Foundation Briefs - PBSpaces.com Weblogsweblogs.pbspaces.com/riverdebate/files/2010/10/... ·...

Foundation Briefs Advanced Level November Brief

Resolved: High school Public Forum Debate

resolutions should not confront

sensitive religious issues

foundationbriefs.com of 44

November 2010 Table of Contents

Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ 2

Authors’ Note.............................................................................................................................................. 4

Using Our Brief........................................................................................................................................... 5

Topic Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 6

Definitions................................................................................................................................................... 8

General Info .............................................................................................................................................. 10

Pro Evidence ............................................................................................................................................. 11

NFL Unworthy of Selecting Topics ...................................................................................................... 12

Religious Debates are One-Sided .......................................................................................................... 13

Forces Bigoted Mindset ........................................................................................................................ 15

PF Judges are bad for Religious Issues ................................................................................................. 16

Coin Flip is Problematic ........................................................................................................................ 17

Students will be Driven Away .............................................................................................................. 18

Tournaments Using Other Topics ...................................................................................................... 19

Parental Rights could Prevent Debate ................................................................................................... 20

Better Topics Exist ................................................................................................................................ 21

Con Evidence ............................................................................................................................................ 22

Value of Debating Controversial Issues ................................................................................................ 23

Best Place Possible to Debate Religion................................................................................................. 29

Religion is Too Important ..................................................................................................................... 30

Evidence of Importance ........................................................................................................................ 31

Religion is a Character Trait ................................................................................................................. 32

Forces Objective Thinking .................................................................................................................... 33

Contentions ............................................................................................................................................... 34

Pro Contentions ..................................................................................................................................... 35

Con Contentions .................................................................................................................................... 37


November 2010 Table of Contents

Counters .................................................................................................................................................... 39

Pro Counters .......................................................................................................................................... 40

Conducting a Debate Requires You to Represent things as your true belief, not simply listen to

other peoples’ views. ......................................................................................................................... 40

Mandating the taking of a religious course could be a better way to inform our citizenry ............... 40

Debate does not force objective thinking but rather the perpetuation of bias ................................... 41

Con Counters ......................................................................................................................................... 42

Religion, like other fundamental rights, can be challenged as it is two-sided .................................. 42

One does not necessarily have to be bigoted to debate religion ........................................................ 42

The NFL’s ultimate goal is the creation of an educated and tolerant citizenry ................................. 43


November 2010 Authors’ Note

Authors’ Note

This month’s resolution presents a special challenge to us as handbook writers. Not only is the

debate community divided as to what topic they will debate, but also it is extremely difficult to find truly

applicable evidence for the NFL-sanctioned resolution. That said, we at Foundation Briefs remain

committed to putting the best possible product out and believe we have done just that. However, to do

so, we have strayed slightly from the typical format of a handbook and you will find that this month’s

brief is completely different than the October Brief. Indeed, this brief is reliant upon analysis and

argumentation that we have written exclusively for our customers and cannot be found anywhere else. In

fact, nearly half of the material in here was written by the authors of Foundation Briefs. Please keep in

mind that we are very experienced debaters who have performed well with this type of analysis

including taking second at nationals in 2010. In short, this type of brief is the best we could do given the

topic and we are quite confident that it is miles ahead of any other file out there. However, it is different

than the October brief. To anyone who is disappointed by this difference, please understand that we

were founded with the goal of publishing files along the lines of what we did in October but that simply

was not feasible for this month. So, with that in mind, thank you for your understanding and best of luck

to you as you debate this topic. May our efforts make high school debate easier to do than it was to

research!

Sincerely,

James Mackey

Riley Majeune-Fagan

Foundation Briefs, LLC

November 2010 Using Our Brief


Using Our Brief • Citations will appear above the evidence, not below.

• Essential information from long articles has been bulleted and bolded. Long articles without such

formatting should still be considered to be entirely relevant.

• At the end of every piece of evidence, the page number will be noted in parentheses (14). If it is

not noted, it should be assumed that the original source was also without page numbering.

• Further explanation or analysis added by Foundation Briefs will appear in red. Note, this is OUR

analysis so should not be considered part of the source.

• If this is an Advanced Level Brief, Counters and Sample Contentions will appear at the end of

the brief, following the Con Evidence.

Making the Argument

• At the end of a section (i.e. Security) will appear an “Executive Summary” or “Making the

Argument” box. These boxes include our suggestions on argumentation and strategies for

using the evidence in the corresponding section.

November 2010 Topic Analysis


Topic Analysis This topic is undoubtedly one of the most unusual in the history of PF debate and has posed a

serious challenge to us as handbook writers due to the lack of evidence on both sides. This same

problem is likely to plague many debates and we envision the debates progressing in one of two ways:

first, it is possible that people will simply attempt to cross-apply evidence found regarding general

education to debate. Indeed, much of the solid evidence that is found in our brief does just this.

Alternatively, people will essentially avoid an evidenced debate and do a form of meta-debate in which

it is simply their opinions and ability to persuade matched up against their opponents’. In preparation for

this type of debate, we have done our best to include a very detailed definition of the goals and standards

inherent to PF debate and added significant sections of our own analysis on this subject. Undoubtedly

teams will find other ways to argue this unusual resolution but we sincerely believe that those two tracks

will be the most fruitful.

First, to give a brief outline of what the affirmative and negative sides are going to try to do in

the debate that cross-applies evidence found regarding general education. This is a much more difficult

position for the affirmative team to take given the large consensus amongst researchers that exposing

children to new ideas can be helpful in the long run. The principal attack that the affirmative must make

is that being told what different religions believe (which is what occurs in education) is different than

being forced to represent those beliefs as your own (which is what could occur if one has to debate a

sensitive religious issue). Clearly, this adds an entirely new level of consideration to the matter as you

are essentially forcing a high school student to contradict the very character traits that define them—a

difficult and potentially dangerous proposition. On the other hand, we expect many negative teams to try

to make use of the aforementioned consensus. Indeed, a well evidenced negative team can cite judicial

opinions, studies etc. to prove that students who are exposed to a range of ideas at a young age are

significantly more tolerant of diversity as adults. This could be a very persuasive argument if made

correctly.

The other style of debate—one of meta-debate focusing on PF itself—unequivocally favors the

affirmative for a couple of significant reasons. The first reason, which is unique to PF debate due largely

to its reliance upon lay people for judging, is that religion is extremely divisive and opinionated. Thus,

the rendering of a legitimately impartial ballot is very unlikely. Other possible arguments include the

likelihood that one side will have to argue against the beliefs of a religion potentially at the risk of

sounding bigoted, and that there is a general lack of topical material on almost all religious issues as

beliefs cannot be translated into evidence. The con could counter with a couple of attacks including that

high school debate rounds are the most controlled scenario to debate such controversial issues as few

judges will tolerate bigoted statements or that debate is about approaching a topic in an unbiased way

November 2010 Topic Analysis


and constructing a logical argument regardless of what you believe so we should be able to do

the same for a religious topic.

