TFF PFD Nov 10

The Forensics Files © The PFD File
November 2010 Confronting Religious Issues
THE FORENSICS FILES THE PFD FILE

Resolved: High school Public Forum Debate

resolutions should not confront sensitive religious
issues.
November 2010
1
Table of Contents
Topic Overview 3
Definitions 5
Pro Cases 10
Con Cases 14
Pro Extensions 18
Con Extensions 29
Pro Blocks 41
Con Blocks 45
Preflows 49
2
Topic Overview
Resolved: High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not
confront sensitive religious issues.
This month’s topic is quite interesting for several reasons. First, it is the only
topic that the NFL has probably ever published that concerns a debate event itself.
Ordinarily, debate topics for all the different events concern an area of public policy,
moral/ethical question, or current event. Second, it is also interesting because the
National Forensics League (NFL), which is in charge of developing and publishing the
NFL topics to be used, initially published a topic concerning whether an Islamic cultural
center (“Park51”)—including a mosque—should be allowed near Ground Zero, in New
York City where the World Trade Center was attacked on September 11, 2001. Third,
like the previous resolution that the NFL withdrew for November, this topic has caused
quite a lot of controversy among students and coaches at many schools.
The previous topic that the NFL withdrew—Resolved: An Islamic cultural center
should be built near Ground Zero.—gives us some indication about what the framers of
the current resolution had in mind for the subject matter of the current topic: High school
Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues. Based on
the series of events that preceding the drafting and publication of the current resolution, it
is reasonable to infer that the framers of the current resolution viewed the former
resolution as an example of a “sensitive religious issue” that they had in mind. Thus, one
reasonable interpretation of this topic is whether the former resolution should be the
current resolution; or, in other words, should we even debate whether an Islamic cultural
center should be built near Ground Zero.
Unfortunately, there is not much literature that directly addresses this issue. Thus,
the evidence in this File, and the evidence you are likely to encounter in debates in
November, will address collateral issues that indirectly address the topic. Much of the
work will thus be for the debaters to connect and apply these collateral issues and indirect
evidence to the topic itself. For example, this File contains several quotes and selections
from articles about censorship and separation of church and state. The link may not seem
obvious. The topic arguably is censorship by eliminating a certain category of topics—
religious issues—from debate because of the content. The topic arguably implicates a
mixing of church and state by requiring public schools to host tournaments where the
topic would require their students to address sensitive religious issues. Thus, eliminating
religious issues would avoid arguably avoid mixing church and state. However, for
arguments that indirectly address the topic, such as these, it is important the debaters
provide a clear link between these arguments and the resolution at hand.
The essential thing to remember on this topic, though, will be to make the
arguments specific to Public Forum Debate. Keep in mind that the resolution is not as
3
broad as the issue of public debate over sensitive religious issues, such as the
construction of the Islamic cultural center, though such discussion and argumention is
definitely relevant on this resolution. Rather, the topic is very specific to debating
religious issues in Public Forum Debate. This specific context should bring to mind
particularized considerations such as the following:
 High school students are debating these issues. Some of them may have
sincere religious beliefs that would affect their ability to debate on the
topic. Is the topic appropriate for high school students?
 Some middle schools throughout the country participate in Public Forum

debate and use the high school National Forensics League topic. Is
debating sensitive religious issues appropriate for middle schoolers?
(Though the topic says high school resolutions, frequently middle
schoolers attend high school tournaments or use the high school topics at
middle school tournaments.)
 Public Forum debate was created as a response to avoid the technicalities

of CX and LD debate and to engage the general public in the debate
community. Would debating sensitive religious issues further this
purpose?
 Because it was created for community judging, would community judges

be able to judge the event fairly if the topic addressed sensitive religious
issues?
 Does the structure of Public Forum Debate, itself, with very limited time
constraints, lend itself to a meaningful discussion of the religious issues at
hand?
 Is really possible for a topic to avoid confronting sensitive religious

issues? Is not there always some religious take on current events?
 On the other hand, if religious elements of a topic were uncomfortable to

debaters, would not there always be away to reframe the issue as to avoid
these feelings? For example, many people would conceptualize the
Ground Zero Mosque debate as one of constitutional rights and freedoms
rather than an issue that hits the heart of Islam.
With these, and other particularized considerations in mind, we hope that this File is a
good starting point for addressing this rather interesting and quirky topic.
4
Definitions
High School
1. A secondary school that usually includes grades 9 or 10 through 12.
Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2010
High School
1. in the U.S., a school for children between the ages of 14 and 18. High
schools usually have a four-year program divided into grades 9 through 12
Source: Macmillan Dictionary
High School
1. a school especially in the United States usually including grades 9–12 or
10–12
Source: Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition, 2010
High School
1. An institution which provides all or part of secondary education.
2. secondary school
Source: Wordnik 2010
Public Forum Debate

National Forensics League, Guide to Public Forum Debate
Public Forum Debate (PFD) is a team event that advocates or rejects a position posed by
the monthly resolution topic (announced online at www.nflonline.org). The clash of ideas
must be communicated in a manner persuasive to the non-specialist or “citizen judge”,
i.e. a member of the American jury.
Public Forum Debate

Google Definition
Public forum debate, also known as crossfire debate, PFD (sometimes pronounced puff),
pofo, pufo, and sometimes called by its former names, controversy debates or Ted Turner
debate, is a style of debate practiced in National Forensic League and National Catholic
Forensic League competitions.
5
Public Forum Debate

The Forensics Files, The Public Forum Debate: Guidelines for Success
Public Forum (PF) debate is relatively new type of debate that has been added to many
high school forensics tournaments. PF has also been called Crossfire, Controversy, and
Ted Turner debate. In addition to PF debate, there are other types of debate, including
Cross-Examination (CX), or policy, debate, and Lincoln-Douglas (LD), or value debate.
These types of debate are very technique-oriented and specialized. For example, if a lay
person were to watch a CX or LD debate they may not understand or know how to
evaluate it in the same way a former debater would. Conversely, public forum debate is
more accessible to the average person and students looking to join debate temporarily,
without having to learn all the intricacies of cross-examination or Lincoln- Douglass
debate.
Resolution
1. A formal statement of a decision or expression of opinion put before or
adopted by an assembly such as the U.S. Congress.
2. The state or quality of being resolute; firm determination.
3. A resolving to do something.
4. A course of action determined or decided on.
Resolution
1. A formal proposal that is considered by an organization and is usually
voted on at a meeting
Source: MacMillan Dictionary 2010
Resolution
Winning Lincoln-Douglas Debate Tournaments, The Forensics Files
Resolution - the topic of a debate; the issue the affirmative must prove true
Not
1. used for making a sentence, expression, or word negative
Source: MacMillan Dictionary 2010
6
Not
1. In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal,
or prohibition
Confront
1. To face especially in challenge : oppose <confront an enemy>
2. To cause to meet : bring face-to-face <confront a reader with statistics>
3. To meet face-to-face : encounter <confronted the possibility of failure>
Source: Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition 2010
Confront
1. To come face to face with, especially with defiance or hostility: I wish to
confront my accuser in a court of law.
2. To bring face to face with: The defendant was confronted with
incontrovertible evidence of guilt.
3. To come up against; encounter: confronted danger at every turn.
Sensitive
1. endowed with sensation; having perception through the senses.
2. readily or excessively affected by external agencies or influences.
3. having acute mental or emotional sensibility; aware of and responsive to
the feelings of others.
4. easily pained, annoyed, etc.
5. pertaining to or connected with the senses or sensation.
6. Physiology . having a low threshold of sensation or feeling.
7. responding to stimuli, as leaves that move when touched.
8. highly responsive to certain agents, as photographic plates, films, or paper.
9. affected or likely to be affected by a specified stimulus (used in
combination): price-sensitive markets.
10. involving work, duties, or information of a highly secret or delicate nature,
esp. in government: a sensitive position in the State Department.
11. requiring tact or caution; delicate; touchy: a sensitive topic.
12. constructed to indicate, measure, or be affected by small amounts or
changes, as a balance or thermometer.
7
Source: Random House Dictionary 2010
Sensitive
1. Capable of perceiving with a sense or senses.
2. Responsive to external conditions or stimulation.
3. Susceptible to the attitudes, feelings, or circumstances of others.
4. Quick to take offense; touchy.
5. Easily irritated: sensitive skin.
6. Readily altered by the action of an agent: film that is sensitive to light.
7. Registering very slight differences or changes of condition. Used of an
instrument.
8. Fluctuating or tending to fluctuate, as in price: sensitive stocks.
9. Of or relating to classified information: sensitive defense data; holds a
sensitive position in the State Department.
Religious
1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.
Religious
1. Relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate
reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2: f, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a
religious order>
3a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
Source: Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition 2010
Issues
1. a matter that is in dispute between two or more parties
2. a vital or unsettled matter <economic issues>
3. concern, problem <I have issues with his behavior>
4. the point at which an unsettled matter is ready for a decision <brought the
matter to an issue>
Source: Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition, 2010
8
Issues
1. at issuemost important in what is being discussed
2. make an issue of
3. make something seem more important than it should be, or to argue about
4. to disagree strongly
Source: Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 2010
9
Pro Cases
PRO CASE #1
[Community — 1 of 2]
Because omitting sensitive religious issues from Pubic Forum Debate topics
creates a stronger debate community, we believe the following resolution to be true.
Resolved: High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive
religious issues.
To understand this resolution, it is important to understand its context. The

National Forensics League, or the NFL, which is in charge of developing and announcing
the topics for debate, initially announced that the topic for this month would be,
“Resolved: An Islamic cultural center should be built near Ground Zero.” However, the
day after the resolution was released the NFL released the following announcement:
Overwhelming concerns have been expressed by our membership regarding the

