My partner and I stand in AFFIRMATION of the resolution which states, Resolved: High school PFD resolutions should NOT confront sensitive religious sensitive issues. For the clarification of this round, the PRO team offers the following definitions:
Confront: to approach or to involve as well as to encounter
Sensitive religious issues: anything that involves the use of argumentation or support over an issue that has conflict between religious beliefs or values
High School Public Forum: Debate rounds held under the National Forensic Leagues based on the topics they provide.
Contention 1: Religion is based on faith, not statistics and raw facts as PFD calls for, and is therefore not debatable.
It cannot be determined which religion is correct as there is no tangible evidence or statistics that can be provided on which the beliefs of religions are supported. If evolution is brought up, then there is no evidence to support that God created the world, just as there is no proof that evolution is the answer. Science is composed of theoretical ideas, and works to actually disprove itself so as to further extend our correct knowledge on a topic. Debating students might be forced into a situation where a clear consensus is unable to be reached, and if one IS reached, it has a high possibility of conflicting with one or more of the debaters’ belief system or format of life. Due to this inability to debate using facts and statistics, it is un-resolutional to involve religion in which it is based purely on cultural beliefs from its hearth and traditions which have been engraved into the minds and life style of the person for many generations, and is therefore highly unlikely to change or alter for a debate round.
Contention 2: Although judges assess debaters based on how well they speak and argue, there will always be some bias towards their own religion.
Public Forum Debate is supposed to provide a fair and equal opportunity debate environment which is not available when debating religious sensitive topics. Everyone was raised with a religion and the beliefs that accompany it. It is instilled in their minds and when debating, the judge will most likely favor arguements that supports his/her religion. Some major religious sensitive issues include same-sex marriage, death penalty, assistance to the hungry and impoverished, abortion, evolution, stem-cell research, and immigration. Statistics show that many people judge some of these issues based on religion. For example, 26% of people use religion to take a stance on abortion according to PEW Research Center. This shows that some judges use their own religion to determine what is correct and what is not. This results in an unfair round to those that are forced to debate against what the judge believes in, which may never be known; and even if it is, cannot be argued against for risk of losing a round.
Contention 3: Debaters forced to debate against their own religion will face moral issues
Debaters will turn away from debate because they will not be able to debate against their own religion. Debate is about compromise, and no compromise is available in religion, in which all beliefs must be withheld. Therefore, those that are directly conflicted with the resolution will face difficulties as they either debate for their religion or against it. It is unethical to speak against one’s religion to simply win a debate round. Even if the debater is asked to debate for their own religion, they could find the opponents arguments as offensive to their religion. By forcing a debater to argue against their religion is not necessarily the same as arguing against their beliefs because there is a clear difference between political debates and religious debates. Political debates require the debater to take a stance on a political issue that is not necessarily influence by a person’s religion, rather on the actual facts to support that argument. Religious sensitive issue debates require debaters to choose a viewpoint over a specific issue, and because there are no statistics that can be applied to defend a certain viewpoint, it can only be debated with beliefs.
Faith is unarguable, because this generates bias and moral issues which the debater would be uncomfortable with, creating a flawed debate round and a similar verdict. Bias, moral issues, and unarguable belief systems simply CANNOT constitute a PFD debate round and should therefore NOT be debated. For these reasons, we strongly urge an AFFIRMATIVE ballot.
Contention 4: The level of maturity as well as intelligence of high school PFD debaters is inadequate for such topics
Because of the insistent demand for speech, a debate round generates parapraxes, gaffes, stereotypes, and hasty generalizations. Despite their intelligence and because of the speed of speech, debaters are always on the edge of error, of letting their tacit knowledge break through or simply flooding out. PFD debaters are given very limited time to hone their skills to the level of a person who has spent years of studying and practice on the same idea. Although they are given approximately a month of preparation for research on the facts and statistics on a topic, no such information is available regarding the beliefs and ideals of religions. This restricts the view of the debaters to simply as one of an extremist in support for the religious issue, or a strong disbeliever. Americans are by all measures a deeply religious people, but they are also deeply ignorant about religion. Researchers from the independent Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life phoned more than 3,400 Americans and asked them 32 questions about the Bible, Christianity and other world religions, famous religious figures and the constitutional principles governing religion in public life. On average, people who took the survey answered half the questions incorrectly, and many flubbed even questions about their own faith.
This often results in the accidental vocalization of offending expressions, promoting a hostile and unprofessional debate environment, which is not part of the statement made by NFL regarding PFD stating: We promote high school and middle school speech and debate activities as a means to develop a student’s essential life skills and values.