Clearly, regardless of the track chosen by either side, a fundamental problem exists in this

resolution, at least in our assessment of it and that is the inevitable lack of clash. As we mentioned, the

cross-application method is likely to be favored by the negative whereas a form of meta-debate focused

on the issues inherent to PF debate is probably going to be selected by the affirmative. These two views

of the topic do not have much in common and may simply slip past each other like ships in the night. It

is in your best interest to prevent this both for the sake of winning and, perhaps more importantly, for

the sake of having a relatively interesting 30 minute debate. Best of luck to all of you!

November 2010 Definitions


Definitions Should

Meaning in this case: ought (to be or do something).

Ought appears to be the most relevant definition of should in this case as this is by enlarge a values

resolution not one that debates a policy or something of fact. As such, the moral connotation of “ought”

is the more relevant definition as compared to the alternative definition of “Indicates that the subject of

the sentence has some obligation to execute the sentence predicate.” The latter definition would be more

appropriate for a policy-related topic.

Sensitive

"Religious Issue." WordNet. Princeton University. Web. 18 Oct. 2010.

<http://wordnet.princeton.edu/>.

Having acute mental or emotional sensibility; easily pained, annoyed, etc.

Religious issues

"Religious Issue." WordNet. Princeton University. Web. 18 Oct. 2010.

<http://wordnet.princeton.edu/>.

Concerned with sacred matters or religion or the church; having or showing belief in and reverence for a

deity;


November 2010 Definitions

High School PF Debate

"Public Forum." Public Forum Debate Standards. International Debate Education Association.

Web. 18 Oct. 2010. <http://www.idebate.org/standards/rulespublicforumdebate.php>.

I. Introduction

Public Forum Debate offers students a unique opportunity to develop on-their-feet critical thinking skills

by situating them in contexts not unlike US political (radio and TV) talk shows. Public Forum debaters

must anticipate numerous contingencies in planning their cases, and must learn to adapt to rapidly

changing circumstances as discussions progress. Public Forum's open-ended cross-examination format

encourages the development of unique rhetorical strategies. Public Forum debates should be transparent

to lay audiences while providing students with real-world public speaking skills through the discussion

of contentious ideas.

IV. The Role of the Judge

For universal protocols on judging any speech or debate event, please see Judge Accreditation Process

and Standards. Note that these guidelines are not strict rules (by reference to which, for example,

debaters may be penalized for a failure to comply), but rather suggestions as to what considerations a

judge might want to bear in mind while formulating their decision.

Public Forum Debate was conceived as an activity that would make for easily accessible and

entertaining debates that could take place before a community audience. Moreover, Public Forum

debates should be capable of being judged by a community of people with little or no experience of the

technicalities of debate. Though this does not mean that debaters should be penalized for complex

argumentation, it does mean that nuances of policy concerns and the use of jargon are not decisive in

securing a win. Rather, Public Forum Debate should be decided in favor of the side that offered the most

persuasive arguments in favor of their position. Style is a secondary concern; however, insofar as style

affects persuasiveness, it should be taken into account. Judges should ask themselves, "Which side did a

better job convincing me of their arguments?" and then decide accordingly.

November 2010 General Info


General Info

Religious Denominations

• Christian—76%

• No Religion—15%

• Jewish—2%

• Given this, there are very few issues that do not inherently favor one side of the resolution.


Pro Evidence

November 2010 Pro: Topics


NFL Unworthy of Selecting Topics

As the governing body of Public Forum Debate, the NFL has the power to dictate how one

month of debate will play out across the nation. This is a burdensome responsibility. In its attempt to put

forth a sensitive religious issue to be debated, the NFL failed miserably. To remind readers, the original

November topic was Resolved: An Islamic cultural center should be built near Ground Zero. So great

was the backlash that we now have the current topic. Why then, should we trust the NFL to publish a

future topic on a sensitive religious issue that merits debate? As will be discussed throughout the pro

section of this debate, the original November topic was a deeply flawed resolution and future resolutions

are likely to fall into the same traps.

November 2010 Pro: One-Sided Debates


Religious Debates are One-Sided

The nature of Public Forum Debate has been historically one of a fact-based, current public

policy or trend debate. Often times, Public Forum Debate has centered around discussing the merits of a

policy or action taken by a group—i.e. affirmative action, lobbying, what public unions do for our

society. To stick with this theme, but also incorporate religion, PF would need to discuss the merits of an

action taken by a religion. Indeed, this is exactly what the NFL attempted to do with its original

November topic by asking us whether or not the actions taken by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his

fellow followers to build the Islamic Cultural Center were a good idea. Again, the theme of the debate

centered on the merits of acting one-way or the other.

Here is where everything goes wrong. In any other realm of policy-based debate we can have a

debate on the merits of an action because there are arguments to both sides of the issue. Nowhere is it

written or accepted that—as the 2009 December topic discussed—merit pay for teachers is absolutely a

good or bad force in society. Topics that debate policy have two sides to the issue that are grounded in

facts. However, a debate on the merits of practicing religion has only one reasonable side: the side of the

U.S. Constitution. The main reason that the original November topic should not be debated (just a

reminder, it was: Resolved: An Islamic cultural center should be built near Ground Zero.) is simply

because in modern democratic societies we do not allow fundamental rights to be trampled upon. The

negative side to the original topic was forced to argue that Muslims should not be granted the right to

practice religion in the United States. Such an argument would fail in any Public Forum Debate where

judges are non-bigoted. Thus, while we as a society can agree to disagree on the topic of religion, we

can all agree that a cornerstone of our democracy is allowing for those disagreements. Having a debate

on whether or not a religion has the right to practice freely contradicts such sentiments.

In essence, high school Public Forum Debate should not address sensitive religious issues

because debate is about having the ability to win on either side of the issue. However, when debating

along the historical theme of Public Forum Debate—analyzing the practice of an action—religious

issues must be discounted because one side must argue against a fundamental right. The same would

apply for debating any of the most fundamental rights guaranteed in our democracy. It isn’t that debates

about religion are bad because they are touchy subjects, but because anyone would have a hard time

arguing against the freedom of religion. A topic along similar lines might be Resolved: Christians

should not be allowed to vote. Here, the issue really isn’t about the merits of Christians in a democracy,

but more about the right to vote. A debater is asked to take one of two stances: they can either attack the

group as an identity, or they can discount voting as a necessary action in democracy. There is no way to

win. Just as you cannot disallow someone to vote based on a religious identity (or any identity for that

matter) you also cannot stop someone to practice their religion because of their identity.