November 2010 resolution. The Public Forum wording advisory committee worked
diligently and thoughtfully to create a timely resolution. However, after due
consideration, the National Forensic League has changed the November 2010 Public
Forum resolution.
This leads us to our first point of contention. Debating sensitive religious

issues would force religious members out of the debate community because they
were religiously opposed to debating one side of the topic. Cherian Koshy, a member
of the National Forensics League Board of Directors, wrote on October 4, 2010*:
[T]he driver for the decision to change was based in the fact that some felt that the topic
forced individuals to debate on a side of the resolution that had a religious inclination
opposed to their personal religious beliefs. To be clear, most still feel that the topic is an
important one that will inevitably be discussed. This was not a case of a poorly worded
topic or one where people were just not excited about debating it but rather one that some
felt structurally prohibited participation because of their beliefs. Forcing those individuals
to choose between debating and their personal beliefs was not the intention of the
wording committee nor the NFL more generally. While several people still consider the
original topic to be worthwhile, the NFL does not believe that this type of divide should
be ignored.
*
More from NFL About Topic Change, http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/
more-from-nfl-about-topic-change.html
10
PRO CASE #1
[Community — 2 of 2]
Our second point is that the topic does not advocate censorship based on a few
complaints. There was “overwhelming” opposition in the community to debating
sensitive religious issues; the NFL didn’t just cave to some complaints by the
community. Cherian Koshy continues:
Also, to be clear, “overwhelming” was a pretty high threshold. That threshold was
surpassed. The NFL didn’t “cave” to peer pressure, it’s respecting a significant portion of
its membership that has expressed valid concerns. That being said, we’d still encourage
coaches who feel comfortable doing so to use the initial topic in their discussions of the
existing November topic as well as use the original topic in other ways to teach the skills
that are so valuable about debate. Clearly, many will be doing so.
Finally, omitting sensitive religious issues from Public Forum Debate topics is a
signal that the NFL is listening to and respects the wishes of the debate community.
Cherian Koshy concludes:
To those of you that supported the initial topic, obviously all of the wording
committee and many other coaches agreed with you. There was extensive discussion by
many parties on Friday about staying with the topic. Many of the coaches that expressed
dismay with the topic are friends of the NFL and mine personally. The most important
consideration here was listening to our membership (coaches and students) both for and
against the initial topic. It would be remiss of me not to reiterate that dozens of people
requested this topic in the months previous and dozens more, specifically Muslim
students and coaches as well as coaches of many Muslim students asked the NFL to stand
fast on the topic. Many of them are disappointed in the decision to change.
In conclusion, because the decision to omit sensitive religious issues from Public
Forum Debate topics fosters the debate community and demonstrates that the NFL
supports its members, we believe that the resolution is true and that Public Forum Debate
resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues. Thanks for your time and
attention; I now stand open for crossfire.
11
PRO CASE #2
[Violence — 1 of 2]
Because we believe that attempting to debate over sensitive religious issues

eventually devolves into and results in violent acts, we believe the following resolution to
be true. Resolved: High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront
sensitive religious issues.
To understand this resolution, it is important to understand its context. The

National Forensics League, or the NFL, which is in charge of developing and announcing
the topics, initially announced that the topic for this month’s debate would be, “Resolved:
An Islamic cultural center should be built near Ground Zero.” However, the day after the
resolution was released the NFL released the following announcement:
Overwhelming concerns have been expressed by our membership regarding the

November 2010 resolution. The Public Forum wording advisory committee worked
diligently and thoughtfully to create a timely resolution. However, after due
consideration, the National Forensic League has changed the November 2010 Public
Forum resolution.
Given this background, we move to our first point of contention, which is

that the debate over the Islamic cultural center is misinformed and not objective.
The terms used in debating sensitive religious issues tend to involve
misrepresentations of facts and of religion. An article from CBS News entitled
"Ground Zero's Boundaries Evolve in Mosque Debate," from August 26, 2010,* states:
The evolving boundaries of ground zero have informed - or misinformed - the debate
about its proximity to the planned Park51 community center. The farther away from the
place, the bigger it seems. "It's constructed as hallowed ground when people don't
actually have a clear boundary for it or a clear sense of what's within the boundary," said
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a University of Pennsylvania communications professor who
studies political rhetoric. "What you have is a classic instance of people responding to a
symbol whose meaning is physically divorced from the actual space."
In fact, as our second contention argues, debate over sensitive religious issues
is hardly ever civilized and spurs religious violence. That same CBS News article
continues:
The rabid furor surrounding the community center has spurred a wave of anti-
Muslim violence. On Wednesday, a film student who has worked in Afghanistan asked a
New York Taxi driver if he was a Muslim, then slashed his face and throat. And on
Thursday, a drunk man stormed into a Queens mosque and unleashed a torrent of curses
at the congregation before urinating on prayer rugs, according to the New York Post.
*
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/26/national/main6807473.shtml
12
PRO CASE #2
[Violence — 2 of 2]
Moreover, sensitive religious issues can’t be debated without incivility, as

demonstrated by the Ground Zero Mosque debate. M.R. Walter, wrote in his article,
"NYC "Ground Zero Mosque" Debate Has Widespread Effect," from the William &
Mary Policy Review in 2010*:
Regardless, back and forth in the debate can now be heard almost every night of the
week on the major television news outlets, and not a day passes by without a new article
discussing some side or another's insensitivity, lack of respect for the constitution or any
number of other attacks. While the debate itself has certainly left civility by the wayside
on more than one occasion, some of its external effects are similarly outrageous.
Our third contention is that, historically, misrepresentations of religion in

common discourse on sensitive religious issues have spawned mob riots. Philip
Jenkins, writes in his article, Any faith can become violent, in USA Today, from April
18, 2010*:
Sometimes, heretical takes on Christianity could drive a mob to violence, but on

occasion, church authorities themselves orchestrated violence very deliberately. One of
the intellectual superstars of fifth century Egyptwas a brilliant woman called Hypatia, a
scientist and philosopher. Her religious skepticism (and her gender) angered the city's
bishop, Cyril, whose political position allowed him to do more than just fume quietly in
his palace. In particular, he commanded the loyalty of a turbulent army of monks who
would do anything for the honor of their faith and their church. Whether or not Cyril gave
the order, in 415, the monks lynched and dismembered Hypatia.
Because debate over religious issues never really stays a debate, where facts and
arguments are discussed objectively, we believe that the resolution is true and that Public
Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues. Thanks for your
time and attention; I now stand open for crossfire.
*
http://www.wmpolicyreview.org/the-forum/2010/9/3/nyc-ground-zero-mosque-debate-
has-widespread-effect.html
*
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-04-19-column19_ST_N.htm
13
Con Cases
CON CASE #1
[Purposes of PFD—1 of 2]
Because debating sensitive religious issues advances the purposes of Public

Forum Debate, we believe that Public Forum Debate topics should address sensitive
religious issues and thus believe that the resolution is false. Originally named
“Controversy” and “Ted Turner Debate,” Public Forum was created to encourage more
interest in the National Forensics League’s debate events and to step away from the
hyper-technicalities of other forms of debate that previously existed. The NFL wanted
members from the community to judge the event. To further these goals, the NFL has
also traditionally chosen controversial topics on current events that were of interest to the
general public.
This brings us to our first contention, because this topic asks the question of
what we should be debating, we must consider the educational objectives of the
Public Forum Debate event. Katie Shuster argues in her article, “Saying ‘No’ to the
Punditocracy: A Critique of Public Forum Debate, in The NFL Rostrum in 2004:
The NFL has a great tradition of promoting speaking and debating events. In order
to make informed decisions about the kinds of events that should be offered by the NFL
and other forensics organizations, it is important to consider the educational objectives of
each event. In other words, we must consider why we teach students to speak and to
debate. Once committed to these objectives, we must turn to issues of practical
implementation.
This brings us to our second contention, which outlines the purposes that
Public Forum Debate was first created. Public forum debate was designed to
engage new members of the community. Public forum debate topics are essential to
facilitating the purposes for which the activity was created. The National Forensics
League explains in a Rostrum article, Public Forum: A Closer Look at Public Forum
Debate Topic Selection, The Rostrum, from October 2010:
When Public Forum Debate began in 2003, it was designed to engage community
members and new groups of students in the world of debate. The resolutions which frame
Public Forum debates are “ripped from the headlines,” involving relevant and timely
issues that educate and involve the community on significant public issues. Because
Public Forum was designed to target community members and new debaters, the
resolutions serve a critical role in ensuring the outreach and appeal of Public Forum
Debate.
14
CON CASE #1
[Purposes of PFD—2 of 2]
Thus, we finally move to our last contention. Debating sensitive religious

issues, such as whether an Islamic cultural center ought to be built near ground
zero, is a timely topic, ripped from news headlines that greatly involves the
community, and involves a significant public issue. Cherian Koshy, a member of the
National Forensics League Board of Directors, wrote in “More from NFL About Topic
Change,” on October 41:
Nearly 70% of Americans oppose the building of a cultural center near Ground Zero.
Opponents include families of the victims of the September 11th tragedy who firmly
believe that the site undermines the healing and unity that should take place in the wake
of this horrendous event. In fact, PBS ran a special on August 10th using the precise
wording of the NFL’s topic. The Council on Foreign Relations also asked the same
question of whether this was the appropriate place, time, or type of building. Opposition
also includes Islamic clerics and Muslims around the world including some here at home.
Herein lies the importance of this topic, in my mind. There is truth to the negative that
requires debaters to learn more about Islam to think about their Muslim counterparts and
to understand both sides of the topic from a perspective of respect. It goes without saying
that this topic, requested by dozens of e-mails to the NFL national office, is one that is
timely and important for both educators and students. This topic, while controversial,
enables us use the public forum to examine what is happening in the world around us
and dispel misconceptions about Islam and American Muslims.
Thus, after we have examined the purposes of public forum debate, which
includes drawing in the public on a controversial, important issue of public significance,
we can conclude that Public Forum Debate topics should confront sensitive religious
issues. We thus believe that the resolution is false. Since we have presented our case,
my partner will respond to our opponents’ case in our next speech. Thank you for your
time and attention, I now stand open for crossfire.
1
http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/more-from-nfl-about-topic-change.html
15
CON CASE #2
[NFL—1 of 2]
Without the National Forensics League, or the NFL, which sponsors Public
Forum debate and is the primary national organization that promotes debate across the
country, debate itself may cease. Because we might not even be here today without the
NFL, it is important that the topics that we debate attract membership to the NFL. Thus,
we believe that because debate over sensitive religious issues, in the context of current
events, appeals to the general public and would attract membership, we believe the
resolution to be false: Public Forum Debate topics should confront sensitive religious
issues in current events.
Our first contention is that growth in membership of the NFL is key to the
very existence of the organization. LD and Policy debate are insufficient to
maintain the organization. Donus Roberts writes in, “Controversy: NFL's New Debate
Event,” from The Rostrum in November 2002:
LD is growing marginally. Policy debate is falling precipitously. The net result is

