (the freedom to halt our speech/defend our religion) in this case.

Thank you.
wweasel

Con

Hello! I am a Policy debater (so I apologize if I screw up), but I have done Public Forum (and got second place! We would have gotten first, but there wasn't enough time for the finals so they decided the results based on speaker points :| ).
Before I begin, I request that when this debate is over that no one vote for his or her self. Seriously, in my last debate on here, they voted for them self so I voted for MYself to even it out; they changed their votes and made it look like I was the bad one. So if we could do that, that would be great.

I would like to begin by defining "sensitive."

Requiring tact or caution; delicate; touchy: a sensitive topic.

Source:

http://dictionary.reference.com...

First, confronting about sensitive religious issues in H.S PF Debate is inevitable.
EVEN if we do the plan and not confront them, then they will STILL be confronted in the future when future debaters debate that H.S. PF Debate SHOULD confront sensitive religious issues.
Also, by debating about it now, we are confronting sensitive religious issues, so no matter what, it is inevitable.

Quoting my opponent:
"this goes against his freedom of religion and his choice to defend his beliefs, therefore, the resolution is unconstitutional"

I would like to quote the U.S Constitution itself, from the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

The Constitution says that the freedom of religion is the freedom to BE in that religion. By confronting sensitive religious issues, debaters are not denied their religion; thus, your argument is invalid.

My opponent stated that:
"If we are forced to debate on this topic, then we are leading towards the communist ideas of Soviet Russia, along with the dictatorship ideas of 1936-1945 Germany (Adolf Hitler), and totally negates the work of our founding fathers! Who are we to annul work that is not ours?"

I would like to point out that the Russian communism my opponent is talking about controls private property; being forced to debate on this topic (which we are not) in no way leans towards the communist ideas of Soviet Russia.

My opponent said that it also goes along with the ideas of Hitler.

I would like to quote Hitler himself (he was talking about his political views):

"We are enemies of cowardly pacifism because we recognize that according to the laws of nature, struggle is the father of all things. We are enemies of democracy because we recognize that an individual genius represents at all times the best in his people and that he should be the leader. Numbers can never direct the destiny of a people. Only genius can do this. We are the deadly enemies of internationalism because nature teaches us that the purity of race and the authority of the leader alone are able to lead a nation to victory"

I beg the question: How does being forced t debate on this topic (which we aren't) lead to the United States becoming an enemy of democracy? I fail to see the connection there.

Thank you, and I urge you to vote con.
Debate Round No. 1
yuri.ramocan

Pro

Thank you for accepting my challenge, and yeah, I challenged somebody in the beginning and never changed my introduction paragraph. Also, I do agree with you, voting for yourself is a "low blow", especially when you put the blame on others for your wrong doings.

Now, on to the debate: CROSSFIRE ROUND
=============================================================
My opponent states:

"EVEN if we do the plan and not confront them, then they will STILL be confronted in the future when future debaters debate that H.S. PF Debate SHOULD confront sensitive religious issues.
Also, by debating about it now, we are confronting sensitive religious issues, so no matter what, it is inevitable."

// First, this argument that you make is a bit touchy. You are not necessarily making sense when you say that future debaters will later debate that High School Public Forum debate should confront sensitive religious issues, when in the beginning you clearly state that we will not confront these issues. To clear it up, I'm basically getting that you are saying:

"If we don't confront these religious issues at all, and agree with the affirmative side, people would still confront them anyways; no matter what the debate guidelines say." Clear this up if you can for me, please. To my question, how are we debating sensitive religious issues now, exactly? How can our current debate be offending, or against what others believe?

Next argument:

"Quoting my opponent:
‘this goes against his freedom of religion and his choice to defend his beliefs, therefore, the resolution is unconstitutional'

I would like to quote the U.S Constitution itself, from the First Amendment.

‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'

The Constitution says that the freedom of religion is the freedom to BE in that religion. By confronting sensitive religious issues, debaters are not denied their religion; thus, your argument is invalid."

//You say here that my argument is invalid because the freedom of religion allows one to BE in religion with no persecution, correct? Wrong, it clearly states that we have the right to the free exercise of religion; which includes us having the freedom to defend our religion, and/or the freedom not to oppose our religion in any way, shape or form. Our freedom, again, is slowly being taken away right from under our noses because we fail to realize that what's happening is giving us an ultimatum! Either we accept the resolution and debate on it, or we do not and quit for the month. We should not be given this ultimatum. We should make it where these sensitive issues not be brought up at all, and we debate other things.

// In the next argument, I would like to say that I should have used the word tyranny instead of communism. Next, you ask:

"How does being forced to debate on this topic […] lead to the United States becoming an enemy of democracy? […]"

//My answer to this is that, again, we are given an ultimatum in which we are to choose to debate for a month, or quit; therefore we are forced, and you might ask me: "Well, don't you think we're being forced NOT to debate on these issues?" and my answer would still be no, and I will tell you why: we are being protected from coercive situations, being PROTECTED from impressionable high school minds being swayed against what they believe. This is the right thing to do, as opposed to forcing us to debate these issues which doesn't protect anything or anyone at all.

//My questions to you:
1.)Do you believe that the United States was founded upon freedom and liberty in efforts to be independent from other countries?
2.)If you agree with the first question, then tell me, who are we to take away the freedom of other people? Who are we to annul our founding fathers' work?
3.)Since the human brain does not develop until about age(s) 21-24, why should we force things upon impressionable teen minds?
4.)High schoolers are the future of America, so why should we implant thoughts in their minds that contradict the U.S Constitution, in the event that any of them become congressman, presidents, etc.?

Thank you for your time, and I urge you to vote for pro.
wweasel

Con

wweasel forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
yuri.ramocan

Pro

Okay then?
wweasel

Con

wweasel forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by yuri.ramocan 6 years ago
yuri.ramocan
sorry about the delay, i've been doing homework...high school.
Posted by wweasel 6 years ago
wweasel
Sorry, I forgot to post my cite for my Hitler quote:
http://www2.dsu.nodak.edu...
Posted by losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
I'll take this debate, if it's extended to me.
Posted by TheSquadBoss 6 years ago
TheSquadBoss
who did you mean to challenge?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
yuri.ramocanwweaselTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF