Freedom of speech should be practiced in all instances without exception

OK, I think I should apologize for taking my digression a bit too far. However, this serves to prove my point. In the last round, my opponent says the following about my claims that changing the resolution of a debate is wrong: "those are strictly your high-school teachers' opinions - not facts - since you haven't cited even a single source for all that long blabber, which I'd honestly come to expect." First I'd like to say that I never had a high-school teacher saying anything about debate rules to me, my conclusions that one shouldn’t have the right to change the resolution of a debate comes from a logical deduction, and as such, it doesn't need any sources, but I guess it wasn't very well clarified in my last round, so here it is: Debate is defined as "a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides"[1]. Such a proposition (or resolution) is the central part of the debate. The entirety of the discussion that makes up the debate revolves around this proposition; therefore, if you change the proposition you are changing the whole discussion. A different resolution creates a completely new debate from zero. In a site like DDO, if you want to engage in a different debate, you must create a new challenge, and not hijack an ongoing debate ignoring the original resolution. If everybody who realizes that their original proposition has been successfully refuted feels they have the right to change the resolution, what would prevent people from inserting "presidential underwears" everywhere? Voters are supposed to judge the arguments regarding the resolution proposed at the title or in the first round, if one of the debaters ignores every rebuttal to that proposition and instead starts arguing about something completely unrelated, that is and should be considered a concession. Yet, I still decided to engage in all the multiple debates that were created here. This will probably result in a difficult task to the voters, about whether or not they should consider what was discussed in these digressions or just regard all of them as conduct violations. I'll address this issue later, now here are my rebuttals to the "other debates": You say that the article 20(2) of the UDHR addresses the issue of hate speech, I believe that you are referring to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, not the UDHR (your own source says that: [2]). But anyway, both the UDHR and the ICCPR were signed and ratified by the USA, and therefore have the force of law in the USA, (according to the article VI of the American Constitution [3]) as much as the First Amendment. Now, you seem to favor the First Amendment [3] over those treaties, even though they are equally lawful in the US, because it has a more broad scope and doesn't make any restriction to free speech - which gives the impression that it grants more freedom, however, I proved in the original debate that an unrestricted freedom of speech is neither possible nor desirable. The truth is that, because ofthis fact, it is necessary to make exceptions to the First Amendment, even though it doesn't predict this possibility.The result is that this extremely broad scope of the amendment turns freedom of speech into a blurry concept, open to interpretation. Without a clear definition of what kind of speech should be protected or not, the First Amendment could be interpreted in a way to create unacceptable restrictions to free speech in the name of things like the war on terror, for example[4]. Therefore, the definition of free speech under the First Amendment is much more uncertain and prone to be undermined than the one set by the UDHR, and as such doesn't actually grants more freedom, despite the impression. As for the third debate,it is a fact that the USA is the only existing superpower in the world currently [5], being unmatched in economic, military and political power, therefore, any person that finds himself in the position of leader of such power, is clearly in a more powerful position than anyone else in the world. It doesn’t matter what “Russian schmucks” think of it. “Don't think the rest of the presidential symbols need to be dropped to the knees, every time the president decides to take a dump.” Come on, symbols of power like this don’t have to be worn all the time. The Queen doesn’t use her crown 24/7, but only in special occasions. The same would be true for the Presidential Underwear, it would be reserved only for events like presidential inauguration, in which the leaving president would drop the underpants of power and pass them for the new president to put them on. "If he looks like a dandy like that, if I were Putin, I'd wouldn't think before attacking the States." Well Putin would have to be pretty naïve or stupid to attack a country only because its leader uses ridiculous clothes, but if he was so naïve, he might as well as believe those underpants actually do grant superpowers to the president, so I'm sure he would think twice. A suggestion to the voters: Well, it's clear for people reading this that this is not a debate anymore, but a schizophrenic jumble of at least four different debates: 1 - The actual debate originally intended, which resolution is: "Freedom of speech should be practiced in all instances without exception" 2 - The second debate proposed by Pro:"Hate speech should be a part of free speech." 3 - The resolution proposed by me:"The United States should institute an official Presidential Underwear" 4 - There is also a fourth debate, which wasn't clearly stated, but represented most of the discussion held in the rounds 3 and 4. The resolution of this debate would be something like this: "It's not wrong to change the resolution of a debate" In regular conditions, the voters should only judge only the arguments and sources relative to the resolution stated in the title and/or in round 1, and regard everything else as conduct violations, however, this would result in everything said after round 2 being disregarded, so I suggest the voters to make a change the voting system that would allow all the debates to be judged: - The points for Arguments will be still used to judge the Debate 1 (since this is the main debate); - The points of conduct and Spelling & Grammar would go to the arguments/sources regarding the Debates 2 and 3, respectively; - And the points for sources would go to the fourth debate (being the debate that actually dominated the second half of this [multi-] debate, it's fair to grant it more points than the other two concurrent debates). I must stress that this is only a suggestion, and the voters have all the liberty to vote in any way they understand to be the most appropriate, I just believe that these changes will allow everything that was said here to be considered, and actually give pro a chance to win, since otherwise his concession on Debate 1 would result in an automatic loss. Since this is the last round, any objections to this suggestion will be discussed in the comments, so I advise the voters to check them before voting. [1] -http://www.merriam-webster.com...... [2] -http://www.article19.org...... [3] -https://www.constituteproject.org...... [4] -http://www.globalresearch.ca...... [5] -http://post.queensu.ca......