an organization on a plateau. Some years memberships are up 1%, some years down 1%.
That something will change in the immediate future to improve our lot seems rose-
colored thinking. Financially NFL has to grow to pay the bills. We have two ways to
finance the core NFL: raise membership/chapter dues or grow the organization. Most of
the grants to NFL are targeted. Less than 5% of the grant money can be used to operate
the league. To stay even NFL needs to increase revenue from memberships, chapter dues
and merchandise sales by 5% a year.
Moreover, Public Forum Debate is permits new growth of the NFL because it
is the most popular debate event: Jason Kline writes in his article, Public Forum
Debate: An Inspiring Addition, in the April 2008 edition of The Rostrum:
Although only five years old this Fall, I think it would be an understatement that
Public Forum has been a successful addition to the National Forensic League’s cadre of
events. Throughout the country, tournament directors report that Public Forum is now
their most popular debate event. Even at ‘national’ level tournaments, where Lincoln-
Douglas and Policy have been the primary focus for the last two decades, Public Forum is
fast achieving parity in numbers.
16
CON CASE #2
[NFL—2 of 2]
This brings us to our second contention. The debate over the Ground Zero
Mosque demonstrates that the public is highly interested in current events that
overlap with sensitive religious issues. Thus, more people would be attracted to the
event if we debate sensitive religious issues in the context of current events. M.R.
Walter writes in, "NYC "Ground Zero Mosque" Debate Has Widespread Effect," in the
William & Mary Policy Review, September 3, 2010*:
The debate over the propriety of allowing the construction of a Muslim community
center near 9/11's Ground Zero has attracted the attention of politicians, the public, and
pundits on both sides of the aisle. The rapid uptick in commentary is fascinating after
months of non-discussion following the initial introduction of the plan, but perhaps it just
takes people time to get revved up. Regardless, back and forth in the debate can now be
heard almost every night of the week on the major television news outlets, . . .
Our third contention is that censoring religious issues from Public Forum
Debate results in boycotts of the NFL. An example of the call for boycotts of the NFL
based on the current topic demonstrates this probability. This example is a call for a
boycott from, Chad Henson in his posting, Opinion: NFL Cave in on Ground Zero
Mosque Debate Topic a Shame, on October 3, 2010*:
So where should we go from here? First, the NFL should recognize that it made a mistake
and reinstitute the old topic before too much work is done on the new one. . . . . Finally,
those with money to give to debate should refrain from giving it to the NFL. Give it to
the Urban Debate Leagues, your state organization, or some debate team in your area.
Hell, hand it to some college kid who shows up to tournaments and does a too good a job
for too little pay. Only when the NFL feels it has more to lose by appeasing those who
would have it betray the activity we love than it does by betraying those of us who love it
will we see real change.
Thus, because confronting sensitive religious issues in current events promotes

Public Forum, and because the promotion of Public Forum promotes the very existence
of our activity by supporting the NFL, we believe the resolution to be false.
*
http://www.wmpolicyreview.org/the-forum/2010/9/3/nyc-ground-zero-mosque-debate-has-widespread-
effect.html.
*
Global Debate, http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/opinion-nfl-cave-in-on-ground-zero.html
17
Pro Extensions
The debate over the Ground Zero Mosque is highly charged and emotional.
Roberty Farley, Fact-checking the 'Ground Zero mosque' debate, Aug. 20, 2010,
PolitiFact.Com, http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/aug/20/fact-checking-
ground-zero-mosque-debate/
In the highly-charged and sweeping national debate over a proposed mosque near Ground
Zero, facts are often muddled at the expense of emotional appeals. With everyone from
Sarah Palin to President Barack Obama weighing in on religious freedom, tolerance and
sensitivity, PolitiFact decided to add some fact-checking to the discourse.
The discourse surrounding the Ground Zero Mosque is highly misleading.

Let's start with the phrase "Ground Zero Mosque,” a media-created shorthand used by a
number of political figures discussing the propriety of the mosque's proposed location.
Rick Scott, a Republican candidate for Florida governor, used it in a recent campaign ad,
stating: "Mr. President, Ground Zero is the wrong place for a mosque.” But the proposed
mosque is not at or on Ground Zero. It does not directly abut it or overlook it.It is near
Ground Zero.How near? Just over two blocks. Two long blocks, in fact. The Washington
Post noted that the location is "roughly half a dozen normal lower Manhattan blocks from
the site of the North Tower, the nearer of the two destroyed in the attacks.” "You can't see
Ground Zero from our current building and on completion of our planned building some
years from now, there won't be any views of the Ground Zero memorial from the
building,” said Sharif El-Gamal, owner of the building and developer of the Park51
project, in an interview with an Islamic news site.
18
The facts surrounding religious issues like the building of a cultural center near
Ground Zero are not objectively presented.
CBS News, "Ground Zero's Boundaries Evolve in Mosque Debate," August 26, 2010,
The furor over how close is too close to ground zero for a planned Islamic center and
mosque has raised a simple question nine years after Sept. 11: Where exactly is ground
zero?The lines marking the site of the 2001 terrorist attacks change depending on which
New Yorker, 9/11 family member and American you talk to. Even those who know it
best can't agree on its boundaries. Tourists who come to snap pictures outside of a busy
construction site often aren't sure that they're there.Andrew Slawsky, a 22-year-old
college student standing outside the proposed mosque and Islamic center, north of the
World Trade Center site, says ground zero is not here."This is not sacred ground,"
Slawsky said. "To me, ground zero is any site that was destroyed or damaged on 9/11 -
mostly the hole in the ground."
Prioritizing free speech gives bigotry the moral high ground and reinforces
intolerance.
Charles R. Lawrence III, “If He Hollers Let Him Go: Regulating Racist Speech on
Campus,” Words That Wound Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First
Amendment, Westview Press BOULDER, 1993, Questia
But I am deeply concerned about the role that many civil libertarians have played, or the
roles we have failed to play, in the continuing, real-life struggle through which we define
the community in which we live. I fear that by framing the debate as we have -- as one in
which the liberty of free speech is in conflict with the elimination of racism -- we have
advanced the cause of racial oppression and placed the bigot on the moral high ground,
fanning the rising flames of racism. Above all, I am troubled that we have not listened to
the real victims, that we have shown so little empathy or understanding for their injury,
and that we have abandoned those individuals whose race, gender, or sexual orientation
provokes others to regard them as second-class citizens. These individuals' civil liberties
are most directly at stake in the debate. In this chapter I focus on racism. Although I will
not address violent pornography and homophobic hate speech directly, I will draw on the
experience of women and gays as victims of hate speech where they operate as
instructive analogues.
19
In the case of students in a captive audience, religious epithets are meant to harm
entire groups.
I also urge the regulation of racial epithets and vilification that do not involve face-to-
face encounters -- situations in which the victim is part of a captive audience and the
injury is experienced by all members of a racial group who are forced to hear or see these
words. In such cases, the insulting words are aimed at an entire group with the effect of
causing significant harm to individual group members.
Minorities are degraded regardless of whether a government or private actor

commits a bigoted speech act.
Consider, for example, the case of McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 21 in which the
University of Oklahoma graduate school, under order by a federal court to admit
McLaurin, a Black student, designated a special seat, roped off from other seats, in each
classroom, the library, and the cafeteria. The Supreme Court held that this arrangement
was unconstitutional because McLaurin could not have had an equal opportunity to learn
and participate if he was humiliated and symbolically stigmatized as an untouchable.
Would it be any less injurious if all McLaurin's classmates had shown up at class wearing
blackface? Should this symbolic speech be protected by the Constitution? Yet, according
to a Time magazine report, in the fall of 1988 at the University of Wisconsin, "Members
of the Zeta Beta Tau fraternity staged a mock slave auction, complete with some pledges
in blackface." 22 More recently, at the same university, white male students trailed Black
female students shouting, "I've never tried a nigger before." 23 These young women were
no less severely injured than was McLaurin simply because the university did not directly
sponsor their assault. If the university fails to protect them in their right to pursue their
education free from this kind of degradation and humiliation, then surely there are
constitutional values at stake.
PFD debates are too short to get into religious issues.

Jason Kline, Public Forum Debate: An Inspiring Addition, April 2008, The Rostrum, 41
As well, because Public Forum Debate changes topics each month and speeches are
limited to four minutes, the competitors are required to quickly become focused on the
topic. There is little time for extension arguments to be developed. Again, from some
perspectives, this could be seen as limiting.
20
We must consider why we are debating what we are debating.

Katie Shuster, SAYING “NO” TO THE PUNDITOCRACY: A CRITIQUE OF
“PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE, Rostrum, April 2004, pg 17
Debate is useful for students insofar as it provides a convenient way to exercise a set of
complementary and associated skills. It is unsound to promote debate for debate’s sake,
or particular formats of debate for the sake of those formats. This has failed to account
for the very real educational needs of students while at the same time failing to critically
evaluate the fundamen- tal assumptions of much of our current debate pedagogy and
practice. It is time for this to change. We must try to maximize the complementary and
associated skills that students gain from participating in debate activities.
Public forum debate is not designed to engage the public.

