In a democracy, government should not try to censor/edit/restrict the Tv content...

First off I will touch on the word "nextly". My opponent claims it it not a word yet he has failed to do even the slightest bit of research. Nextly is defined as " Immediately following in time or order; "next in line"; "the next president"; "the next item on the list""[1] On 1) First off you failed to provided any examples of rights that cannot be taken away as well as ignoring the fact that the government's job is to protect the people and if information is released that is dangerous it IS inside the government's duty to censor it. Thusly, this must be extended. Also, it still is your word against mine, you provided a link to Stanford as well as saying that we have rights that cannot be taken away has not proved your argument that we are "too young". (And caring can mean protecting the citizens which, as I have already shown, is inside the government's jurisdiction.) So it still is your word against mine. ////" Nothing more, nothing less and there is no reason to vote on this."// I would really appreciate it if you let voters decide that.// I am providing a voting issue.... ////"How does it say "I'm better than you ignorant people..."?"// By monitoring the content displayed on the television, it is taking away the remote from our hands. What else is it saying?// hmmmmm it could still be saying that we care about your safety, that this is detrimental, that this is dangerous ect.. you have proved nothing here. //That is a form of censorship yet you, being so for freedom of speech, have no outrage over that. That sounds somewhat hypocritical to me.// \\Why would you automatically assume I'm up for censorship? "Censorship is nothing but a tool for people with no life of their own to try and exercise control over others, just because they don't have control over their own." This is my view on censorship, and from no angle does it even seem that I am not against censorship. I honestly don't know where this came from; just try to refrain from all this, it can cost you points. Just saying.\ I never said you were "up for censorship" I was merely saying that you encounter censorship everyday yet you, most likely, don't go crazy about it. How can it cost me points to a) analyze how you would respond to other situations of censorship and b) make an argument around them? You saying that makes it seem that you don't want to argue about it... :) Here we get to the fun part. //Defending\ On my 1: "I ask this in all seriousness- What the hell?" Kudos, you can ask a question. "Child porn is banned because it is wrong. The same way rape, murder, and all the other things are illegal. It is IMMORAL. And ILLEGAL. Showing it on television is a proof that it happened, and the perpetrators are liable to be arrested. This has nothing to do with censorship, the very fact that it happened is wrong. So my answer to your *choice* is that, *censoring* child porn is not bad, *child porn* is bad." It has everything to do with censorship. If you look to my definition of censor and restrict, which you accepted, expurgate means to remove thus we are removing child porn from TV and in that respect it is in the resolution AND we are confining what is legal in porn by not allowing footage of minors to be made or distributed and thus it fits in the resolution there as well. So your argument that it doesn't fit makes no sense at all. "So my answer to your *choice* is that, *censoring* child porn is not bad, *child porn* is bad." So the actual censoring of it is fine? That contradicts your argument that censorship is bad. How can you say that censorship is bad and then, in the next round, say it isn't? "The government can ensure the timings of the advertisement should not coincide with the cartoon time. " The problem with this is that it falls exactly in the definition of restrict which is to confine or keep within limits. In essence what my opponent just said is that it is okay for the government to not allow the commercial to be played at X time which is confining it as well as keeping it within limits. So my opponent just said that it is ok for the government to restrict a commercial thus going against his advocacy. On my 3: I'm kicking it. My opponent has no offense, just defense and seeing as I'm neg I will kick it. On my 4: There are other ways to get troop positions other than physically going to the base. If people were to get troop positions then censorship would be necessary. "so they wouldn't be willing to disclose it, would they?" we have no way of knowing for certain. So the argument about them not even disclosing it has absolutely no warrants and thus my argument still stands. On my 5: "Oh God. I had to read this point 5 times to understand its relevance to the debate, and I still don't get it. Nowhere have I said that making things illegal is wrong. It IS the job of government to ensure smooth running of the country, and public safety. What has this to do with censorship? I'm sure people would vote Con for this one. (note: sarcasm)" Congratulations on not being able to understand a simply argument about why restricting liberties is beneficial. It is true that you didn't say making things illegal is wrong but you previously said that the government can't take away our rights which is what it is doing here. It is taking away our freedom of speech which is saving peoples lives thus showing that your argument that the government can't take away rights doesn't work. Here you have conceded that this form of censorship is good for public safety. I'm sorry if you cannot understand a basic argument but that is not my fault. (You probably should use sarcasm, it can cost you points.)(See what I did there? I took your saying from earlier...) Nextly is a word see above^^. I suggest you do research before you spew false information. // If the government is allowed to censor television content, it would undoubtedly try to censor the reports that show it in a bad light, like failed schemes, corruption charges, and reports that reveal its shortcomings. This will directly contradict the main advantage of a democracy which states that people have the power to oppose the present government and force it to work efficienly. Because if you restrict the freedom of media, you stop the free information flow to the people, which will of course undermine democracy.// Here a few problems arise. 1) There are no warrants in this, he is just saying what the government will do which is making an assumption. (Keep in mind my opponent was so pissed at me for making an assumption) But even if we assume that they will censor other stuff, that isn't stopping people from opposing the government. It is just not showing the people everything. My opponent's argument here makes no sense. Just because not everything is shown doesn't mean that we can't still oppose the government. That last sentence is not true at all. Restrict is to keep with in limits, not stop. The flow of information is still available via other sources so the argument here doesn't work at all. Kudos on a bad contention. Another thing, you shouldn't bring new contentions up late in the debate, you may loose points... [1] http://www.websters-dictionary-online.net...