2010/2011 Public Forum Topic Analysis Resolved: High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues. Writers & Contributors John Lewis, Sean Mumper, Todd Rainey, Sarah Spiker, Christian Tarsney Editor: Glenn Prince Managing Editor: Mike Bietz Publisher: Victor Jih 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 1 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 TOPIC ANALYSIS BY JOHN LEWIS 2 TOPIC ANALYSIS BY SEAN MUMPER 16 TOPIC ANALYSIS BY TODD RAINEY 24 TOPIC ANALYSIS BY SARAH SPIKER-RAINEY 38 TOPIC ANALYSIS BY CHRISTIAN TARSNEY 48 GENERAL EVIDENCE 67 PRO EVIDENCE 72 CON EVIDENCE 90 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 2 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com TOPIC ANALYSIS BY JOHN LEWIS Resolved: High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues. It might seem paradoxical to debate a topic about confronting sensitive religious issues when discussing that topic requires the confrontation of sensitive religious issues. Nevertheless, prepare for the meta-debate, or the debate over debate. This topic will force Public Forum debaters to consider what their event should look like: what sort of issues they would like to discuss, how those issues should be discussed, and ultimately, what the purpose of debate is in the first place. Instead of sitting on the sidelines while their coaches determine the course of Public Forum, this topic puts control of the event directly in the hands of the debaters. Along the way, debaters will discuss issues like educational policy, the separation of church and state, the treatment of religion in a pluralistic society, and the enduring importance of religion to modern life, for better or worse. Suffice to say that thereʼs a bit more meat to chew on with this topic than people have given it credit for. To understand this topic, itʼs important to know why weʼre debating it in the first place. Iʼll start by explaining the controversy over the initial November topic—regarding the Islamic community center near Ground Zero—and what it means for debaters on this topic. Iʼll address some of the concerns that this topic is “too LD” or “too policy” by claiming that arguments are arguments, and that this topic really strikes at the heart of public forum debate. Then Iʼll delve directly into the topic by discussing what it means, and accordingly, what sort of arguments the PRO and CON should be making. The importance of making arguments on this topic should not be understated; the fact that academics and intellectuals donʼt discuss this topic directly means that debaters must 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 3 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com “do their own work” and rely on logic and critical thinking rather than the opinions of others. Letʼs get started. Whatʼs all the fuss about? Anyone who watches cable news or reads Sarah Palinʼs twitter feed (guilty on both counts) should know that the construction of an Islamic community center several blocks from Ground Zero has possessed this country for several months now. The “Park51” project, originally named the Cordoba House, was spearheaded by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf under the auspices of the Cordoba Initiative, and was set to include space for religious and secular activity, akin to a YMCA. Of course, Ground Zero has a special significance in the American psyche for what happened there on September 11, 2001. For that reason, the National Forensic League decided to put the issue in the form of a topic, and the original November topic read: “Resolved: An Islamic community center should be built near Ground Zero.” The topic asked whether or not the center should be built to sidestep the constitutional question of whether or not the builders had the constitutional right to build the center. Most will agree that the builders unquestionably have that right via the first amendment. Thus, the PRO would have to argue that building the community center would promote religious tolerance and a dialogue between faiths, that religious minorities should feel free to exercise their rights in a context of popular resistance, and that Muslims should not be held collectively responsible for 9/11. The CON would have to argue respect for the victims of the 9/11 attacks and the emotions of the country as a whole, that the center would inflame religious bigotry and conflict, and potentially engage the nature of Islam itself. Therein rests the problem. The topic immediately incited strong criticism. Opponents argued that the CON would be forced to make arguments that were essentially bigoted and attributed responsibility 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 4 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com for the 9/11 attacks to Muslims as a whole, and that arguing against the center sent the message that religious minorities should not exercise their rights under popular opposition. Even if debaters engaged the topic in a respectful fashion, which wouldnʼt necessarily be the case, the very nature of the CONʼs position was offensive. Moreover, opponents claimed that it put Muslim students in the uncomfortable position of being singled out by the topic and forced to argue against their religion. Administrators and parents might pull their students out of the activity even if the students wanted to debate the topic. Still others argued that the topic was irrelevant, a fictional controversy ginned up by Republican extremists to win votes. Supporters of the topic argued in response that it was unfair and elitist to reject a topic that many Americans have been fervently discussing, and that the CONʼs position was not necessarily bigoted in nature. For proponents, this topic presented a chance to teach debaters how to respectfully engage…a “sensitive religious issue” with arguments and respect. In any case, the NFL pulled the topic within 48 hours, and gave us the new topic to allow us all to debate the topic ourselves in round. Understanding the Islamic community center topic, and forming your own arguments for why that topic should or should not have been debated, will be critical to debating well on the new topic. The topic provides the clearest and most recent example of a topic that engaged a sensitive religious issue and what that would entail. Rather than being forced to deal in vague abstractions, debaters have a concrete example to dig into. In fact, I bet that many PRO and CON teams will use the Islamic community center topic in round as a sort of “plan” or example that tests whether or not we should discuss sensitive religious issues. If you want to read more about the debate over the topic, the comments here: http://blog.pfdebate.com/2010/10/02/november-2010-nfl-topic-changed/ and here: http://blog.pfdebate.com/2010/10/01/november-2010-topic-announced/ as well as on the LD forums here: http://forum.lddebate.org/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=1200 can be particularly informative. Of course, all of this demonstrates one simple fact: that this topic is the most current of current events, and holds deep significance for debaters in Public Forum and elsewhere. 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 5 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com How is this relevant to Public Forum debate? Iʼve already answered this question by demonstrating that this topic forces debaters to discuss current events ripped directly from the headlines, which any Public Forum debater should feel comfortable doing. However, if you donʼt believe me, Iʼll explain how I see Public Forum debate by going back to the original purpose of the activity—which should give you some hints on how you should go about debating the nature of Public Forum. Critics of this topic have complained that they would rather debate about real- world issues than debate over debate. Others have said that this topic forces debaters to consider ethical issues more suited for LD, or “theory” issues more suited for Policy. Let me encourage you to get away from these shallow perspectives. This topic doesnʼt force you to grapple with questions like the nature of “justice” or “morality.” Nor would you find any “religious discussion bad” theory in a Policy theory file. Neither LD nor policy debaters have discussed anything like this topic. However, you might try asking the LDʼers and Policy debaters you know for their opinions: they might be able to offer some tips on how to go about debating issues that involve ethical questions (as religious issues always do) or issues of what the activity of debate should look like. Remember, arguments are arguments, and the best debaters on this topic will be able to pull together a lot of different perspectives to form cogent arguments. Similarly, youʼre going to have to reach out beyond the normal research you might do for Public Forum. Itʼs going to be hard to do a Google News search and find some easy statistics on sensitive religious issues. Youʼll notice that a lot of the evidence in this brief is cut from law reviews and education journals. This is because there is a not-so- surprisingly robust literature surrounding the place of religion in schools and the place of religion in our society, with advocates on both sides. You should read these opinions and think about how the arguments that theyʼre making could be applied to this topic. For instance, an author might claim that religion is based on faith, rather than reason, and that faith cannot be questioned. If thatʼs true, then how could we debate religious 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 6 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com issues which hinge on a personʼs faith? Or someone might argue that tons of real-world controversies involve religious beliefs (such as abortion, gay marriage, etc) and that we canʼt just ignore the role of religion.