The event is not a public forum, nor is it suitable for engagement of the public through
debate. There is no room for audience participation in the event. In fact, now that the ban
on experienced judges has been lifted by the NFL, there may be no place for the public at
all. If this is a “public forum,” it is only insofar as its parent shows, like ““Crossfire”” are
a public forum. Of course, anyone who thinks that “Crossfire” is an actual public forum
is probably also con- fused by the difference between their TV family and their real fam-
ily. The characterization of media shows where various talking heads yell at each other
about issues of vanishingly small importance to the average community as “public
forums” may in fact sum up the problems with this debate format.
There is no room for the public in Public Forum Debate.

There is simply no public in “Public Forum Debate.” At- tempts to formally include the
public (through community judging mandates now retracted by the NFL) have failed.
And no wonder. Defining the public as someone who (like an audience member in
““Crossfire””) has no access to the forum and is supposed to passively observe while
others discuss an issue is, frankly, a woe- fully limited view of public engagement. There
are many ways to encourage constructive public engagement in debates. For example,
audiences may be easily encouraged to participate in debates by becoming certified
judges, using floor speeches, points of information, and responsible heckling. Heckling,
by the way, is often misunderstood – it must be taught, and audiences must be educated
about heckling. Used properly (such as the ways it is used in Claremont’s Middle School
Public Debate Program), it adds to the dynamism and engagement of all parties in the
debate.
21
The requirement of community judges in PFD has been abandoned.

James Copeland has argued that the event may be public insofar as it teaches students
how to “speak to the average citizen.” The initial justification for this aspect of the
event was the requirement for community judges. This requirement has been aban-
doned. Now the event, presumably, teaches students to speak to the former debater and
debate professional. This is hardly a new aspect of debate formats–it is the “problem” in
other events that 20Public Forum Debate was meant to cure. Further, listening to the
reading of pre-prepared speeches is not what the “average citizen” seems to want to
hear. But reading pre-prepared speeches constitutes a surprisingly large amount of the
average Public Fo- rum Debate, based on my experience. Also, topics are not adapt- able
to the needs of communities and localities – the assumption of a nationally announced
topic seems to be that all citizens and residents everywhere are the same and should
debate the same issues. Finally, as I will argue below, average citizens make arguments
about specific proposals, opportunity costs and underlying assumptions.
Debate over religious issues split religious groups.

Audrey Parente, Locals debate putting Islamic center near ground zero , Dayton Beach
News-Journal, Aug. 20, 2010, http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/local/east-
volusia/2010/08/20/locals-debate-putting-islamic-center-at-ground-zero.html
The heated controversy over a proposed Islamic center with a prayer room near ground
zero in New York has created tensions worldwide -- and stirred debate among locals
inside and outside the area's Muslim communities.Not all Muslims, including more than
1,500 in Volusia and Flagler counties, are on the same side of the argument, which has
escalated during the highly religious month of Ramadan.
Most debatable issues are not sensitive religious issues. Thus, the resolution
advocates precluding only very limited topics. For example, all agree that the
debate over the Islamic cultural center is not a religious issue.
inside and outside the area's Muslim communities. Not all Muslims, including more than
escalated during the highly religious month of Ramadan. But there is common ground.
Most everyone agrees religion is not the issue. And most refer to the U.S. Constitution to
support their arguments. "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression and freedom
of prayer," said Maxine Kronick of Flagler Beach, who is Jewish. She lived for a time in
the Middle East and pays close attention to religious issues.
22
The NFL did produce the new topic to spite the community for raising complaints.
Cherian Koshy, National Forensics League Board of Directors, More from NFL About
Topic Change, October 4, 2010, http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/more-
from-nfl-about-topic-change.html
It is not the intention nor practice of any of the members of the wording committee, the
NFL as an organization, nor the many coaches in the community that were consulted
privately throughout the timeline of events to spite the Public Forum community. It was
precisely the opposite. The topic you will be debating in November does many things.
First of all, it gives you the opportunity as debaters and coaches to weigh in on what is
and is not the direction of the activity. We’re asking you to formalize your input and
make arguments as to whether we debate issues that may be uncomfortable or
controversial. Should we debate gay marriage or the death penalty or stem cell research?
There is certainly a debate to be had about the Catholic church as there is about how
Muslims are treated in America. Clearly, many of you disagree on whether this is a good
idea or a bad idea as evidenced from the conversations happening here and elsewhere on
the Web.
The new topic gives debaters the option to combine traditional forensics with critical
thinking and creative argumentation.
Second, you are the public. As academics, you are faced with this issue all the time in
different types of educational settings. The unique nature of debate makes this a
tremendously fascinating twist on an already complicated issue. We know that there is
disagreement about the pedagogical value of these types of discussions in the classroom
and its impacts on the students, educational environment, and the teachers. The reason to
focus attention on debate rounds was because debaters are FORCED to defend both sides.
That’s why the topic wasn’t overly generalized. We also believe that this gives debaters
the opportunity to combine traditional evidence with advanced analytic argument.
The NFL admits its imperfection, but wants to create a welcoming and positive
environment for all involved.
Weigh in with [the NFL Board of Directors] and let us know what you think. We’re not
perfect and we’re all honestly trying to do the best job we can. All of us are former
coaches, some of us are former competitors. We all want to create a welcoming, positive
environment for everyone involved. We get that you don’t always agree on all of the
decisions that are made but there are positive, constructive ways to address our
differences.
23
Our debates will help to shape the direction that future topics will take.
The NFL isn’t some autocratic behemoth out to get anyone. It’s changed the topic
selection process to reflect membership concerns, changed rules in the event to reflect
membership concerns such as time limits, and changed a topic to reflect membership
concerns and it continue to be open to revision of all of these processes but they don’t
happen on a whim. They happen based on thoughtful deliberation and respectful
dialogue.
Many expressed concerns that religious issues are not debatable and are offensive.
This morning, I awoke to a small number of e-mails regarding the NFL’s announcement
of its November Public Forum debate topic regarding one of the quintessential and
controversial topics in recent memory. These e-mails suggested that the topic was
somehow offensive or not defensible and worse yet, should not be debated.
History proves debate over sensitive religious issues frequently turns violent.
Philip Jenkins, Any faith can become violent, USA Today, April 18, 2010,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-04-19-column19_ST_N.htm
It's the sort of scene that we associate all too easily with the religious fanaticism of the
Middle East. A religious leader daringly tries to revise a popular prayer to reflect his
particular slant on God. A furious mob storms his house, murders him and parades his
head around the streets on a pole, as they yell that he's a blasphemer. Yes, theological
debate between Christians could be a ferocious and unforgiving matter in the early
church. (The incident in question happened in the city that we now call Istanbul, in A.D.
511). The more we look at that era, the closer the resemblance we see between the
behavior of violent Christian extremists then and that of Islamist radicals today. Change
the names and the religious rhetoric, and the extremists look very much the same. The
similarities are startling, and genuinely uncomfortable for anyone who is used to drawing
a stark night and day contrast between the two faiths.
24
The ultimate victim of church and state mix is religion.

Alan M. Dershowitz, Professor of Law at Harvard University, “The Real Victims of a
Church-State Merger Be Careful What You Wish For,” Council for Secular Humanism,
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dershowitz_20_4.html
For these reasons, I believe that, if the wall of separation were to crumble in America, the
ultimate losers would be the churches, the synagogues, and the mosques. To be sure,
organized religion would benefit initially from the support- financial, political, and
ideological-of the state. Many religious leaders who are currently strapped for cash see
the wall of separation as a barrier to filling their coffers. But in the long run, organized
religion would suffer greatly from state involvement in their affairs. The state, by paying
the organist, would call the hymn. This would be a tragedy both for religious and secular
Americans.
Independent religion serves as a useful check on the government.

Alan M. Dershowitz, Professor of Law at Harvard University, “The Real Victims of a
Church-State Merger Be Careful What You Wish For,” Council for Secular Humanism,
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dershowitz_20_4.html
Religion, if it remains independent of the state, can serve as a useful check and balance
on the excesses of government. For example, during the 1920s, eugenics became the rage
among scientists, academics, and intellectuals. Thirty states enacted forcible sterilization
laws that resulted in 50,000 people being surgically sterilized. In 1927, the United States
Supreme Court upheld these laws in a decision by the great Justice Oliver Wendell
Holmes, who wrote: "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute
offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those
who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind." The only dissenting opinion came
from a religious Catholic. Churches fought hard against sterilization laws. In this
instance, religion was right: government and science were wrong.
The wall creates tolerance and secures the legitimacy of all citizens.
Rabbi Aaron Bergman, “Separating church, state spurs religious creativity,” The Detroit
News, August 16, 2003, http://www.detnews.com/2003/editorial/0308/18/d08-
245362.htm
Take something so simple as the Ten Commandments. Which version do you put up, the
one from Exodus or Deuteronomy? Do you use the Catholic, Jewish or Protestant ones?
Which language do you use? English, Latin or Hebrew? What do you do about
Americans who do not belong to a Western monotheistic religion? Are they not really
Americans? The separation of church and state allows all members of all religions to be
as involved as they want and to feel legitimate in the eyes of America.
25
The idea of religious liberty is meant to prevent government control and/or

promotion of religion.
Austin Cline, “Separation of Church and State: Is It In The Constitution?” About.com,
Guide to Agnosticism/Atheism,
http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/phrase.htm
Similarly, courts have found that the principle of a "religious liberty" exists behind in the
First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there: Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... The
point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or
organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the
government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it
ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or
promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government
"establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the
authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here.
The wall has inspired religious creativity and advancement.

Rabbi Aaron Bergman, “Separating church, state spurs religious creativity,” The Detroit
News, August 16, 2003, http://www.detnews.com/2003/editorial/0308/18/d08-
245362.htm
There are other benefits. The most creative religious ideas of the past 200 years have
come out of America and other democracies without official religion. We have seen an
increase in women's voices and participation. We have seen great advances in intellectual
thought. We have seen new kinds of services develop that make more people feel
included. America has created an atmosphere for an explosion of religious faith and
creativity. Even fundamentalism of all kinds can flourish here precisely because of this
freedom. Otherwise, only one kind of fundamentalism would be endorsed, with the others
having to go underground. The separation of church (or synagogue or mosque) and state
forces the religious group to come up with a powerful and compelling message without
the backup of state coercion. This leads to genuine influence and changing of hearts. If
people are not drawn to the religion, it is because the religion failed to get out its
message. Otherwise, religions would never work to correct themselves. They could just
congratulate themselves on high affiliation.
26
Debating sensitive religious incites violence and attacks on religion.

