Freedom of Speech Is Superior to Freedom of Assembly

My opponent has taken an interesting approach to wording the resolution. It is obviously not true because all amendments (and pieces of amendments) must carry equal weight. Not to mention, my opponent is not exactly arguing all sides of their resolution. This resolution indicates that I must prove that the theory of freedom of speech should be superior to the theory of freedom of assembly. However, my opponent has gone on to argue only which is currently the status quo. Therefore, I have decided in this argument today to forgo the wording of the resolution in favor of maintaining a sense of real back and forth debate. I will simply be affirming the opposite of my opponent"s view point. This means that the real resolution I must affirm today is that the status quo does not indicate that the freedom of speech is superior to the freedom of assembly. With this in mind, I will begin my case: (1)Definitions a. I agree with my opponent"s generalization of "freedom of speech" and "superior". b. I will be focusing a few of my counterarguments around my opponent"s theory of the freedom of assembly. I define freedom of assembly as the individual right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests as stated by Jeremy Mcbride in Freedom of Association in 2005. I choose to uphold this definition versus any other because of the common definition of assemble (rally together to achieve a common purpose from Merriam-Webster). (2)Core Argument (all others will be addressed during my rebuttal statement) a. The wording of the constitution ensures that neither the freedom of speech nor the freedom of assembly can be abridged. i. If neither can be abridged, a law cannot uphold one over the other without abridging one. 1. Therefore, the court system cannot ever rule that one is superior to the other. Rebuttal of my opponent"s case: My opponent"s core argument in this round is that free speech is imposing on the right to freedom of assembly; therefore, free speech is made superior. To begin with, I cannot understand why my opponent has chosen to include the bit about the Middle Eastern Islamists. Their freedom of speech has never been upheld over their freedom of assembly, nor have these two rights ever been abridged in the good ole" US of A. While it is a nice argument, it is not topical to the resolution put forth. The supposed breach of the right is in broadcasting. They state that when people tune into a broadcast they are told to either put up with the advertisements or don"t listen. The main flaw in this argument is that tuning into a broadcast is not under the freedom of assembly. Just because everyone has chosen to tune into the same channel does not mean they are assembling. My definition of assembly is when people rally together to achieve a common purpose. In what way here are people rallying together? The answer is that they aren't. Since they aren't rallying together, the advertisements are not breaching their right to exercise the first amendment. Conclusion: All in all, I hope that I have fully expressed the misguided points of my opponent"s definition of freedom of assembly. Please remember that we must uphold the resolution I have stated today because the only way to continue the flow of debate is to address my opponent"s core arguments since it is obvious that freedom of speech is not upheld over the freedom of assembly in the US justice system.