The USFG should have the power to limit citizens freedom of protest if it weakens our military power

I didn't "drop" my opponent's value criterion. I don't know what kind of backwards world my opponent is living in, but there's nothing to rebut in "So I affirm this topic with the values of utilitarianism though the criterion of protection." You make your case through your contentions, therefore they are what I have to rebut. You don't rebut a criterion. When you make an actual point, I rebut it, as I have been doing so far. There is no point being made in the statement I pasted above, so I have nothing to rebut. ========== Defending Uncle Sam's Pirate ========== My opponent's first claims are that his plan would not reduce morale or reduce recruits. My opponent's reasoning here is that there would be more pro-war and less anti-war propaganda, a point he is continuing to fight for. However, we will see in my the pro-war and anti-war propaganda points that more people will in fact be against the war in my opponent's plan. ~~~~~~~~~~ Attacking "More pro-war propaganda would exist" ~~~~~~~~~~ First, my opponent has decided to change what he's advocating. So far, he's solely been advocating limiting the right to protest, but now he is also advocating getting rid of freedom of the press and freedom of petition. Some would call it abusive of him, I'm just going to roll with it. So fine, the original point I made here that the press would air more anti-war stories no longer holds in this case. However, I will defend the statement I made about how the pro-war propaganda is viewed - as being hypocritical. My opponent states that "1 first this will not be seen as hypocritical because US propaganda will prevent it from being seen this way and because no will say that it is because it is against the law. 2 as long as there is a justification behind it there is nothing hypocritical about it." 1. Propaganda cannot prevent itself from being viewed as hypocritical. If we have propaganda saying "Wow look how awesome we are, we're fighting for people's freedom!" people WILL see that as hypocritical if the government is taking our rights, especially since now they've taken even more rights than last round. People will have to be informed that they no longer have these rights, and they will be upset about it [because we are a people who value and take pride in our freedoms]. People will therefore see the hypocrisy in the government actions, since they know that A> America is acting like it's honorably fighting for the cause of liberty, while at the same time B> America is throwing away American liberty. Since people would see both A and B, they would see the hypocrisy, and they would not be affected normally by the Propaganda. Propaganda only works if you can get people to fall for it, and you wouldn't be able to after telling people "Hey, by the way, you just lost a bunch of rights, so don't do X Y or Z." People tend to look at the Propaganda you put out a little more carefully after that. And 2. That's just wrong. Hypocrite: 1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings Source: Merriam-Webster See that a lack of justification isn't a prerequisite for being a hypocrite? You may have a very good reason for acting in contradiction to your stated beliefs, but that would not stop you from being a hypocrite. America would be stating that we're some kind of freedom fighters, here to bring liberty to the world, but we would be taking that same liberty at the same time, which is indeed being hypocritical. ~~~~~~~~~~ Attacking "Less anti-war propaganda would exist" ~~~~~~~~~~ People don't primarily get their ideas from the TV or from protests. People get their ideas from other people, from talking with friends, from reading blogs, watching videos on youtube, etc. People mostly get their ideas from these places, and those who do rely on the news would turn away from it once they found out the news was being artificially censored. People would use whatever information source they still know they can trust, and that would be those I listed above. After the government makes a policy to try and control what ideas can be said, PEOPLE WOULD NOT TRUST GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA. My opponent states that "Because of the limit on speech there will be no communication against the war," HOWEVER, there is no limit on normal communications. I can stil talk with my buddy fred all I want. I can still post a blog about whatever I want. I can still make videos about whatever I want. I can still contribute my opinion on forums online. I can still assemble a meeting to talk about whatever I want. Perhaps my opponent will try to transform America further to deal with this. And the rest of the points go to whoever's plan indeed does have the best military power. To recap the important points: I showed that once the Government tramples our rights, we will have little regard for what they have to say. That is to say, their Propaganda would no longer be able to work very well, since we would approach everything they said with major skepticism. I showed that people will still talk about the war negatively, through whatever aoutlets are available. People will still speak out to spite the government, as I showed last round. I also showed that people will already view the war negatively from the fact that the Governemnt even had to take away the people's rights. I also showed that Military morale would suffer, because their ideal image of America would be shattered. Overall, I have showed that US Military Power would suffer if our rights were taken. With this weakening of the military comes less ability to have peace, less ability to integrate into a globabl economy, and less ability to help people. Not only that, but I have shown disadvantages to taking our rights that exist whether or not Military Power is weakened by doing so. First, the loss of our rights is a negative thing in its own right, especially in a society where rights mean so much to us. The loss of our dignity is another. The existence of hypocrisy is another. The heavy-handedness of the government, and the disrespect for the government that comes from that is another. Now I await my opponent's final performance.