M.R. Walter, "NYC "Ground Zero Mosque" Debate Has Widespread Effect," William &
Mary Policy Review, September 3, 2010, http://www.wmpolicyreview.org/the-
forum/2010/9/3/nyc-ground-zero-mosque-debate-has-widespread-effect.html
Following weeks of vocal opposition and debate, the dispute over the "Ground Zero
Mosque" has been cited as the impetus for other challenges to the Muslim community. A
New York City Taxicab driver, Ahmed Sharif, was violently attacked. Though he
reported to NY magazine that he had not discussed the mosque project with the customer
who attacked him, he, along with the civil rights director of the Council on American
Islamic Relations said they believed that the attack was prompted by the hate speech
against Muslims on the radio, in the newspapers and on the internet resulting in a climate
of anti-Islamic sentiment.
Debating sensitive religious issues pits religions against each other.

Outside of New York City's boroughs, An Islamic center in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, is

also making headlines following its introduction of a proposal to build a large community
center. The local Muslim community has coexisted with its neighbors for over 30 years,
even in the weeks and months immediately following the 9/11 attacks. However, amid
the anti-muslim sentiment aroused by the "Ground Zero Mosque", this proposal to
expand their existing facility has resulted in a magnitude of public backlash that the
Murfreesboro Islamic Community had not expected. Churches and politicians have
spoken out against the project, alleging that it will promote jihad and terrorist activities,
and residents have touted signs with anti-Islam slogans. Across Tennessee, several
mosque projects have been halted as a result of similar public outcry.
27
Debating sensitive religious issues, such as the Ground Zero Mosque, causes public
resentment of religion.
While these are two of the most visible examples of the anti-muslim activity that has
arisen following the outcry against the Ground Zero project, there have also been a
variety of less widely publicized examples including assertions regarding the president's
religious beliefs, religious leaders propagating idea that Islam is attempting to
conquer/devour the western world (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/
guestvoices/2010/08/by_evan_f_kohlmann_the.html), attacks on the Imam of the
proposed center, and protests of major islamic centers and organizations around the
country. These numerous examples demonstrate a degree of hostility toward Islam before
unseen in American culture, even in the months following 9/11.
28
Con Extensions
The former resolution about addressing Islamic cultural center was not a sensitive
religious issue.
While we're considering the term "Ground Zero Mosque,” we also wondered whether it
was proper to call the project a mosque. A mosque is, in fact, planned there, but it's part
of a plan for a much larger, $100 million cultural center that includes a swimming pool,
gym and basketball court, a 500-seat auditorium, a restaurant and culinary school, a
library and art studios. Organizers say the center would be open to all New Yorkers,
regardless of faith, and would promote cultural diversity. But the center would be geared
toward "engaging New York's many and diverse Muslim communities and promoting
empowerment and compassion for all.” According to Gamal, the mosque would be run
separately from the rest of the facilities. And, he said, it would not tolerate "any kind of
illegal or unAmerican activity and rhetoric.” Imam Rauf has been leading prayer services
in one of the buildings since 2009.
Objectivity is not impossible over religious issues.

But we were able to cite some objective facts when we looked into a claim from
Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Kendrick Meek, who in a televised debate repeated a
popular misnomer in the mosque debate: that there is a mosque inside the Pentagon.
There's an interfaith chapel — often used by Muslims for daily prayer service, as well as
by other religions — but no mosque. We rated Meek's statement False.
Opinion polls show that there is room for reasonable disagreement over sensitive
religious issues such as building the Islamic cultural center.
There are nearly 7 million Muslims and more than 1,200 mosques in the U.S. but a CBS
News poll found 71 percent of Americans say it's inappropriate to build a mosque so
close to ground zero, reports CBS News correspondent Elaine Quijano.
29
Censorship punishes speakers for negative consequences of political speech.

Steven G. Gey, “THE CASE AGAINST POSTMODERN CENSORSHIP THEORY,”
University of Pennsylvania Law Review, December, 1996, Lexis
MacKinnon's equation of speech and action is the key to understanding how deeply her
approach would alter the current law and the common understandings about democratic
citizenship on which that law is based. At the simplest level, by equating speech and
action, MacKinnon would have the government hold the speaker (or film director or
writer) of antisocial ideas accountable for those ideas as if the speaker had acted on those
ideas; a verbal depiction of a rape fantasy presumably would be punishable as rape. But
the implications of MacKinnon's theory extend far beyond the pornography that is her
immediate subject. The analysis also would hold speakers accountable for the negative
consequences of a political or social perspective embodied in abstract or theoretical
speech, as well as pornographic speech. MacKinnon comes close to saying this explicitly:
Together with all its material supports, authoritatively saying someone is inferior is
largely how structures of status and differential treatment are demarcated and actualized.
Words and images are how people are placed in hierarchies, how social stratification is
made to seem inevitable and right, how feelings of inferiority and superiority are
engendered, and how indifference to violence against those on the bottom is rationalized
and normalized. Social supremacy is made, inside and between people, through making
meanings. To unmake it, these meanings and their technologies have to be unmade. n49
[fm[Elsewhere, MacKinnon specifically suggests suppression (at least in an educational
context) of "academic books purporting to document women's biological inferiority to
men, or arguing that slavery of Africans should return, or that Fourteenth Amendment
equality should be repealed, or that reports of rape are routinely fabricated."
The issues in the resolution are inevitably reframed by debaters.

Foremost, Public Forum is an event that requires strong, clear, and precise speaking
skills. Because the event is judged by a wide variety of people, the student must be able
to communicate on a variety of levels. In my experience, this particular ability is the
foundation of a good PFD competitor. Judges who are comparing ideas and evidence are
often swayed by a team that presents their position well. Yet this goes beyond the concept
of ‘clear speaking’ and really forces students into the realm of ‘available
communication.’ Students must meet the needs of their audience. This particular ability,
found more in speech events than debate events, really distinguishes the ‘good’ PFD
competitors from the ‘great’ PFD competitors. Communication requires not only
excellent diction and solid delivery. The issues of word choice and issue framing also
come into play
30
It is impossible to objectively determine ‘good’ and ‘bad’ speech because of

preexisting bias.
Steven G. Gey, “THE CASE AGAINST POSTMODERN CENSORSHIP THEORY,”
University of Pennsylvania Law Review, December, 1996, Lexis
Other manifestations of the empirical problem with postmodernism's theory of social

constructionism also involve the difficulty of accurately assessing the meaning, import
and consequences of speech. All postmodern censorship is premised on the need to
suppress "bad" speech to further "good" social values (such as equality) through social
conditioning. But any attribution of value and consequences to particular speech requires
empirical judgments that are problematic in ways that are similar to the problems arising
from Catharine MacKinnon's questionable claims about sexual expression. This problem
dooms Cass Sunstein's attempt to divide human preferences into upper-level "second-
order preferences," which the state may seek to foster through the dissemination or
encouragement of certain kinds of speech, and lower-order "first-order preferences,"
which the government may discourage through [*224] the prohibition of other kinds of
speech. n91 The first-order/second-order preference dichotomy cannot withstand analysis
because regardless of the mechanism used to delineate these categories, any conclusion
will be tainted by the values brought to the table by the regulators. There is simply no
empirically verifiable way to determine whether some preferences are "worse" than
others, except to insert a series of self-serving judgments about "good" and "bad," which
will determine the outcome of the analysis before it even takes place.
Censorship is responsible for the end of civilizations.

Butler Shaffer, “The Importance of Free Expression,” LewRockwell.com, 2004,
http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer74.html
As I have written in previous articles, various historians have suggested that

institutionalization – with its insistence on regulatory conformity, standardization, and the
protection of existing organizational interests – has been a principal cause of the collapse
of previous civilizations. "The essence of history is change," wrote Jacob Burckhardt,
while "the way of annihilation is invariably prepared by inward degeneration, by decrease
of life." Will and Ariel Durant observed that the decline of civilizations arises from the
failure of "leaders to meet the challenges of change." Civilizations that fail to respond to
change can, at best, expect to "linger on as stagnant pools left by once life-giving
streams.” The institutional order resists such change. It is premised on the maintenance
of the status quo; but a vigorous and creative society depends upon resiliency, the
capacity to make effective responses to a changing environment. The state – as enforcer
of institutional rigidity – loves the cloned mentality. The government school system and
military training camps are the state’s mechanisms for fostering the uniformity and
obedience that benefit its interests while helping to destroy the vibrancy of a free and
productive society.
31
Censorship destroys individual creativity.

This phenomenon is not confined to the demise of civilizations. Individuals who insist
upon insulating themselves from unwanted external influences also lose the fluctuation
necessary for a creative life. Their behavior becomes like that of brain-injured people
who Abraham Maslow described as wanting "to manage their equilibrium by avoiding
everything unfamiliar and strange and by ordering their restricted world in such a neat,
disciplined, orderly fashion that everything in the world can be counted upon." What
better explanation can be offered for those socially un-housebroken misfits who seek to
reconfirm their faith in the state direction of people’s lives by concocting legislative
schemes to micromanage the details of human behavior? To be obsessed is to be
existentially stuck.
Free expression is vital to our sanity.

We need not rely on speculation to confirm the dangerous nature of insular thinking.
Experimental studies have been conducted with individuals placed in isolation tanks and
deprived of virtually all sensory input. Their only experiences with the world came from
within their own minds, and they soon became disoriented and delusional. The lesson to
be derived from such studies is that we require an energized relationship with the world
around us – particularly with other people – in order to maintain our sanity. We need the
countervailing influence of others to remind us of the inherently limited nature of our
understanding. As anyone who has participated in "brainstorming" sessions can attest,
rational and creative decision-making is dependent upon our access to as much relevant
information as possible. An unrestrained freedom of expression is more than just a
libertarian sentiment for tolerance of others; it is essential to our living well.
The process by which resolutions are selected should be scrutinized.