November 2010 Pro: One-Sided Debates


Thus, the argument being presented here is that high school Public Forum Debate topics should

be topics in which both sides have a chance to win. Because the practice of religion cannot be debated,

the debate has automatically been won before it has started.

There are two alternative debates involving religion which will be discussed in other parts of this

brief. If you are not debating about the practice of religion, you are debating either religious philosophy

or the role of religion in the state.

November 2010 Pro: Bigoted Mindset


Forces Bigoted Mindset

As discussed in the section above, debates surrounding “sensitive religious issues” must take the

form of anti-religion in two senses. As will be demonstrated, one falls under the under. First, the debate

takes on an anti-religion form because the side of the debate that is arguing against the practice of

religion must definitively prove why that religious group should be denied the fundamental right to

practice religion. In relation to the original November topic, this meant advocating against the Islamic

faith and its practices. This is the point at which anti-religious arguments become bigoted. In order to

demonstrate why one particular group should not be allowed to practice their religion, this side of the

debate must begin attacking the religion itself. This is incredibly harmful to Public Forum Debate

because it demeans the value of the debate. Rather than focusing on factually based arguments, the

debate turns into personal attacks on faith. Even if the topic is one that does not isolate a particular

religion, the debaters are still going to need reasons as to why all faiths should not be able to practice

and to do this they will need to cite specific examples.

The practice of Public Forum Debate, and debate in general, is meant to expose an audience and

participants to a wide range of viewpoints on a topic—but importantly to expose certain positions as

invalid. The nature of a debate on religion will not only fail to do this, but it will actually promote the

use of invalid positions because debaters will have no other choice. The sweeping generalizations on a

religion and its practices, as well as the types of people who compose that religion, are not at all

questioned by one side of the debate because this is their only means of argumentation.

Linking this back to the previous section then, Public Forum Debate should not confront

sensitive religious issues because one side will be forced to advocate for a bigoted argument, something

that the other side can easily defeat. The only two outcomes for the debate are harmful. Either the judge

will be bigoted and such views will be reinforced in affirming a need to be bigoted in society, or every

tournament will be decided on coin flips as no team will ever be ignorant enough to choose the bigoted

side of the debate. Both of these options bring up new issues that will be addressed in upcoming

sections: are judges qualified to handle sensitive religious issues? Do sensitive religious issues de-

legitimate Public Forum Debate and provide a disincentive to compete in high school debate? What are

the implications of this?

November 2010 Pro: Judges Bad


PF Judges are bad for Religious Issues

Public Forum Debate is designed to be accessible to the public. Indeed, this emphasis takes form

in the selection of judges for many tournaments, where parents and those with no experience with debate

are encouraged to judge rounds. Generally, this is what makes Public Forum Debate an attractive event,

as competitors must focus on real-world argumentation and logical arguments that appeal to an audience

because of their merit and not because of jargon.

However, this type of a judge is detrimental to a debate focusing on sensitive religious issues.

This is because judges must be trained and practiced to follow a round without including their own

personal biases, and sensitive religious beliefs are the most deeply held convictions many people have.

Therefore, it is likely that many ‘lay’ judges will judge the round based on their own criteria of religious

principles rather than on what is presented in the round. This is not to say that these judges are incapable

of doing so or are not intelligent enough to judge fairly. Indeed, by just showing up at a high school

debate tournament most judges are likely to be well informed on current events. However, religion—

more so than any other topic—is something that most people are unwilling to compromise upon. That is

due simply to the fact that accepting or renouncing certain religious ideas can have dire consequences

according to religious doctrine. If a judge had to renounce their faith to vote for a better-argued side,

they might think twice about it.

Indeed, it may not even be a judge’s own personal beliefs that interfere with the round. Lay

judges might not understand the need for one side of the debate to argue controversial points (as shown

above) and therefore mark down one side unfairly because the judge is uncomfortable with what is being

argued.

However, most likely it goes back to what has already been stated. Lay judges, as with any type

of judge, are not likely to receive bigoted arguments well. More than a trained judge, Public Forum

Debate judges are more susceptible to emotional reactions to the debate and thus these judges will not

tolerate some of the arguments being made in a round debating sensitive religious issues. It is this

company’s personal opinion that judges should not be tolerant of bigoted argumentation. Indeed, the

likely reaction of the judges shows not a lack competency by the judges, but of a flawed resolution that

will inevitably occur with sensitive religious issues.

November 2010 Pro: Coin Flip


Coin Flip is Problematic

A distinct feature of Public Forum Debate is the famous coin flip, which allows (or forces) a

team to debate one side of the issue rather than the other. The design of this coin flip makes it so that

debaters must be knowledgeable of both sides of an issue and are prepared to advocate in the affirmative

or negative. Generally, this can be seen as a good thing because it forces education and an open mind on

the debater as she confronts viewpoints that oppose her own. However, when debating sensitive

religious issues, the coin flip becomes harmful.

Again, the coin flip forces individuals to argue against religion and this has two clear negative

impacts. First and foremost, debating a sensitive religious issue could cause the debater to renounce their

own faith, or at least contradict their most deeply held personal religious principles. As illustrated

earlier, one side will be forced to attack a religion (or advocate for a religion) on that religion’s

principles and practices rather than on fact based policy. This is extremely dangerous because often

times, those who have strong convictions about their religion fear consequences of arguing against that

religion. In many faiths, denying your own religion or going against religious doctrine can have eternal

consequences, something that makes winning a high school debate seem pointless. While some might

point out people hold incredibly strong political viewpoints as well, these are simply not the same.

Despite how personal certain political and social issues can be given past experiences and value

structures, the challenging of such ideas has little consequence. Even if you truly believe illegal

immigration is a detriment to the United States, arguing against your personal opinion to say it has

benefits is not going to land you in Hell. However, for the faithful who are debating a sensitive religious

issue and who truly follow certain principles of a religion, such consequences could seem very real.

The debate also skews moral principles. It’s not just that one might denounce their own faith, it’s

that one could betray their own principles on a whole new level. I can easily argue against my own

stance on stable nations and failed nations without feeling like I have totally betrayed my own values.

However, I would detest a debate topic that forced me into attacking another human being’s right to

practice religion. In this sense, debating sensitive religious issues becomes wrong because debaters have

strong convictions on liberty and will not compromise these beliefs. There are certain inalienable rights

that people deserve and the freedom to choose and practice a religion is one of them. Having to win a

debate round by attacking a religion through bigoted means is a dark line Public Forum Debate should

not cross. In fact, the NFL has at least partially conceded such points by withdrawing the past topic on

religion. To some extent, it realized that high school debaters are unwilling to betray their own personal

religious principles and/or attack—with malicious intent—the religious principles of other debaters.

