THE GREAT DEBATES This will be a team debate. Each team will present arguments/statements, supporting their arguments with evidence. All team members must participate or the team is deducted points. A member can have first response to a rebuttal to their argument but not the second. (no member can speak twice in a row) Your team will get 5 minutes before the debate to prep their opening statements. There will be a 2 minute question prep period Different small group for each debate.

Scoring As the moderator I will give points according to a meaningful statement made and evidence to support the point. I will deduct points if you use information incorrectly and if members of the group are not participating. Team with most points overall wins.

Social media content and the 1st Amendment Debate #1 Social media content and the 1st Amendment

Schedule 5 minutes debate prep Opening Statements Question 1 (2 minute prep) Response/Rebuttals Question 2 (2 minute prep) Question 3 (2 minute prep) Closing statements

THE FIRST AMENDMENT “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Abridging: to reduce in scope: deprive, diminish

Cases/Key Acts to research Sedition Act of 1798 Espionage Act of 1917 Schenck v U.S. Thornhill v Alabama U.S. v O’Brien Texas v Johnson Tinker v Des Moines Bradenburg v Ohio Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier

Key Terms Sedition Pure speech Speech-plus Symbolic speech Obscenity Defamation slander Libel Hate speech fighting words

Debate Questions Debate Question #1: Is it a 1st amendment violation if schools suspend students for their social media content.

Debate Questions Debate Question #2: Under what circumstances should the 1st amendment protect speech expressed via social media, and what should the limitations of this protection be?

Tinker v. Des Moines

Tinker v. Des Moines Mary Beth Tinker was a 13-year-old junior high school student in December 1965 when she and a group of students decided to wear black armbands to school to protest the war in Vietnam. The school board got wind of the protest and passed a preemptive ban. When Mary Beth arrived at school on December 16, she was asked to remove the armband. When she refused, she was sent home. Four other students were suspended, including her brother John Tinker and Chris Eckhardt. The students were told they could not return to school until they agreed to remove their armbands. The students returned to school after the Christmas break without armbands, but in protest wore black clothing for the remainder of the school year.

Tinker v. Des Moines Represented by the ACLU, the students and their families embarked on a four-year court battle that culminated in the landmark Supreme Court decision: Tinker v. Des Moines. On February 24, 1969 the Court ruled 7-2 that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The Court ruled that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and school officials could not censor student speech unless it disrupted the educational process. Because wearing a black armband was not disruptive, the Court held that the First Amendment protected the right of students to wear one.

Debate #2 Privacy Rights

Schedule 5 minutes debate prep Opening Statements Question 1 (2 minute prep) Response/Rebuttals Question 2 (2 minute prep) Question 3 (2 minute prep) Closing statements

Debate Question #1 What are the limitations of privacy rights?

Debate Question #2 Do internet websites and/or search engines personalized search histories violate privacy rights?

Debate Question #3 Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows for the bulk collection of metadata, indiscriminately sweeping up data of U.S. citizens in search of “tangible things” related to nation security threats. Is Sec 215 of the Patriot Act a violation of privacy rights?

14th Amendment and the Equal Protections Clause Debate #3 14th Amendment and the Equal Protections Clause

Debate Question #1 Background Info: Transgendered student allowed to use bathroom that associated with identity NOT physical sex Many complaints brought forward to school board so… Gloucester County School board changed the policy to require transgender students to use single-stall private bathrooms or bathrooms associated with their physical sex. Debate Question: Does the Gloucester County School board’s bathroom policy for transgendered students violate the equal protections clause?

Debate Question #2 Background Information: Executive Order 13768: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States “The purpose of this order is to direct executive departments and agencies to employ all lawful means to enforce the immigration laws of the United States.” “jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary”

Executive Order 13768 Sec. 5.  Enforcement Priorities.  In executing faithfully the immigration laws of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall prioritize for removal those aliens described by the Congress in sections……as well as removable aliens who:  (a)  Have been convicted of any criminal offense; (b)  Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved;  (c)  Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense; (d)  Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency;  (e)  Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits; (f)  Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or (g)  In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security. 

Debate Question #2 A.) Is Section 9 (a) of Executive Order 13768 constitutional? B.) Does Section 5 of Executive Order 13768 as a whole or in part violate the Equal Protections Clause?

Debate Question #3 Are Sanctuary Cities constitutional?

Debate #4 Is Prop 66 Unconstitutional? Is capital punishment an unconstitutional violation of the 8th amendment protection of cruel and unusual punishment?