The National Forensics League, Public Forum: A Closer Look at Public Forum Debate
Topic Selection, The Rostrum, October 2010, pg 12–13.
Today, seven years after the creation of Public Forum Debate, the event is thriving.
District participation in Public Forum rose to nearly 5,000 students during 2009-2010,
more than double since the event’s inception, and national tournament entries in PFD
rose correspondingly. Throughout this growth process, as Public Forum Debate
resolutions have begun to affect more and more people, the process for determining those
resolutions has rightfully garnered more attention and scrutiny. Understanding the way
Public Forum resolutions are created may help shed light on the event and the way it
operates.
32
The NFL permits community input in topic selection. Thus, eliminating topics from
consideration censors the debate community.
The NFL begins the process of developing resolutions for Public Forum with a direct
solicitation for topic ideas from June 1 to August 1.Any member of the speech and debate
community may submit topic ideas to the NFL for consideration at any point during the
year by e-mailing suggestions to nfl@nflonline.org. Once the list of potential topics is
compiled, the NFL executive director considers those suggestions fromthe membership,
consults the list of past topic areas, reviews the headline news and ongoing societal
issues, reviews potential partnership and grant opportunities, and consults colleagues to
determine an appropriate topic area for focus. Generally, topic ideas will fall into, but are
not limited to, one of ten categories (see Figure A).
Our current topic selection process does not necessarily eliminate issues from
potential topics and resolution. Our current structure for choosing topics is
necessary to choosing the best possible resolution and growing Public Forum
debate.
Developing Public Forum Debate resolutions according to this process helps maintain the
integrity and accessibility of the event while securing the requisite support to allow the
event to grow. Simply put, it ensures the best possible resolution for the Public Forum
Debate community. A couple of key attributes further this aim. Writing resolutions
throughout the year with maximum flexibility helps ensure that resolutions remain timely
and relevant. The recommendations of the committee and the expertise of the executive
director help ensurethat resolutions are challenging, yet debatable. The involvement of
the debate community, through the topic solicitation process and participation of an
advisory committee of coaches, with careful oversight by the national office, helps ensure
that the resolution is determined with impartiality and fairness. Although Public Forum
Debate may still be relatively new, the popularity and prestige of the event renders it one
of the NFL’s most effective vehicles for student outreach and community involvement.
As more and more people engage in PFD as both participants and critics, the resolutions
will remain vital to ensuring that the playing field remains level for all. The wording
committee and office of the executive directorare committed to maintaining a fair
wording process and producing quality Public Forum Debate resolutions. Doing so paves
the way for new generations of people to engage in critical discussions of public interest
for years to come.
33
PFD was created to link the forensics community to the general public and to debate
headline-making issues.
Arthur Rupe Foundation, Public Forum: Students Gain Priceless Skills in Public Forum
Debate, Rostrum, May 2010, pg 41.
Public Forum Debate was created in 2003 to cement the linkage between forensics and
the general public. This audience-friendly format features conversational discourse on
timely, relevant topics that have been taken directly from the headlines. In 2009, 4,446
debaters entered Public Forum at their district tournament—more than any other event
and more than Lincoln Douglas Debate and Policy Debate combined.
PFD is the only form of debate that the public would be willing watch on TV.
James M. Copeland, TED TURNER PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE: NOT JUST
ANOTHER CONTEST, The Rostrum, February 2003, 43-45
Policy Debate teaches critical thinking, research skills, organizational methods,

interdisciplinary thinking and information processing. For those students and schools
who wish to participate, policy debate offers the rigor of an MA thesis and the
competitive pressure of the final table at the World Series of Poker.Lincoln Douglas
debate promotes values education by exposing students to philosophical thinking of the
highest level and training in abstract reasoning. Congressional Debate (Student Congress)
teaches he complete legislative process and provides students the opportunity to debate
issues facing the U.S. Congress.Unfortunately though, these fine educational events, like
football drills and multiplication tables, are not very good specta- tor sports. Unlike TV
Quiz bowls and the National Spelling Bee, NFL debate formats were just too long for
television and too ar- cane for public audiences -- and so is parli!
TV is key to the existence of everything, including the NFL.

Donus Roberts, Controversy: NFL's New Debate Event, The Rostrum, November 2002
We want to reach an audience of adults and students in America through media as well as
tournaments. Television is a key to almost everything. We might wish a different world,
but it is not there. For heaven's sake, the national spelling contest and geogra- phy bee are
on TV, yet we cannot find an outlet for NFL events.
34
PFD is the only form of debate that the public would be willing watch on TV.
Policy Debate teaches critical thinking, research skills, organizational methods,

interdisciplinary thinking and information processing. For those students and schools
who wish to participate, policy debate offers the rigor of an MA thesis and the
competitive pressure of the final table at the World Series of Poker.Lincoln Douglas
debate promotes values education by exposing students to philosophical thinking of the
highest level and training in abstract reasoning. Congressional Debate (Student Congress)
teaches he complete legislative process and provides students the opportunity to debate
issues facing the U.S. Congress.Unfortunately though, these fine educational events, like
football drills and multiplication tables, are not very good specta- tor sports. Unlike TV
Quiz bowls and the National Spelling Bee, NFL debate formats were just too long for
television and too ar- cane for public audiences -- and so is parli!
PFD was intended to be a public event, with more member of the public involved.
Rev. B. A. Gregg, Public Forum, The Rostrum, April, 2008, pg 59–61.
In 2001, we only knew one thing: this was a debate event that was open to the public and
should be focused on the public and was to be judged by the public. In fact, NFL made
clear that no debate judge should be judging a round of Public Forum. The purpose of
this rule was to make clear and manifest that Public Forum was a debate event to be
judged by the Medieval Everyman. Of course, this rule made it very difficult on a number
of coaches to find the properly unqualified person to judge a Public Forum round – we
debate coaches are a fairly insular people and, like religious churchgoers, only really
know primarily people in the congregation.
Public Forum Debate promotes education and real world skills.

Chad Henson, Opinion: NFL Cave in on Ground Zero Mosque Debate Topic a Shame,
October 3, 2010, Global Debate, http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/opinion-
nfl-cave-in-on-ground-zero.html
The National Forensic League argues that debate has value. As someone who has
dedicated a substantial portion of my life to debating, coaching, and judging debate, I
certainly hope that’s the case. As a purely practical matter, debate has: improved my
argumentation and writing skills, made me a better communicator and teacher, and
allowed me to network with a wide range of successful people in a variety of fields –
especially law and investments. It was my introduction to a range of academic areas,
including: law, international relations, economics, public policy, education, statistics,
political philosophy, ethics, epistemology, warfare, and critical theory. I would not be
where I am today – either a university debate coach or a graduate student in law and
finance – without debate.
35
The NFL needs a debate event that people would watch on TV.
Roger Ailes in his book You Are the Message titles his first chapter "Television Changed
the Rules." And indeed it has. The way people speak in public in America [and how
people speak on television] has forever been changed. So the need for a new NFL debate
event was clear: NFL had no debate event that would interest public audiences. NFL had
no television friendly debate event. . . . [C]urrent NFL debate events are superb as
training devices for the nation's future leaders and they are outstanding contest vehicles to
motivate students to excel, but they are not well suited as public speeches to real
audiences. Let me draw an analogy to football: calisthenics and drills get the job done to
train the team -- but few wish to watch them. The game is a thing of beauty and is
watched by millions. NFL needs a "game" to attract the public and be on television.What
will interest the public so that they might be instructed by and actually enjoy a debate by
NFL students (and encourage parental and community support for debate)?1) Topics
must be interesting: current, vital, relevant to peoples lives. People refuse to waste time
on topics beyond their interest.2) Speeches must be brief. Tele- vision has killed the
public's attention span.3) There must be controversy! . . . For good or ill, public debating
in today's worldowes more to the WWF than Aristotle.
High School debate provides for a variety of benefits to students.

There is little doubt that students must be encouraged to voice informed opinions on a
wide variety of subjects with confidence. Oral literacy and oral communication skills
are critical for success in middle school, high school, and beyond. The need for these
skills is recognized in state and local educational content stan- dards across the United
States. Done correctly, debate instruction (and instruction in select individual events)
teaches argumentation and media literacy, including the associated skills of research,
evidence evaluation, organization, summarization, refutation, note-taking, and active
listening. Ideally, debate training will prepare students to become active and informed
citizens and members of their communities. Through participation in debating, they
will be able to critically analyze arguments in public and private arenas. Students will
learn to iden- tify the assumptions of arguments, to question the va- lidity of sources of
information, and otherwise perform the basic skills that are commonly referred to as
“critical thinking” skills.
36
The NFL has no other event to market to the media to raise funds.
And NFL has no event to market to the media, whether the media is CNN, CSPAN, cable
access TV, service clubs or parents. Policy debate and LD debate have become
specialized, filled with code-words that ordinary people do not understand on topics
people don't wish to hear. Debaters often talk beyond the speed limit. Extemp has also
become a documentation speech, oratory has become interp, interp has become filled
with innuendo and explicitness.
Public Forum Debate appropriately targets new members and new schools to grow
the NFL.
Our first target is students who do not debate now because current debate is a lifetime
commitment. These are bright students who want diversified activities. They are not
interested in research- ing a topic for a year or most of a year. They are attracted to Aca-
demic Decathlons, Model UNs, Odyssey of the Mind or similar contests. They want to
play a game but not be consumed by the game.Our second target is schools that currently
do not debate, maybe never have. We believe that the cost and complexity of current
debate has made debate impossible for small schools and for schools without extensive
financial resources. We want a debate division that is doable for schools like
Chamberlain, Platte and Parkston, schools that had debate 20 years ago, as well as for
schools like Harrisburg, West Central and Tri Valley, schools who have not ever had
debate. [The above examples are in South Da- kota but you know of others in your
state.]We want to target a student who will debate if s/he does not have to miss school so
much or who does not have to compete every weekend to keep up or attend a summer
camp. With com- puter scheduling, on Saturdays, four rounds of debate could be held,
plus semis and finals.
Prohibiting “religious” issues permits censorship by allowing anyone to call any