Indeed, this dilemma brings up the next issue that must be discussed. Does the debate

surrounding a sensitive religious issue kill Public Forum Debate?

November 2010 Pro: Students Driven Away


Students will be Driven Away

A quick Internet search of the original November topic on various discussion boards will turn up

countless complaints on the topic. Even more worryingly, it will show you just how many people

explicitly decided to not debate the resolution for the month. This took the form of lobbying for an

alternative resolution, switching to a new event, or flat out not debating for the month at all. The entire

objective of high school debate is to engage students critically with the world around them. It has been

shown, then, that sensitive religious issues don’t just make debaters hesitate, but actually discourage

discussion on the topic. This defeats the point of high school debate.

Students with deeply held religious beliefs, as shown earlier in the brief, are unlikely to

participate in Public Forum Debates that center on religious issues because it is probable that they will

rationalize renouncing their own principles is not worth 6 NFL points or a trophy. This extends to

debaters who refuse to take on a bigoted persona to accomplish a win at a high school debate. Indeed, it

could be argued that those who are willing to take a stand against such a debate are the type of people

Public Forum Debate needs most—those grounded in principle and who are willing to have only

legitimate debates based in fact. Those who are obsessed with winning and are willing to collapse into

jargon, speed-reading, and out-of-touch argumentation are better suited to the less realistic forms of NFL

debate.

In order to avoid the need to debate the original November topic, which many thought (rightly

so) caused only bigoted debate, many schools and students proposed debating an alternative resolution.

Indeed, even after the new topic, schools across Colorado have elected to instead debate the September

topic on offshore drilling rather than the current November topic. This is a dangerous precedent. Public

Forum Debate needs a central governing body like the NFL to unite debaters and provide structured

tournaments. Having one topic for the entire nation provides an incentive to participate in Public Forum

Debate because debaters need the capability to compete at both local and national circuit tournaments.

Cohesion across the nation will allow for a better sense of community and collaboration to enhance the

quality of debate as well as the participation in that debate. This cannot be achieved if high schools

across the country adopt their own resolutions and debate becomes fractionalized. Public Forum Debate

is especially vulnerable to this trend because of its monthly release on topics. With more frequency, PFD

topics are more likely to be less thought out before release and have a larger chance at being bad topics.

Furthermore, with a debate like Policy, debaters are essentially stuck with the one topic for the year and

therefore stay committed to the event whereas in Public Forum Debate, people can easily opt out for a

month or look to alternative resolutions. In either case, decreasing participation in Public Forum Debate

is likely to occur.

November 2010 Pro: Students Driven Away


Tournaments Using Other Topics

Mullen Invite

Mullen will host Speech Folks on November 19 and 20. Schools may attend either or both days. Each

day is separate. Students may enter Congress, and AM and/or PM on Saturday. We need to limit

numbers because we are without some rooms we usually use. First come first served. We have fewer

rooms and we accept lower numbers. Debaters may do only one debate. Please note the PF topic:

Resolved: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United

States.

Twelfth Annual Cherry Creek-George Washington-Denver

Dear Speech and Debate Coach,

You are cordially invited to the Turkey Meet at Denver East High School on November 12 and 13, 2010

• The PF topic is the September 2010 NFL topic.

The Lakewood/Golden Varsity Invitational Tournament

Current NFL resolutions will be used in CX and LD. Public Forum will use the September NFL

topic:

“Resolved: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United

States.”

November 2010 Pro: Parental Rights


Parental Rights could Prevent Debate

An interesting take on the participation of students during months with topics on sensitive

religious issues comes not in the choice of the student to confront such an issue but on the parent’s

choice to exclude their child from debate. As guaranteed by Supreme Court rulings Pierce v. Society of

the Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), and Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), parents have the right to

opt out children from educational requirements that focus on religion. More importantly, the circuit

court has upheld and reiterated such opinions in Brown v. Hot, Sexy and Safer Productions, Inc., 68

F.3d 525 (1st Cir. 1995). Yes, we only included this case because of its distinct name. This extends to

debate. Therefore, parents would have the capability to prevent their students from participating in high

school Public Forum Debate because they did not want their children to advocate against their religion,

learn counterpoints against their religion, or engage in bigoted debate.

Indeed, parents who remove their students from debate are likely to negatively view the NFL and

debate for months to come. Worse still, some parents could adopt a one-strike policy and disallow their

children from ever competing again in high school debate. While this outcome seems extreme, even the

possibility of something like this occurring should deter Public Forum Debate from confronting

sensitive religious issues. Such consequences are too great in comparison to the limited benefits that are

to be had from discussing a sensitive religious issue.

November 2010 Pro: Better Topics


Better Topics Exist, Religious Issue is

High Risk, Low Reward

At this point in the discussion, one has to ask himself, was it really necessary for the NFL to

choose this, or the original, November topic? As stated earlier, high school debate is meant to teach

students fundamental skills in addressing contentious issues in society. It is meant to (and does) give

students the tools to consider multiple viewpoints and delve deeply into one topic by using research, as

well as giving students the ability to effectively communicate what they have learned. With this in mind,

high school Public Forum Debate, overall, is a beneficial force and its purpose is to expose as many

students as possible to the positive outcomes of debate.

Why then, should we confront sensitive religious issues that will decrease participation when

there exists a multitude of other important current issues needing to be addressed? Speaking realistically,

it is not the goal of the NFL or Public Forum Debate to answer the most important questions in life, or

even maybe to debate fundamental issues like religion. Instead, the NFL ought to take a pragmatic

approach to debate by using it as a tool to maximize education to the greatest amount of students in

society. After all, the NFL would not argue with the fact that the more people who are exposed to debate

the better equipped are our students to be citizens of the world. As such, confronting sensitive religious

issues does more harm than good to provide education because it is not the most efficient means on

increasing participation in Public Forum Debate. Students are just as likely to learn important debate

skills discussing the economics of recession, the role of the judiciary, or our political system. However,

these topics are likely to increase participation and interest form the general public as well as students

rather than detract from them. Therefore, high school Public Forum Debate should not confront sensitive

religious issues because there are better alternatives.

This is an entirely pragmatic approach, one that holds the NFL to a higher standard. When a

student walks into a debate round and discusses the merits of affirmative action, it is implicit that this

one debate will not change the national policy on affirmative action. Instead, the NFL should hope that

little by little, debate-by-debate, it is teaching students to critically evaluate the world around them.

This argument is useful in twisting the Con argument against itself. Undoubtedly, Con will try to

argue that debate is important in society. This argument concedes debate is important while showing that

sensitive religious issues harm debate as an educational tool. Such a contention will leave Con with

nothing to stand upon.


