Freedom of speech - should the law be stricter

for issuing this debate. As there are three college students all amassing brain power to refute just one lowly highschool student, I hope that I stand a chance in this debate. Regardless, I will advocate against their proposed idea by refuting their points and advocating for no change being made to current speech laws. Before I begin, I'd like to define a few things. The right to speech, as decreed by the UN, is a universal human right inherently belonging to all persons. So by just advocating for a few people's rights repressed, my opponents must advocate for EVERYONE'S rights being repressed. With this in mind, I will begin going through their argument. In their first round, they made three arguments for repressing people's rights slightly, which I shall list below and go through individually. A1: People misuse the right sometimesA2: Insults are something that shouldn't be allowed because it offends some peopleA3: The law isn't strict enough to prevent discriminationWith those in mind, I will go through them in order. A1 Responses:While it is a problem that people do take advantage of the right to free speech, is the actions of a minority of our population worth restricting the rights of every person? I advocate that it actually isn't. If one person's actions are poor, is it worth restricting the actions of one hundred people? Fifty people? Twenty people? Ten? The trade-off makes it not worth it in any situation. A2 Responses:The insulting nature of some comments are, of course, not the greatest thing to experience for the one being insulted (known from first-hand experience), I advocate that the standard for what is insulting and what isn't insulting is far too subjective to be usable on a global scale. If I were to take the comment "You're gay" and say that to various members of the DDO community, much less the world community, there would be varied levels of reaction to the insult, from no effect (what my reaction would be), to highly offended and enraged, and everywhere in between. With such a subjective basis of judging an action, it would be impossible to effectively enforce. Also, while this applies to the third argument and will be more thuroughly explained in the next response, where do we draw the line between what is offensive and what isn't? It would become an arbitrary brightline with no enforcability. A3 Responses:While there is an element of truth to what she says, the solution she proposes doesn't make things any better. By making stricter laws and harsher enforcement, where do we draw the brightline between trying for a better good and absolute totalitarianism? The brightline invovled there would be absolutely arbitrary and based upon an individual's perspective, with no ability to standardize it. And when we set up a law that doesn't do anything, we set up a law that will be ignored. Moreover, I ask my opponents how is this to ever be enforced? Are we going to throw kids in jail for teasing each other on the playground, or fighting and bickering for a turn on the swing-set? How do we prevent people in their private homes from occaisionally insulting one another? There isn't a way to enforce it, again setting up the situation where the law would be ignored. The only way possible to enforce this would be to set up a totalitarian dictatorship much like the one shown in George Orwell's "1984", but you would have a fun time trying to actually impliment that kind of government. While I agree with my opponent in the fact that there is a problem with our speech laws currently, the proposed plan that they offer to solve it doesn't solve anything.