undesirable topic “too religious.”
If we regard the critical examination of beliefs as a bad thing as soon as we call those
beliefs “religious” (or “racist” or “dangerous”), then any examination of ideas is bad, for
there will always be those who characterize a belief as dangerous or view questioning it
as painful or beyond the possibility of discussion.
37
The Great Debaters, the movies, proves that Public Forum is a marketable event
that inspires interest in the NFL.
Jennifer Bilman, Public Forum Goes to the Movies, The Rostrum, January, 2008
Inspired by actual events, The Great Debaters chronicles Professor Melvin Tolson’s
struggle to transform a group of unlikely college students into a fiercely competitive
debate squad. Teaching at an African American University in the Deep South, Professor
Tolson battles constant criticism for his political views and unorthodox teaching style. By
overcoming these constraints, he powerfully demonstrates the potential of speech to
change the world and ultimately transforms his rag-tag squad into a prestigious group of
intellectuals, complete with an invitation to engage an ivy-league institution in a historic
debate. Not only will you have fun at the flicks, watching the film will inspire part of
January’s forensic competitions. For the month of January, Public Forum debaters will
discuss the resolution: Resolved: In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate
weapon in the fight for justice. This resolution, which varies slightly in structure from
previous resolutions, was chosen because of its modern relevance and historical gravity.
Civil disobedience shaped the political landscape of the US, most recently in situations
like the Jena 6 controversy and the Hollywood writers’ strike. Historically, civil
disobedience fueled the American civil rights movement and the campaign to end
apartheid in South Africa. Despite these successes, debate continues over whether civil
disobedience is more effective than working within a political system to create change.
The January Public Forum resolution also fuels the Great Debaters contest, sponsored by
the Princeton Review, which asks students to debate it with a partner in a modified de-
bate format. To enter the contest, students submit four minutes of videotape in which they
and a partner debate the pro and con side of the civil disobedience topic or one of two
other resolutions, available on the contest website. Sixteen finalist teams will compete
for extensive prizes. Complete details of the contest are available at
www.princetonreview.com under Improve your Scores and Skills/ News. The January
Public Forum resolution enables Public Forum debaters to participate in both NFL
tournaments and the Great Debaters contest using the same body of evidence, effec-
tively doubling the competitive opportunities associated with a month of research.
Moreover, the topic encourages discourse on civil disobedience, a concept that continues
to influence Ameri- can politics. Perhaps most importantly, the January resolution allows
Public Forum debaters to contribute to discussion about the film and its themes. In doing
so, NFL hopes to increase public awareness and appreciation for competitive speech and
debate.
38
Part of the value of the debate is its ability to improve a person regarding their
religious intolerance.
The greater value of debate, however, is in its ability to improve a person. I can
definitively say that debate has made me a better person: more rational, more
introspective, more tolerant of others, better able to understand opposing views, better
able to make and defend my moral judgments, and certainly more concerned with giving
back to the community to which I owe these improvements. It gave me a way to strive for
excellence that would not have been available but for the NFL and its efforts to expand
debate. Ironically, it is largely responsible for the change in my religious beliefs. The
process by which debate improves a person, in the moral and practical sense, is by
communicating a set of values through the practice and structure of the activity. A central
principle behind competitive academic debate is that it is an unqualified good to bring
rational thought and argument to bear on controversial issues.
The NFL should not avoid any topic because of overwhelming concern about
religious implications of topics.
Today, the National Forensic League has betrayed that principle and lost yet more of the
moral leadership it once possessed with respect to competitive academic debate when,
faced with “overwhelming concern” about a debate topic on the desirability of an Islamic
cultural center near Ground Zero, the NFL chose to change the topic rather than defend
the very values that make debate worthwhile. This is serious, not a minor issue of
choosing one topic over another. The NFL has conclusively demonstrated that it is
possible to remain the foremost high school debate organization after releasing years’
worth of bad topics. When it faced an opportunity to actually behave as if it believed that
the principles behind debate are to be embraced, the NFL instead showed that while it is
willing to ask for serious backing in terms of money and commitment from its members
and alumni, it is unwilling to back the value of debate.
39
Religious issues can be concrete current issues relevant to popular audiences; this
was the purpose that PFD was created.
The NFL could have said that the very controversy surrounding the topic made it even
more important that it be debated, enabling people on both sides of this divisive issue to
understand where the other side is coming from. It could have relied on the reason Public
Forum Debate was created: to make sure that concrete, current issues relevant to popular
audiences are discussed. It could have relied on a longstanding refusal to change topics
once announced – even grammatically incorrect topics or those that made traditional
debate theory, developed for good topics, incoherent. Instead, it caved to pressure, and
subtly adopted that principle that the NFL will only back down when it is most important
that it not do so. If not even debaters will stand up for debate, how can we expect it of
others?
The new topic destroys public forum debate by centering on an issue—what PFD
topics should address— that is irrelevant to the public.
The problem, though, is that this topic undermines the purpose of PFD by having debate
on a topic of very little popular concern outside our community. It also leaves the
debaters least conversant with debate theory to debate the issue in front of those judges
least conversant with debate theory – and there’s still no affirmative ground.
40
Pro Blocks
A/T Public Forum Debate Was Designed to Engage the Public
1. Just because PFD was designed to engage the public does not mean that debating
sensitive religious issues results in public engagement. In fact, our case shows why the
debating sensitive religious issues actually alienates the public.
2. Public forum debate is not designed to engage the public.

The event is not a public forum, nor is it suitable for engagement of the public through
debate. There is no room for audience participation in the event. In fact, now that the ban
on experienced judges has been lifted by the NFL, there may be no place for the public at
all. If this is a “public forum,” it is only insofar as its parent shows, like ““Crossfire”” are
a public forum. Of course, anyone who thinks that “Crossfire” is an actual public forum
is probably also con- fused by the difference between their TV family and their real fam-
ily. The characterization of media shows where various talking heads yell at each other
about issues of vanishingly small importance to the average community as “public
forums” may in fact sum up the problems with this debate format.
3. There is no room for the public in Public Forum Debate.

There is simply no public in “Public Forum Debate.” At- tempts to formally include the
public (through community judging mandates now retracted by the NFL) have failed.
And no wonder. Defining the public as someone who (like an audience member in
““Crossfire””) has no access to the forum and is supposed to passively observe while
others discuss an issue is, frankly, a woe- fully limited view of public engagement. There
are many ways to encourage constructive public engagement in debates. For example,
audiences may be easily encouraged to participate in debates by becoming certified
judges, using floor speeches, points of information, and responsible heckling. Heckling,
by the way, is often misunderstood – it must be taught, and audiences must be educated
about heckling. Used properly (such as the ways it is used in Claremont’s Middle School
Public Debate Program), it adds to the dynamism and engagement of all parties in the
debate.
41
Pro Blocks
A/T The Topic Advocates Censorship
1. The resolution does not advocate censorship. Censorship implies a punishment for
discussing what has been censored. Under this resolution, the PF topics themselves
would not choose to confront religious issues; debaters could still bring up religious
issues in debates if they wanted to. Thus, there would be no censorship.
2. But even if there is censorship, prioritizing free speech gives bigotry the moral high
ground and reinforces intolerance.
Charles R. Lawrence III, explains in “If He Hollers Let Him Go: Regulating Racist
Speech on Campus,” in the book Words That Wound Critical Race Theory, Assaultive
Speech, and the First Amendment, from 1993:
But I am deeply concerned about the role that many civil libertarians have played, or the
roles we have failed to play, in the continuing, real-life struggle through which we define
the community in which we live. I fear that by framing the debate as we have -- as one in
which the liberty of free speech is in conflict with the elimination of racism -- we have
advanced the cause of racial oppression and placed the bigot on the moral high ground,
fanning the rising flames of racism. Above all, I am troubled that we have not listened to
the real victims, that we have shown so little empathy or understanding for their injury,
and that we have abandoned those individuals whose race, gender, or sexual orientation
provokes others to regard them as second-class citizens. These individuals' civil liberties
are most directly at stake in the debate. In this chapter I focus on racism. Although I will
not address violent pornography and homophobic hate speech directly, I will draw on the
experience of women and gays as victims of hate speech where they operate as
instructive analogues.
42
Pro Blocks
A/T Religion Can Be Debated Objectively
1. The debate over the Ground Zero Mosque is highly charged and emotional.
In the highly-charged and sweeping national debate over a proposed mosque near Ground
Zero, facts are often muddled at the expense of emotional appeals. With everyone from
Sarah Palin to President Barack Obama weighing in on religious freedom, tolerance and
sensitivity, PolitiFact decided to add some fact-checking to the discourse.
2. The discourse surrounding the Ground Zero Mosque is highly misleading.

Let's start with the phrase "Ground Zero Mosque,” a media-created shorthand used by a
number of political figures discussing the propriety of the mosque's proposed location.
Rick Scott, a Republican candidate for Florida governor, used it in a recent campaign ad,
stating: "Mr. President, Ground Zero is the wrong place for a mosque.” But the proposed
mosque is not at or on Ground Zero. It does not directly abut it or overlook it.It is near
Ground Zero.How near? Just over two blocks. Two long blocks, in fact. The Washington
Post noted that the location is "roughly half a dozen normal lower Manhattan blocks from
the site of the North Tower, the nearer of the two destroyed in the attacks.” "You can't see
Ground Zero from our current building and on completion of our planned building some
years from now, there won't be any views of the Ground Zero memorial from the
building,” said Sharif El-Gamal, owner of the building and developer of the Park51
project, in an interview with an Islamic news site.
43
Pro Blocks
A/T Discussing Sensitive Religious Issues Is Good For Debate
1. PFD debates are too short to get into religious issues.