Con Evidence

November 2010 Con: Controversial Issues


Value of Debating Controversial Issues

Bader, Veit. Religious Diversity and Democratic Institutional Pluralism. Rep. 2003. Print.

The more or less radical exclusion of religious reasons and arguments from public debate and politics in

political liberalism has been extensively criticized as morally arbitrary, unfair, and practically

counterproductive. (Pg. 265-266)

Second, in regard to cultural and religious diversity and inequality, neutrality is not only impossible

(there can be no completely neutral state) but also undesirable. Fairness cannot be achieved by a 'hands-

off' approach that, in the end, would literally strip people and institutions of all cultural particularities,

histories, religious traditions, and practices. (Pg. 267)

First, recognizing that 'strict' religious neutrality of the state is not only an unachievable but an

undesirable utopia, and taking into account the actual religious bias of existing states as well as the

unequal chances of organized religions… Second, institutional pluralism with regard to organized

religions has two main virtues. It recognizes religious diversity both individually and organizationally.

The cause of diversity, of course, is in much better shape once it is backed by institutions… Third,

contrary to liberal and republican fears, [pluralism] may also help to prevent the development of

religious fundamentalism in politics. (Pg. 272)

Zeidler, Dana. The Role of Argument During Discourse about Socio-scientific Issues. Rep.

Kluwer, 2003. Print.

The value of argument in the development of moral reasoning has been amply demonstrated in the

research literature in terms of creating dissonance thereby allowing opportunity for re-examining one’s

beliefs and thought-processes. Being exposed to and challenged by the arguments of others compels the

student to attend to the quality of claims, warrants, evidence and assumptions of their own belief

systems. (Pg.115)



Ehman, Lee H. Social Studies Instructional Factors Causing Change in High School Students'

Socio-political Attitudes over a Two-Year Period. Rep. 1977. Print.

Exposure to discussion of controversial issues was positively related to increases in political efficacy

(Pg. 4)

Of considerable interest is the obvious direct relationship…between controversial issues [exposure] and

general social integration and political interest, It is clear…that more perceived exposure to

controversial issues is associated with increased social integration and political interest. (Pg. 18)

The school attitudes also show direct relationships with the controversial issues variable. In all cases the

students reporting more frequent issues exposure have more positive attitudes towards school. There are

also increases in trust of other students, integration to school culture, and school political confidence.

The consistency of these findings across attitudes is remarkable, and gives further strength to arguments

for including controversial material in the classroom. (Pg. 20)

Miller, Barbara. Controversial Issues and Democracy: Why Address Controversial Issues? Rep.

Center for Education in Law and Democracy. Print.

Students who discuss controversial issues in school are more likely to understand democracy in action

than their counterparts who experience a traditional curriculum. By learning how to reason together

about competing ideas in a classroom setting, students gain practice in exchanging information and

opinions about the role and shape of government. Through this experience, students will develop skills

that their generation can use to address the gap between the goals of democracy and the reality presented

by their society and their schools. Confronting controversial issues in the classroom prepares youth for

fulfilling their role as citizens in their community and nation.

Research shows that students who study controversial issues are more likely to:

• Take an active role in civic life

• Trust other students and adults in their schools

• Develop an interest in politics and government

• Think deeply and critically about important societal issues

• Understand the reasoning of those who hold opposing views

Conversely, if controversy is avoided or distorted in its presentation, the goal of transparency may be

sacrificed. (Pg. 1)



Harwood, Angela M., and Carole L. Hahn. Controversial Issues in the Classroom. Rep.

Bloomington, NY: Clearinghouse for Social Studies Education, 1990. Print.

Many reasons have been given to support the use of controversial issues discussions in social studies

classrooms. Three of the most prevalent are (1) preparing students for their roles as citizens in a

pluralistic democracy, (2) developing critical thinking skills, and (3) improving interpersonal skills.

1. Citizenship Preparation

We must prepare students, as young citizens, to grapple with a wide array of social problems. Newmann

(1989) argues that the main task for democratic citizens is to deliberate with other citizens about the

nature of the public good and how to achieve it. Social studies classrooms should serve, therefore, as a

laboratory in which students can experiment with democratic processes.

2. Critical Thinking

The teaching of controversial issues is also proposed as a means to develop students' critical thinking.

Through discussion of controversial issues, students develop cognitive skills, such as constructing

hypotheses and collecting and evaluating evidence. They also gain insights from sharing information

with their peers.

3. Interpersonal Skills

As students participate in discussions, they also develop important attitudes and communication skills,

such as listening carefully, responding empathetically, speaking persuasively, and cooperating readily,

with others in a group. Well-managed discussions also promote tolerance of diverse viewpoints on any

single issue. (Pg. 1-2)



Hess, Diana. Controversies about Controversial Issues in Democratic Education. Rep. University

of Wisconsin, 2004. Print.

The significant decrease in political interest and participation could be remedied with the debating of

controversial issues.

The vast majority of American purposely avoid political participation, and that many actually recoil

from a system they perceive as driven by narrow self-interest and rancorous conflict. (Pg. 1)

Hibbing and Theiss-Morse advocate teaching the populace to accept the inevitability, that there is “dis

agreement among Americans on how to resolve issues that are important to them and to accept that there

is disagreement on which issues deserve to be on the political agenda in the first place” (2002, 223). One

way they suggest changing Americans’ views toward political conflict is to revamp what students in

elementary and secondary schools arc taught about the nature of democracy and democratic

participation. They advocate loading the civic education curriculum with hotly debated political issues in

order to teach young people that controversy is not an unfortunate byproduct of democracy, but one of

its core and vital elements.

When young people have opportunities to discuss current issues in a classroom setting, they tend to have

greater interest in politics, improved critical thinking and communications skills, more civic knowledge,

and more interest in discussing public affairs out of school (Pg. 1)

The rationales for teaching students to discuss controversial political issues in schools are multiple and

wide ranging. Unlike many other venues, schools are particularly suitable sites for discussions of issues.

As Amy Gutmann writes, “Schools have a much greater capacity than most parents and voluntary

associations for teaching children to reason out loud about disagreements that arise in democratic

politics” (1999, 58). Schools’ greater capacity lies in the fact that they contain more ideological diversity

than one would expect to find in a family, church, synagogue, mosque, or club. This diversity of views

makes classrooms powerful places to promote what Gutmann deems the most important component of

democratic education: “rational deliberations of competing conceptions of the good life and the good

society” (44).

