Resolved: High school dress code restrictions should include prohibitions on Satanic clothing.
The first round is for acceptance on the resolution.
"Dress is at all times a frivolous distinction, and excessive solicitude about it often destroys its own aim." Jane Austen
In this debate, I must negate the resolution and stand on the CON. Before continuing, I'd like to address one thing not mentioned in the wording of the resolution. This debate was inspired by an event occurring in the state of New Mexico, so for the sake of practicality and adequacy, this debate should be construed to the context of the United States and the civil liberties provided therein. With this said, I move on toward the iteration of my case.
These dress code restrictions violate the First Amendment specifically because they inhibit the free exercise of a religion, hinder free speech with no warrant, and implicitly favors another religion with the establishment of a double-standard. Henceforth, these restrictions are unconstitutional and should not be implemented.
Contention: These dress code restrictions violate the First Amendment.
The following is the legal definition of what is considered to be a religion: "The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment."  Because Satanism fits within the line of this description, it is legally a religion protected by the First Amendment.
Sub-point 1a: These restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause.
The religious aspect of the First Amendment is the following: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  Because these restrictions inhibit the free expression of a religious garment, it inherently violates this part of the First Amendment.
Sub-point 1b: These restrictions do not include other religious garments.
These restrictions are specifically for Satanism, meaning that other religions are held over this particular one. This violates the Equal Protection Clause and Establishment Clause because of the discriminatory nature.
Evaluating the Resolution:
While the wearing of specified clothing may be associated with certain religions (such as the Hijab is associated with Islam) or cultural norms, while on schoolhouse grounds students do not enjoy the carte blanche liberty to wear clothing which may materially or substantially interferes with the educational process, pursuant to the authorities cited above including Tinker, Burnside, and Epperson.
If satanic clothing were to be inadvertently restricted by such a general rule, the students’ right to practice their chosen religion would neither be advanced or inhibited, because the rule itself was not specifically engineered with the purpose of limiting the free exercise of religion, but rather with promoting the (secular) interest of the school outlined above.
Because government is neither sponsoring or prohibiting any specified religion, no excessive entanglement can be said to exist.
Judges, you are about to see the most pithy rebuttal DDO has probably ever seen. This is in part by the fact that pretty much most of my opponent's arguments make complete sense. Inadvertedly, my opponent has actually provided the increase in structure that my case needed in order to present the limitations of the freedom of speech. My opponent provides a legitimate case with Supreme Court rulings that substantiate his claim. However, going toward his Contentions 1 and 2, he fails to answer in his contentions his own million-dollar question: Does Satanic clothing materially and substantially interfere? My opponent provides the Supreme Court cases which would justify the elimination of Satanic clothing but never proves the significant interference nor the heaviness of its possibility.
I’m glad that my opponent and I agree that my case makes complete sense, although I’m baffled as to why he so willingly admits that.
The resolution reads: “Resolved: High school dress code restrictions should include prohibitions on Satanic clothing.”
To argue this case, my opponent has the burden to prove that such a restriction is infeasible. I only have to prove that such a probation would be feasible, as a general principle. The reason that I do not have to prove that satanic clothing would materially or substantially interfere with the educational process is because to make such a determination would require a specific case that actually happened. It is not my responsibility to argue that invariably, in every circumstance, student’s wearing of satanic clothing does, in fact, materially and substantially interfere because to prove that would require empirical analysis of specified circumstances in given schools. This is a burden both improper for the resolution and for DDO.
Because the resolution is about the components of what high school dress codes should or should not include, my only burden is the prove that restrictions on satanic clothing are theoretically permissible (and I have). Because my opponent grounded his arguments in the law, I responded in kind. I demonstrated that rather than being precluded by the constitution, US law actually protects the right of schools to impose regulations on what a student may or may not wear. As such, I have met my burden of proof.
My opponent now wishes to elevate my burden in such a way that cannot be met. By definition, his question functions as a red herring because it distracts from the original clash of the debate. Contrary to my opponent’s assertion, the wording of my case was entirely deliberate and chosen specifically to meet the burden carried.
The implications of his argument necessarily restrict what a school may do to facilitate the educational process, the burden is contrarily on him to establish how wearing of satanic clothing would not materially or substantially interfere with student learning in every situation. Because my opponent is limiting what a given school may do to meet the unique needs of its student body, and because the state has a compelling interest in promoting the education of children throughout our nation, it is therefore necessary that he establish how limiting the capacity of a school to perform its societal function is appropriate.
Unless or until my opponent does that, he fails to meet his burden of proof.
ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
Extend all arguments.
ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
Extend all arguments, again.
Peace and Love,
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|