Snyder vs. Wesboro Baptist Church

In the rebuttal rounds, no new arguements can be presented. However, it is defined thusly: "Rebuttal - ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ The speech act of refuting by offering a contrary contention or argument ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ A form of evidence that is presented to contradict or nullify other evidence that has been presented by an adverse party. (wordnetweb. princeton. edu/perl/webwn)" I did not create new arguements, but went by the definition of rebuttal. To argue that my rebuttals are entirely new arguements that have no relevance to previous discussion in this forum is not a rational debate, which you submited this to being a rational debate in the first round. Respectfully, there is no technicality to be had here, but I applaud that you did not revert this to your only stance for this round, but moved on to continue to rebut. My opponent states, "I respectfully ask the judging community to disregard any arguments along any of these lines, as the Pro failed to initiate these arguments during the constructive portion of the debate. " This I do not understand, Con. I made the arguement that these rights are retained. You stated that I did not provide a source, and, since you had so politely indicated, I provided your source. These are not new arguements, but sources to arguements I have already stated solely because you asked to see the source. Sir, I keep on telling you that THIER RIGHT TO SPEECH SHOULD BE LIMITED OR REVOKED BASED ON THE PRINCIPAL OF GOVERNMENT WHICH IS SOLELY TO PROVIDE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY! This includes civil homeostatis, economic success, diplomatic affairs with foriegn nations, etc. It is not limited to military efforts, because there are certain hazards in our country that cause such an uproar. These "Church" members did not just have an outragous opinion, they targeted this already emotionally distressed audience along with (and excuse the 440,000, for that was a typo) 44,000 funerals! IF they had stated these opinions without zeroing in upon a grieving (which is a right in and of itself), it would have been protected under the first amendment, but since they wanted to infringe, since they CHOSE to infringe, upon others' rights, they deserve to be voted against in the Supreme Court. They have the right to free speech, but they do not have the right to use this speech to impede a federal process and torture the families of the dead who retain the right to grieve. The WBC robbed them of the right to grieve along with 44,000 other families, and it's time this targeting was stopped. I would like to cite 2 quotes from . http://en.wikipedia.org... : "On the lead-up to the picket [the first picket to be held by Americans in the UK against homosexuality and picketing in general], a number of MPs, lobby groups and LGBT groups appealed to the UK's Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith,[99] requesting these individuals be blocked from entering the UK,[100] on the basis that WBC would be inciting hatred towards LGBT people. On February 18, 2009, two days before the intended picket date, the Home Office announced that Fred Phelps and Shirley Phelps-Roper would be specifically excluded from entering the UK for having "engaged in unacceptable behaviour by inciting hatred against a number of communities", and that "other church members could also be flagged and stopped if they tried to enter Britain". [101][102][103] An alliance of six UK religious groups (the Baptist Union of Great Britain, Evangelical Alliance UK, Faithworks, Methodist Church of Great Britain, United Reformed Church and Bible Society-funded thinktank Theos) made a joint statement on February 19, 2009 in support of the government's decision and condemning the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church saying, "We do not share [Westboro's] hatred of lesbian and gay people. We believe that God loves all, irrespective of sexual orientation, and we unreservedly stand against their message of hate toward those communities" This "Church" has been banned from our greatest allied country for its extreme intolerance of homosexuals, condemend by organizations of the multitudes in and of it's own specialty (religious practice), and it has caused an international uproar that has millions screaming against them. *pounds desk* This can be viewed as such a molested abuse of the First Amendment in such a degree, that it breaks the definition for it in a way that could not be concieved by the (highly-sane and intelligent) minds of our forefathers, who saw no possibility of the ignorance towards LGBT people! Not only does it reflect injustice at the right infringement, but it endangers our country to the degree that our own, most powerful ally in war and peace has banned the group! THIS ENDANGERS OUR COUNTRY IN MANY ASPECTS! Thier abused right should be revoked (or limited) based on this! My logic is undeniable. You wanted the danger? There it is. I fear that their intolerance of LGBT and verbal hate missles will incite actions against them, for they have already disgraced and endangered our relations with Britain! (Domestic tranquility! ) "He has given us no right to privacy or right to grieve. " I HAVE GIVEN YOU THE RIGHT! Amendment IX and X which you declared a new arguement! Goodness gracious, son, READ! !! Your points on Nazi's and Russains are irrelevant and biased. Communism is ran by the government and has different governmental values. If you wanted an accurate claim, you should have chosen a Capitalistic nation that limits speech, but you can not give examples of government with totally different framework and MO. Besides, I'm not saying to deny the entire country's right to free speech, just the WBC in this case. You state that denying the right to freedom of speech would not be worth the deaths of American servicemen and women. What of this speech by the WBC that denied the right to grieve (of which I have proven as a right)? Anyone, government or civilain, denying the right to grieve is not worthy of the deaths, especially the one the WBC protested and the other 44,000 they protested! The government protects unpopular speech, but the government does not allow and will not stand by as verbal assault tactics are enacted under the claim of free speech to pass boarders of rights so that they infringe upon each other with unrestrained tyrannical intent to monopolize all rights on the basis that one right has the supremecy to overlap another! This land and all it's rights are equal and it should not be admissable that these perpitraters endanger the saftey of others with hate words and steal rights away from others! They use this umbrella right to control other rights! They robbed this family of their right to grieve and the right to privacy, the last and only memory of their son. It is this influence that will not be allowed, and I stand firmly against it. And my opponent states "Rather than provide some proof, the Pro relies on the arguement that essentially, people didn't like what the WBC said, so it should be limited. " My proof is right here! The evidence you claimed invalid and so refuse to address. They verbally torture families, hand out flyers in advance like it's some sort of sick circus. Just because it cause an outrage and uproar isn't the main point why it should be banned, the point is that it is a hate attack on these dead soldiers and on living homosexuals, such as myself. They insulted my way of life by saying my having sex with other man is consequenting in unfortold atrocities of mass killings and death. Well guess what? I sucked myself a good d**** this morning and I guess a soldier died because of it, huh? (Scratch that last part) I conclude that my opponet is ignoring my evidence and points by claiming that they are invalid. He insults my intelligence by asserting I have "failed" to present evidence and refute. Have a nice day.