There is evidence to support the claim that discussions of controversial issues in schools can enhance

democratic thinking. For example, research shows a positive relationship between discussion of complex

policy issues (especially civil liberties controversies) and the development of tolerant attitudes and

knowledge of the need for tolerance in democracies (Avery 2002). Participation in discussions of

controversial issues also appears to influence other forms of political engagement. Findings from the

International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (lEA) study of 90,000 students

in 28 countries advances the importance of issues discussions in an open classroom climate (Torney-

Purta, Lehmann, Oswald and Schultz 2001), In an open classroom climate, “students experience their

classrooms as places to investigate issues and explore their opinions and those of their peers” (138). The

lEA researchers reported that open classroom climate for discussion is a significant predictor of civic

knowledge, support for democratic values, participation in political discussion, and political engagement

(measured by whether young people say they will vote when they are legally able). There is also



evidence to suggest that participating in discussions in school influences students’ civic behavior after

they leave high school. Molly Andolina and her colleagues (2003) found that students who reported they

had discussed issues in class were more likely to say they had participated in civic activities such as

signing a written petition, participating in a boycott, and following political news most of the time. (Pg.

1-2)

Andolina, Molly W., and Krista Jenkins. Habits from Home, Lessons from School: Influences on

Youth Civic Engagement. Rep. PS Online, 2003. Print.

Among young people who are eligible to vote, 38% of those from homes with frequent political

discussions say they always vote, compared to 20% of those without such dialogue. (Pg. 2)



Barton, Keith, and Alan McCully. Teaching Controversial Issues...where Controversial Issues

Really Matter. Rep. Teaching History, 2007. Print.

The benefits of engaging students in controversial issues discussion are well-established in international

scholarship. If modern democratic societies depend on the ability of citizens to take part in reasoned

discussions with those whose opinions differ from their own, then surely it is our job as educators to

develop this ability in our students.' Encouragingly, there is empirical evidence that such efforts can

succeed and that classroom discussions, in which several sides of an issue are explored and in which

students feel comfortable expressing their views, are associated with a range of positive outcomes. (Pg.

1)

Making the Argument

• Many of the following arguments draw on evidence in the above section. However, the

evidence above can certainly be used to formulate its own contention.

• As mentioned, the process of debating contentious issues is valuable in many ways

especially in its long term impacts on political participation in a democracy. Clearly, this is

a very important goal for a society that prides itself on preparing students for life.

November 2010 Con: Best Possible Place


Best Place Possible to Debate Religion

Given the fact that we live in a democratic society in which deliberation and discussion forms the

backbone of our political processes, our citizens are going to have to discuss controversial topics such as

religion at some point in their lives. Thus, the question that this resolution is really posing is, if not now,

when? In fact, high school debate is the best time. Would it really be beneficial to have peoples’ first

encounters with debating religion come in a setting with no control where people are free to say

whatever comes to their mind including potentially bigoted or damaging statements? We can all agree

that such an experience would make someone less likely to voice their opinions in the future and thus

further estrange them from the political process that is democratic deliberation.

The value of having one’s first serious debate regarding religion, or any personal conviction for

that matter, could be enormous. High School Public Forum provides just that controlled setting. In short,

one cannot make obscene or bigoted statements against a religion or school of thought in a competitive

round with the typical lay-person judge—they would lose the round. Thus, people will be forced to

come to a better understanding of their own religion or the line of reasoning that opposes it while not

risking a demoralizing attack against what they believe or indoctrination by a bigoted line of reasoning.

Thus, high school debate is the best time for students to debate such issues as it forces them to develop

an opinion that is both politically acceptable and logically defensible—two things that seem to be

lacking from much of today’s political discourse.

November 2010 Con: Religion Too Important


Religion is Too Important

Currently, the top five social issues in America are, in order of importance to voters: abortion,

equal access to health care, gay marriage, immigration and stem cell research. When one considers that

of these 5 topics, 3 are opposed largely due to religious reasons, it becomes clear that we cannot avoid

debating religious topics. While admittedly, there are ways to justify or oppose many of those topics in a

secular manner, the vast majority of people who hold a serious opinion that manifests itself in voting

decisions do so due to religion. Thus, our youth must be able to comfortably debate such touchy issues

as abortion and stem cell research not just from a policy perspective but also from a religious

perspective. The only way to achieve this effectively is to allow debate to be seen as socially acceptable

by introducing it to our citizens while they are still in school and are formulating their political

viewpoints and deciding what issues they will vote on.

To give one example with serious real world implications, one could look to stem cell research.

Here we have a case where it is the scientific choice of saving lives matched up against the religious

choice of adhering to what the Papacy has declared and the sanctity of life. This is undoubtedly a serious

issue as stem cell research has been touted as the most promising research avenue when it comes to

everything from curing cancer to preventing heart failure and aiding the sick. An issue with such

magnitude in terms of how many lives it could save cannot go untouched. However, many people

simply refuse to debate it as they either see it as unequivocally wrong due to their religious beliefs or,

conversely, that there is no purpose to debating someone who adheres to that absolutist mindset. To

rectify this polarization of society, we must prove to our students and thereby to our future voters that

religious issues can be debated—treating them as untouchable even in the controlled situation of high

school debate does the opposite. Such disservice to future generations could have serious implications

by permitting beliefs based on logical fallacies or exaggerated claims of scientific benefits to determine

policy. We need the best policy, not some dilution thereof because something was deemed “religiously

sensitive.”

Other extremely important issues that also contain elements of religious sensitivity include

whether or not creationism and evolution should be taught, merits of religious education, and

controversial issues such as birth control. All of these are important but by voting pro on the November

resolution, a judge would exclude them from the realm of possible topics.

November 2010 Con: Religion Too Important


Evidence of Importance "Pragmatic Americans Liberal and Conservative on Social Issues." Religion and Public Life. The

Pew Forum, 3 Aug. 2006. Web. 19 Oct. 2010. <http://pewforum.org/Abortion/Pragmatic-

Americans-Liberal-and-Conservative-on-Social-Issues.aspx>.

This article lists top social issues as:

• Abortion

• Gay marriage/civil unions

• Stem cell research

• Equal access to health care

• Immigration

In short, 3 of the top 5 are religion-related. Clearly, if we want to actively discuss these we need a better

understanding of religion.

November 2010 Con: Character Trait


Religion is a Character Trait

One of the affirmative arguments that has been considered is that religion should not be debated

as by doing so you risk offending or violating one set of beliefs that most people consider to be

extremely personal and often helps to define who they are as a person. Indeed, this is especially true

when we consider the fact that debate requires you to believe, or at least appear to believe, in what you

are arguing in. Thus, should the coin land wrong and someone be forced to debate against their religion

they would have to act against some of their most deeply held convictions. However, this argument, like

so many being tossed around for this resolution, puts religion above so many other social issues with

little justification for doing so.

