This house would ban prisoners publishing accounts of their crimes

Arguments: -------------- First off, the thrust of his argument towards my main constructive of the intrinsic right to freedom of speech is merely that it is often abused. Now, his justification for such an argument is merely that as such individuals have so blatantly violated the social contract by which we all abide, they lose the intrinsic right to speech. However, looking in retrospective, the inherent right to freedom of speech, as proposed not only by the British parliament, but also as we find it on a social context, may and should only be taken away if it completely interferes with the infrastructure of the government and/or the safety of the general population. As such, we find that my opponent's assertion that 'individuals to capitalise on suffering' is completely invalid and unjustified. Glorification -------------- The 'glorification' of crime, as PRO puts it, is contradicted by the definitions and very nature of the terms 'published' and 'account' in the explicit wording of the resolution itself. A published narrative about an event does not allow for the fanciful descriptions that are untrue and falsely composed if it is to be an account of an event or a crime. If I, for example, intended to publish a novel, on the other hand, would be adequately and sufficiently justified in my act if I were to provide flowery and false descriptions. As such, and due to the very fact that a published account is exactly the opposite of the latter, we find imminently that it is absurd to presuppose or make the assumption that any type of glorification may occur in the publication process. Furthermore, as the government makes it clear in its endorsements that any form of speech that violates safety of the general population or infringing upon intrinsic rights of others may be banned, it becomes clear that such falsehoods of publications that my opponent proposes would never be published. BoP ----- Since by the BoP exacted by the explicit wording of the resolution, my opponent has to justify and endorse all opposition of publishing accounts of crimes. He thus provides himself with the double bind in which his so called 'glorification', is, even if it is not just hypothetical and viable, for which I have already justified the contrary for, only testifies against a small aspect of the whole. He must justify the complete elimination of such publications, even if such glorification does not exist on a societal context, for which he fails to do, thus falling short of his BoP. Social Contract? ------------------- Now, my opponent's endorsement of the social contract, I am inclined to pronounce with all my charitable intentions, vague and invalid. A violation of a social contract, as by a prisoner when committing a crime, only provides for and gives leeway for the government to take away certain societal liberties as well as privileges for which are extraneous and positive rights that are given with certain obligations. As such, my opponent's false example of 'voting' for prisoners is not only justified, but also provided for completely with the foundational fact that such privileges only come as a positive right, and may be taken away at the government's pleasure when a violation of the social contract ensues. On the contrary, there exists certain categorical societal rights and liberties that are not only intrinsic and inherent to an individual's life, but also to the infrastructure of a government, specifically the freedom to speech and others of such type. Such rights provide us with a definitive model for which we can determine the welfare of the people, as well as to give to the population that right which is intrinsically theirs. By neglecting or failing to acknowledge just such a right, we are advocating for an infringement tantamount to death, as such categorical rights may only taken away under the severe circumstances of threat to the public safety. Indeed, as such freedom of speech in the case of publication of accounts of crimes does not provide for such, we find it obviously clear that my opponent's *social contract* argument may be disregarded and not considered for plausibility or certitude. *Credibility*? ---------------- Indeed, my opponent, as PRO writes on to claim that I assert that the government will lose credibility. As such, I urge all individuals to look in retrospective at my case, and attempt to point out the exact point for which I claim the latter. Instead, we find that my argument rests upon the fact that the government's infrastructure and foundational principles will be shattered, not *credibility*, when certain societal virtues are denied, namely freedom of speech. He not only straw mans my argument, distorting it to represent credibility and basing a refutation off of the latter, but also fails to refute any of the central points of my arguments, namely the categorical right to freedom of speech, as well as societal need. Indeed, he introduces a utilitarian view for his policies, and states that the government is justified in doing anything as long as it brings about more harm that good. As such, we find immediately that such an argument is once again flawed, in that by failing to acknowledge such an intrinsic categorical right, we are not only neglecting to provide consideration for the general representation and welfare of the people, but also to expedite the amount of harm done on a societal context. No amount of government intervention, therefore, will serve to successfully mitigate the severity of its deprivation when neglecting its people the freedom of speech. From the latter we thus find that in whole, my opponent provides us with an argument which bases itself off of the straw man fallacy when distorting my arguments, defending 'glorification' insufficiently when he provides no adequate justification that is actually viable or possible on a social and legal context, and introduces arguments such as the social contract for which we find to be invalid and absurd in composition. As for my arguments, he fails to adequately refute my endorsement of the categorical intrinsic right, as well as my explicit arguments for the welfare of a government and the people, which are compromised to a huge degree by such deprivation of rights. Further arguments: ----------------------- I apologize for the time constrictions on my schedule as well as real-life issues that prevented me from providing a whole argument in the past round, and will thus only provide judges and my opponent with a supplementary argument that is a subjunctive argument to the main endorsement of categorical rights. *Oppression of Individualism* ------------------------------------ Now, by oppression of individualism, I merely strive to achieve to justify the categorical right of freedom to speech, which will only serve as an impact analysis on a societal context. When PRO so strongly advocates for the oppression of individualism for which our government may control the rights to freedom of speech and neglect to acknowledge such categorical rights, he is in turn endorsing the contradiction between a government and it's own policies. Indeed, individualism itself is what brings about the voice of the population, for which the government is not only dependant upon, but also imperative for our societal welfare to remain intact without compromise. The freedom of speech, therefore, prevents such oppression of individualism, for which my opponent provides no adequate or sufficient justification against. Solvency on such a matter may include providing for laws in which certain specific regulations may be exacted in the latter case of publications of crimes, so that it may not cause harm to public safety, though it is highly unlikely, instead of my opponent's endorsement of complete eradication of such publications for prisoners. As such, I urge a CON vote.