Remember guys, do NOT plagarize. You may use arguments from my case or some of the research, but do not claim it as your own. Thanks!
- Atharva Dhole
Confront: to approach or to involve as well as to encounter
Sensitive religious issues: anything that involves the use of argumentation or support over an issue that has conflict between religious beliefs or values
High School Public Forum: Debate rounds held under the National Forensic Leagues based on the topics they provide.
Contention 1: Religion is based on faith, not statistics and raw facts as PFD calls for, and is therefore not debatable.
It cannot be determined which religion is correct as there is no tangible evidence or statistics that can be provided on which the beliefs of religions are supported. If evolution is brought up, then there is no evidence to support that God created the world, just as there is no proof that evolution is the answer. Science is composed of theoretical ideas, and works to actually disprove itself so as to further extend our correct knowledge on a topic. Debating students might be forced into a situation where a clear consensus is unable to be reached, and if one IS reached, it has a high possibility of conflicting with one or more of the debaters’ belief system or format of life. Due to this inability to debate using facts and statistics, it is un-resolutional to involve religion in which it is based purely on cultural beliefs from its hearth and traditions which have been engraved into the minds and life style of the person for many generations, and is therefore highly unlikely to change or alter for a debate round.
Contention 2: Although judges assess debaters based on how well they speak and argue, there will always be some bias towards their own religion.
Public Forum Debate is supposed to provide a fair and equal opportunity debate environment which is not available when debating religious sensitive topics. Everyone was raised with a religion and the beliefs that accompany it. It is instilled in their minds and when debating, the judge will most likely favor arguements that supports his/her religion. Some major religious sensitive issues include same-sex marriage, death penalty, assistance to the hungry and impoverished, abortion, evolution, stem-cell research, and immigration. Statistics show that many people judge some of these issues based on religion. For example, 26% of people use religion to take a stance on abortion according to PEW Research Center. This shows that some judges use their own religion to determine what is correct and what is not. This results in an unfair round to those that are forced to debate against what the judge believes in, which may never be known; and even if it is, cannot be argued against for risk of losing a round.
Contention 3: Debaters forced to debate against their own religion will face moral issues
Debaters will turn away from debate because they will not be able to debate against their own religion. Debate is about compromise, and no compromise is available in religion, in which all beliefs must be withheld. Therefore, those that are directly conflicted with the resolution will face difficulties as they either debate for their religion or against it. It is unethical to speak against one’s religion to simply win a debate round. Even if the debater is asked to debate for their own religion, they could find the opponents arguments as offensive to their religion. By forcing a debater to argue against their religion is not necessarily the same as arguing against their beliefs because there is a clear difference between political debates and religious debates. Political debates require the debater to take a stance on a political issue that is not necessarily influence by a person’s religion, rather on the actual facts to support that argument. Religious sensitive issue debates require debaters to choose a viewpoint over a specific issue, and because there are no statistics that can be applied to defend a certain viewpoint, it can only be debated with beliefs.
Faith is unarguable, because this generates bias and moral issues which the debater would be uncomfortable with, creating a flawed debate round and a similar verdict. Bias, moral issues, and unarguable belief systems simply CANNOT constitute a PFD debate round and should therefore NOT be debated. For these reasons, we strongly urge an AFFIRMATIVE ballot.
Contention 4: The level of maturity as well as intelligence of high school PFD debaters is inadequate for such topics
Because of the insistent demand for speech, a debate round generates parapraxes, gaffes, stereotypes, and hasty generalizations. Despite their intelligence and because of the speed of speech, debaters are always on the edge of error, of letting their tacit knowledge break through or simply flooding out. PFD debaters are given very limited time to hone their skills to the level of a person who has spent years of studying and practice on the same idea. Although they are given approximately a month of preparation for research on the facts and statistics on a topic, no such information is available regarding the beliefs and ideals of religions. This restricts the view of the debaters to simply as one of an extremist in support for the religious issue, or a strong disbeliever. Americans are by all measures a deeply religious people, but they are also deeply ignorant about religion. Researchers from the independent Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life phoned more than 3,400 Americans and asked them 32 questions about the Bible, Christianity and other world religions, famous religious figures and the constitutional principles governing religion in public life. On average, people who took the survey answered half the questions incorrectly, and many flubbed even questions about their own faith.
This often results in the accidental vocalization of offending expressions, promoting a hostile and unprofessional debate environment, which is not part of the statement made by NFL regarding PFD stating: We promote high school and middle school speech and debate activities as a means to develop a student’s essential life skills and values.
Remember guys, do NOT plagarize. You may use arguments from my case or some of the research, but do not claim it as your own. Thanks!
- Atharva Dhole