Undoubtedly, belief in a higher power, or lack thereof is something that defines a person but

there are many other character traits that are just as important especially in today’s increasingly secular

society. Indeed, currently 15% of Americans do not see themselves as associated with any religion,

making it the second most popular school of belief following Christianity (76% of Americans are

Christian). This lends even more credibility to the idea that religion should be seen as on par with

concepts such as party identification and socio-economic background—they all contribute to define who

you are. With religion seen as on par with these defining beliefs and characteristics, it becomes clear that

we should debate it given the fact that we debate things such as politics and redistribution of wealth.

Putting religion on such an untouchable pedestal does both believers and non-believers a disservice.

Shouldn’t everyone be able to defend those concepts that they believe define them? In a democratic

society that relies on people manifesting those beliefs in a vote, the answer is unequivocally yes.

November 2010 Con: Forces Objective Thinking


Forces Objective Thinking

There is inherent value to being forced to consider the other side’s position. One can no longer

remain completely entrenched in their beliefs when they could be told, at any time, to argue from a

completely different point of view based on the flip of a coin. Instead, the only way to be an effective

debater is to examine the merit of both sides and provide that objective assessment to your judge in a

convincing manner. This ability to persuade without reliance upon personal beliefs is a valuable life skill

in and of itself as is the overarching ability to view an issue with some degree of separation. Debating

religion will undoubtedly achieve both of these ends due to its sensitive nature. Almost everyone has a

well-developed thought about religion and as such will have to consciously force themselves to take a

step back and argue from a different perspective.


Contentions

November 2010 Contentions: Pro


Pro Contentions

1. Public Forum Debate should not confront sensitive religious issues because there are not two

sides to the debate.

Public Forum Debate surrounds the fact-based analysis of current events and the merits of

actions taken by certain groups. In the past, this has been the practice of lobbying, NATO, unions

and others. Therefore, upcoming topics on religious issues will focus on the practice of religion.

However, there can be no debate on this issue. When analyzing a non-religious issue, we can debate

what should occur because we can substantiate our claims with evidence and logic and the issue at

hand has no clear-cut outcome. Yet, when debating the practice of religion there is only one

outcome: the fundamental right to practice your own religion privately must be upheld. Thus, Public

Forum Debate should not confront sensitive religious issues because there is no ground to stand on

for the opposition. One side of the debate is forced to argue there is something inherently wrong in

one religion that means it should have its rights taken away. This is harmful to the debate because it

is an almost impossible argument to make—debaters will be faced with a lopsided resolution where

the coin flip will determine the winner before the debate even begins.

2. Confronting sensitive religious issues forces debaters to take a bigoted viewpoint that harms

debaters and debate.

Because the debater must abandon policy-based argumentation to debate a religious issue,

she is forced into debating a religion itself. This will lead to creating a bigoted standpoint, as

debaters feel compelled to attack the specific religious principles of a certain religion. Here it is

important to note the difference between a political issue that can draw from religious components—

i.e. the need to provide health care for all—and a purely sensitive religious issue—allowing a certain

faith to practice their religion where they choose. An issue that is only religious will inevitably cause

debates to focus on attacking a religion and its followers personally. This has two dramatic

consequences. First, it will cause people to denounce their own faith when they are required to argue

against it. Next, it will cause people to take a bigoted approach to debate as they play into

stereotypes and fear about a religion. In both cases, rather than the debate dispelling misconceptions

on a religion, they are perpetuated.

November 2010 Contentions: Pro


3. Debating sensitive religious issues hurts Public Forum Debate itself and distracts from the

purpose of high school debate.

The entire point of high school Public Forum Debate, and debate in general, is to educate

students about the world around them. The NFL seeks to equip its students to critically evaluate

current events with an unbiased lens. In order to accomplish such a goal, participation is critical.

However, debating a sensitive religious issue is likely to decrease participation for several reasons.

Those who must renounce or attack their own faith will not participate because the consequences of

such an act have eternal implications. Those with strong moral principles that refuse to go against

the fundamental right of religious freedom and take on a bigoted persona are also likely to remove

themselves from a flawed debate. Furthermore, districts are likely to create their own resolutions to

avoid the religious debate; the entire state of Colorado has done just this for November. Without

uniformity across the nation, debaters do not have an incentive to compete because there is a

mismatch of resolutions between national circuit and local tournaments. With so many other debate

topics that can teach students needed skills without decreasing participation, high school Public

Forum Debate should not confront sensitive religious issues because it does more harm than good in

terms of the goal of debate.

November 2010 Contentions: Con


Con Contentions

1. There are too many issues that are too important and too “sensitive” for this resolution to stand.

A democratic society’s foundation is deliberation and discussion. As such, if people are

not free to discuss important issues, that society is going to fail to maximize the welfare of its

citizens and achieve the best possible policies. Limiting debate to only those issues that are not

“sensitive” in some way is extremely dangerous for this very reason. For example, many issues

such as stem cell research, abortion and gay marriage could be ruled out as topics for legitimate

debate. If this happens then the possibility of ever reaching the most logical and morally

defensible policy is also thrown out the window. In short, all things should be considered fair

ground for debate. We should simply learn to debate concepts in a civil, constructive manner

designed to achieve the best possible outcome for all rather than a bigoted manner that focuses

on defeating arguments that do not align with one’s preconceived notions.

2. Debating sensitive issues helps create better citizens.

The best way to achieve the formerly stated goal of conducting meaningful debate

amongst educated citizens is to do just that—debate and debate from an early age. Simply put,

there is no other way to prepare students to be able to defend their arguments logically and with

some degree of emotional detachment than to force them to do so in order to win a round. The

implications of educating students in this manner could be massive. First and foremost, debaters

are likely to be better at holding a civil debate outside of competition’s constraints. As Diana

Hess put it, “There is evidence to support the claim that discussions of controversial issues in

schools can enhance democratic thinking. For example, research shows a positive relationship

between discussion of complex policy issues (especially civil liberties controversies) and the

development of tolerant attitudes and knowledge of the need for tolerance in democracies (Avery

2002).” Furthermore, debaters are more likely to actually engage in political activism including

discussion. Indeed, students who were taught debate in some form during high school are “more

likely to say they had participated in civic activities such as signing a written petition,

participating in a boycott, and following political news most of the time.” Clearly, if debate is

able to improve the quality and frequency of post-school debates, it has a positive impact on

society and the NFL should do everything in its power to maximize the scale of this impact.


October 2010 Counters: Con

3. High School Public Forum Debate is the best time and place to get students thinking about these

issues.