As well, because Public Forum Debate changes topics each month and speeches are
limited to four minutes, the competitors are required to quickly become focused on the
topic. There is little time for extension arguments to be developed. Again, from some
perspectives, this could be seen as limiting.
2. Debate over religious issues split religious groups.

inside and outside the area's Muslim communities.Not all Muslims, including more than
escalated during the highly religious month of Ramadan.
44
Con Blocks
A/T Religious debates can’t be objective
1. This is not true. Just because some people get emotional about religious issues does
not mean that objectivity is absolutely impossible.
2. This debate that we are having now disproves this argument because we are, in
essence, debating sensitive religious issues objectively.
3. Objectivity is not impossible over religious issues.

But we were able to cite some objective facts when we looked into a claim from
Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Kendrick Meek, who in a televised debate repeated a
popular misnomer in the mosque debate: that there is a mosque inside the Pentagon.
There's an interfaith chapel — often used by Muslims for daily prayer service, as well as
by other religions — but no mosque.
45
Con Blocks
A/T No Ground to Disagree About Religion
1. Opinion polls show that there is room for reasonable disagreement over sensitive
religious issues such as building the Islamic cultural center.
There are nearly 7 million Muslims and more than 1,200 mosques in the U.S. but a CBS
News poll found 71 percent of Americans say it's inappropriate to build a mosque so
close to ground zero, reports CBS News correspondent Elaine Quijano.
2. Debate is also about roleplaying and advancing arguments one does not believe in.
That’s why we debate both sides of the topic. Just because one person’s religious beliefs
oppose one side of a topic, does not mean that presenting the argument for the other side
would violate their religious beliefs.
46
Con Blocks
A/T Debating Religion is Bad for Public Forum Debate
1. Part of the value of the debate is its ability to improve a person regarding their
religious intolerance.
The greater value of debate, however, is in its ability to improve a person. I can
definitively say that debate has made me a better person: more rational, more
introspective, more tolerant of others, better able to understand opposing views, better
able to make and defend my moral judgments, and certainly more concerned with giving
back to the community to which I owe these improvements. It gave me a way to strive for
excellence that would not have been available but for the NFL and its efforts to expand
debate. Ironically, it is largely responsible for the change in my religious beliefs. The
process by which debate improves a person, in the moral and practical sense, is by
communicating a set of values through the practice and structure of the activity. A central
principle behind competitive academic debate is that it is an unqualified good to bring
rational thought and argument to bear on controversial issues.
2. The new topic destroys public forum debate by centering on an issue—what PFD
topics should address— that is irrelevant to the public.
The problem, though, is that this topic undermines the purpose of PFD by having debate
on a topic of very little popular concern outside our community. It also leaves the
debaters least conversant with debate theory to debate the issue in front of those judges
least conversant with debate theory – and there’s still no affirmative ground.
47
Con Blocks
A/T Debating Religious Topics Presents a Big Problem
1. The former resolution about addressing Islamic cultural center was not a
sensitive religious issue. Religious issues are constantly reframed as social issues,
thus avoiding the emotions and other negative implications of debating a religious
issue itself.
While we're considering the term "Ground Zero Mosque,” we also wondered whether it
was proper to call the project a mosque. A mosque is, in fact, planned there, but it's part
of a plan for a much larger, $100 million cultural center that includes a swimming pool,
gym and basketball court, a 500-seat auditorium, a restaurant and culinary school, a
library and art studios. Organizers say the center would be open to all New Yorkers,
regardless of faith, and would promote cultural diversity. But the center would be geared
toward "engaging New York's many and diverse Muslim communities and promoting
empowerment and compassion for all.” According to Gamal, the mosque would be run
separately from the rest of the facilities. And, he said, it would not tolerate "any kind of
illegal or unAmerican activity and rhetoric.” Imam Rauf has been leading prayer services
in one of the buildings since 2009.
2. The issues in the resolution are inevitably reframed by debaters.

Foremost, Public Forum is an event that requires strong, clear, and precise speaking
skills. Because the event is judged by a wide variety of people, the student must be able
to communicate on a variety of levels. In my experience, this particular ability is the
foundation of a good PFD competitor. Judges who are comparing ideas and evidence are
often swayed by a team that presents their position well. Yet this goes beyond the concept
of ‘clear speaking’ and really forces students into the realm of ‘available
communication.’ Students must meet the needs of their audience. This particular ability,
found more in speech events than debate events, really distinguishes the ‘good’ PFD
competitors from the ‘great’ PFD competitors. Communication requires not only
excellent diction and solid delivery. The issues of word choice and issue framing also
come into play
48
PRO CASE #1
PREFLOW
Thesis: Omitting sensitive

religious issues from
Pubic Forum Debate
topics creates a stronger
debate community
I. Debating sensitive
religious issues would
force religious members
out of the debate
community because they
were religiously opposed
to debating one side of
the topic.
x. Cherian Koshy
II. The topic does not

advocate censorship
based on a few
complaints. There was
“overwhelming”
opposition in the
community to debating
sensitive religious issues;
the NFL didn’t just cave
to some complaints by
the community.
x. Cherian Koshy
III. Omitting sensitive

religious issues from
Public Forum Debate
topics is a signal that the
NFL is listening to and
respects the wishes of the
debate community.
x. Cherian Koshy
49
PRO CASE #2
PREFLOW
Thesis: attempting to
debate over sensitive
religious issues eventually
devolves into and results
in violent acts
I. Given this
background, we move to
our first point of
contention, which is that
the debate over the
Islamic cultural center is
misinformed and not
objective. The terms
used in debating
sensitive religious issues
tend to involve
misrepresentations of
facts and of religion.
x. CBS News
II. Debate over sensitive

religious issues is hardly
ever civilized and spurs
religious violence.
x. CBS News
III. Moreover, sensitive

religious issues can’t be
debated without
incivility, as
demonstrated by the
Ground Zero Mosque
debate.
x. M.R. Walter
50
CON CASE #1
PREFLOW
Thesis: debating sensitive

religious issues advances
the purposes of Public
Forum Debate
I. Because this topic asks

the question of what we
should be debating, we
must consider the
educational objectives of
the Public Forum Debate
event.
x. Katie Shuster
II. Public forum debate

was designed to engage
new members of the
community. Public
forum debate topics are
essential to facilitating
the purposes for which
the activity was created.
x. NFL
III. Debating sensitive

religious issues, such as
whether an Islamic
cultural center ought to
be built near ground
zero, is a timely topic,
ripped from news
headlines that greatly
involves the community,
and involves a significant
public issue.
x. Cherian Koshy
51
CON CASE #2
PREFLOW
Thesis: Without the NFL,

which sponsors Public
Forum debate and is the
primary national
organization that promotes
debate across the country,
debate itself may cease.
Because we might not
even be here today
without the NFL, it is
important that the topics
that we debate attract
membership to the NFL.
I. growth in membership
of the NFL is key to the
very existence of the
organization. LD and
Policy debate are
insufficient to maintain
the organization.
x. Donus Roberts
II. Public Forum Debate

is permits new growth of
the NFL because it is the
most popular debate
event
x. Jason Kline
III. The debate over the

Ground Zero Mosque
demonstrates that the
public is highly
interested in current
events that overlap with
sensitive religious issues.
Thus, more people would
be attracted to the event
if we debate sensitive
religious issues in the
context of current
events.
x. M.R. Walter
IV. Censoring religious

issues from Public
Forum Debate results in
boycotts of the NFL.
Chad Henson Example
52

TFF PFD Nov 10

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

TFF PFD Nov 10

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TFF PFD Nov 10

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Forensics Files © The PFD File

November 2010 Confronting Religious Issues

THE FORENSICS FILES THE PFD FILE

Resolved: High school Public Forum Debate

 Some middle schools throughout the country participate in Public Forum

 Public Forum debate was created as a response to avoid the technicalities

 Because it was created for community judging, would community judges

 Is really possible for a topic to avoid confronting sensitive religious

 On the other hand, if religious elements of a topic were uncomfortable to

Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2010

Source: Macmillan Dictionary

Source: Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition, 2010

Public Forum Debate

Public Forum Debate

Public Forum Debate

Source: MacMillan Dictionary 2010

Source: MacMillan Dictionary 2010

Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2010

Source: Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition 2010

Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2010

Source: Random House Dictionary 2010

Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2010

Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2010

Source: Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition 2010

Source: Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition, 2010

Source: Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 2010

To understand this resolution, it is important to understand its context. The

Overwhelming concerns have been expressed by our membership regarding the

This leads us to our first point of contention. Debating sensitive religious

Because we believe that attempting to debate over sensitive religious issues

To understand this resolution, it is important to understand its context. The

Overwhelming concerns have been expressed by our membership regarding the

Given this background, we move to our first point of contention, which is

Moreover, sensitive religious issues can’t be debated without incivility, as

Our third contention is that, historically, misrepresentations of religion in

Sometimes, heretical takes on Christianity could drive a mob to violence, but on

Because debating sensitive religious issues advances the purposes of Public

Thus, we finally move to our last contention. Debating sensitive religious

LD is growing marginally. Policy debate is falling precipitously. The net result is

Thus, because confronting sensitive religious issues in current events promotes

The discourse surrounding the Ground Zero Mosque is highly misleading.

Minorities are degraded regardless of whether a government or private actor

PFD debates are too short to get into religious issues.

We must consider why we are debating what we are debating.

Public forum debate is not designed to engage the public.

There is no room for the public in Public Forum Debate.

The requirement of community judges in PFD has been abandoned.

Debate over religious issues split religious groups.

The ultimate victim of church and state mix is religion.

Independent religion serves as a useful check on the government.

The idea of religious liberty is meant to prevent government control and/or

The wall has inspired religious creativity and advancement.

Debating sensitive religious incites violence and attacks on religion.

Debating sensitive religious issues pits religions against each other.

Outside of New York City's boroughs, An Islamic center in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, is

Objectivity is not impossible over religious issues.

Censorship punishes speakers for negative consequences of political speech.