Schools are the best place to begin the process of debating controversial issues such as

religion for two reasons. First, it provides a controlled setting that, by definition, limits damaging

and bigoted statements. Second, schools provide a type of diversity that is unmatched in other

sectors of society. First, to address how high school debate limits the expected statements to

those that are politically acceptable. Simply put, when you have lay-person judges who are

members of typical society, they are not going to accept overly inflammatory, bigoted or mean-

hearted statements and give that team a win. The majority of people have a strong sense of

political correctness and are willing to act on that. Thus, at the very least, those making irrational

statements are going to lose and the most likely outcome is that they will not be made at all. As

for the reasoning behind schools being the best place to begin the debate process, Amy Gutmann

writes, “Schools have a much greater capacity than most parents and voluntary associations for

teaching children to reason out loud about disagreements that arise in democratic politics” (1999,

58). Schools’ greater capacity lies in the fact that they contain more ideological diversity than

one would expect to find in a family, church, synagogue, mosque, or club. This diversity of

views makes classrooms powerful places to promote what Gutmann deems the most important

component of democratic education: “rational deliberations of competing conceptions of the

good life and the good society” (44). Clearly, to fail to encourage the debate of religion is to fail

to take advantage of a unique opportunity that brings together the open-mindedness of students

and an optimal environment for learning.


Counters

November 2010 Counters: Pro


Pro Counters

Conducting a Debate Requires You to Represent things as your true belief, not

simply listen to other peoples’ views.

The Con often draws the parallel between education and a debate round in order to cross-apply

evidence that discusses the value of addressing controversial or debatable issues in the classroom.

However, this parallel is far from completely accurate for one main reason—the extent to which one

must involve themselves differs greatly. In the case of education, one must simply be able to listen to

different viewpoints and tolerate them. No internalization is necessary. On the other hand, to be able to

conduct a meaningful debate and convince one’s judge that what is being said is indicative of what the

debater believes requires an entirely new level of involvement that could often require one to represent

ideas that are contradictory to his or her religious beliefs as his or her own. This could be in violation of

many religions commandments and schools of thought and could thus make it nearly impossible for

such a religious debater to argue one side of the resolution, thereby reducing debate to a coin flip.

Mandating the taking of a religious course could be a better way to inform our

citizenry

It is argued on the Con side that Public Forum Debate is the most fair and objective means to understand

religion in a modern context. This is false. Because the debate forces students to take on a side against

their own beliefs, it is not the best way to evaluate religion. This is due to the fact that renouncing or

attacking your own religion could go against deeply held religious principles. Indeed, a central tenant to

most religions is to not deny that religion or worship false idols.

Instead, there are many other options that could help illuminate religion. Classes on religion in high

school or college would require students to critically evaluate religion without specifically requiring that

student to go against his own faith or even denounce it. These classes could even help to provide

unbiased viewpoints of other religions without attacking that religion specifically, thus upholding a

means to understand differences between religions without discounting the practice of any one religion.

November 2010 Counters: Pro


Debate does not force objective thinking but rather the perpetuation of bias

The Con side will argue that requiring two sides of an issue to be debated by one team and

having a judge will cause each side to argue from objective standpoints. However, even if objective

standpoints are desired in the debate round, they may not be available for both sides. A topic focusing on

the private practice of religion would force one side to attack the principles of a religious group and its

identity because you cannot objectively deny the need to allow practice of religion. Essentially, rather

than paving the way for students to discover valid arguments to both sides, the religious issue would

lead students to take on the biased, ‘tag-line,’ polarized media arguments simply because there is no

other argument to be had on that side.

November 2010 Counters: Con


Con Counters

Religion, like other fundamental rights, can be challenged as it is two-sided

One consistent Pro argument is that the argument about religion is one sided—its practice and

consideration should be absolutely free and it is for that reason it is guaranteed as such in the Bill of

Rights. However, it is not really so one-sided. Rather, religion, like many other fundamental rights, can

be challenged. For example, free speech is limited in some ways so as not to infringe upon others’

rights. In February 2010 we debated lobbying—which is guaranteed under the Constitution—but still

found a way to oppose its practice. Why could we not do the same with regards to religion if something

like opposition stem cell research for religious reasons is preventing someone else from living the best

possible life? This debate clearly has many sides and facets and could be debated in many different

philosophical paradigms.

One does not necessarily have to be bigoted to debate religion

Another Pro argument (which is closely related to the one countered above) is that opposition to

religious freedom often manifests itself through bigoted statements that are damaging to believers and

society as a whole. A prime example could undoubtedly be the previously issued November topic as

many of the attacks made were reliant upon associating all Muslims with those that perpetrated the 9/11

attacks—a highly bigoted and inaccurate association to make. However, there are many issues that have

religion at their heart but can still be the basis for legitimate debate. Examples include the separation of

church and state and how that has evolved in today’s society and the concept of parents’ rights in terms

of how their children are raised. This is especially controversial when it comes to religious education or

the discussion of religion in a secular school.

November 2010 Counters: Con


The NFL’s ultimate goal is the creation of an educated and tolerant citizenry

While the Pro will argue that sensitive religious issues drives participants away from Public

Forum Debate, this argument distracts from the importance of the debate overall. The benefits of

education outweigh the minor offences to very small groups within the debate community. Debate is

about education. Those who are entirely afraid of confronting a sensitive issue—be it religious or

political—are unlikely to participate in debate on any month’s topic. However, religion is something that

must be understood in a wider context of society. Public Forum Debate provides this opportunity. The

goal of this debate is to engage those who are skeptical of the resolution and show them it is okay to take

on these tough issues. The NFL cannot back down. Once students have gone through the process of

objectively debating religious issues and see the benefit of weighing different viewpoints, their

experience as citizens of the world will be enriched. The target participants for any debate needs to be

focused on those who are reluctant to engage in debate because the safe process of Public Forum Debate

will show them the benefits of structured discussion.

November 2010 Coupon


Coupon First and foremost, thank you for purchasing our brief. We hope it has been of use to you and has

helped to clarify the issues that make this topic so difficult to debate. Although we have worked very

hard to produce the best possible product, we do not feel that this brief of the highest possible quality

due to the lack of evidence concerning the topic. Simply put, not very much exists and not very much

has been included. As you could easily tell by looking at the October Brief we produced, we are very

focused on providing the most cut evidence with the best analysis and this brief is simply not fully

indicative of that.

As such , we have decided to include a coupon to hopefully make up for the tardiness of the brief

and the lack of evidence. We hope that you see this as indicative of our commitment to put forth the best

possible product that serves your best interests. Your coupon code for 5 dollars off any item in our store

is below.

Coupon Code for $5 off: b448b01478

Foundation Briefs - PBSpaces.com Weblogsweblogs.pbspaces.com/riverdebate/files/2010/10/... ·...

Documents

Transcript of Foundation Briefs - PBSpaces.com Weblogsweblogs.pbspaces.com/riverdebate/files/2010/10/... ·...