Censorship Should be Abolished

I'm quite glad to get round 2 underway, and I hope that you all are enjoying the round so far. 1. The Freedom of Speech a. My opponent again presents us with a clear-cut contradiction; he claims that free speech ought to be unlimited because the Founding Fathers intended it to be so, but later states that "Hate speech should not be punishable unless i[t] incites law-breaking"; what my opponent fails to understand is that, by definition, hate speech IS the kind of bullying that my opponent seeks to eliminate; but the real contradiction, as I stated, is quite clear. He claims that freedom of speech ought to be entirely unlimited, yet later admits that some speech ought to be legally punishable. b. Another problem in my opponent's argument is that he's now trying to twist the resolution to fit his arguments; he is affirming the resolution as-is, that's the burden of the person presenting the claim; the resolution does not say "Most censorship should be abolished", merely that "Censorship should be abolished"; my opponent is, at this point, only affirming the resolution conditionally, if at all; he's trying to defend some sorts of censorship while condemning others, which is something that the resolution does not allow him to do; therefore, even if you believe all of my opponent's arguments, you'll still vote Con just because his arguments only cover one piece of the resolution. c. Just a bonus refutation I thought I'd add in here: While the Founding Fathers have the law disallowing abridgment of the freedom of speech, they also allowed constitutional amendments to be made to adapt the Constitution to future social conditions; therefore, the Founding Fathers also realized that the Constitution was something that would grow, change, and adapt as time passed so that it could meet the needs of society; today, we have a need for censorship of certain materials, and thus, social conditions must change accordingly. 2. Censoring censorship a. My opponent is missing the problem with his argument; he's admitting that we would essentially have to censor censorship in order to eliminate it; whether he agrees with it or not, this admission further fortifies that he has unintentionally given the round to Con. 3. Pornography and such a. My opponent is operating under a mindset similar to "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"; he's claiming that, because teenagers and children will be exposed to that material anyway, it ought to be made legal. The problem is, that legalizing these kinds of things sends the message that exposing young children and teenagers to this kind of material is acceptable, whereas I have shown that it is not; this is why we have 18, the age of majority, and 21, the drinking age; obviously, children don't share the same rights as legal adults, and this includes pornography, tobacco, etc. b. My opponent has ignored one of the key arguments I made last round, and has made a bit of a blunder; he claims that parents ought to watch the content being accessed by their children, but I stated last round that parental censorship is STILL censorship; my opponent is under the idea that the government is the only agent of censorship, but this is also done by parents, and even private organizations like the MPAA and ESRB (which have rights to censor material that they find to be harmful or inappropriate to minors, like Grand Theft Auto, for example); thus, my opponent is trying to infringe on the rights of not only parents, but private, self-regulating organizations. While Pro claims that I'm violating constitutional rights, my opponent is the one that clearly isn't in the 'right' here (pun intended). c. As far as making money off of these things is concerned, I still don't think that we ought to be allowing the exposure of children and adolescents to excessively violent, sexually explicit material for the sake of profit; maybe I'm crazy for wanting to protect our youth from these kinds of things, but perhaps that's just me. 4. Indecency laws a. "I don't advocated making public urination legal..." <--- Yes he does. He advocated in Round 1 that we ought to abolish indecency laws; now that I've explained what these laws cover, my opponent is trying to shift his position once again to fit his new argument, moving him farther and farther down the road of conditionality. b. While making something legal doesn't force people to do something, it's the fact that society is declaring this behavior to be acceptable that is the problem; to argue that legalization forces these things to happen is a bit of a misinterpretation of the point I was making in Round 1. c. It might not harm children physically (except for maybe accidents occurring with that whole public urination bit), but I'm referring more to the psychological harm; in the same way that a child is going to be upset if he/she walks in on the parents, seeing this behavior multiplied in public is only going to cause more psychological distress for a child; and, honestly, no one in society is going to want to see this take place; it's not necessarily a legal issue, but societies in general have rules of conduct, decency, and etiquette; in a way, prohibiting indecency is a sort of public censorship, and is, as I've said, to maintain the safety and civility of society for adults and children alike. d. I'd just like to point out my opponent's blatant appeal to nature: "masturbation and sex are completely normal, natural things," he says. The fallacy is clear here, but let me simply say, just because something is natural does not make it right or good, nor does it make it something that we ought to force society to accept by abolishing their right AS a society to regulate the kind of behavior that is acceptable in the public eye. This concludes Round 2, and I do hope that I've given my opponent plenty to chew on for the final round of this debate. So, it comes down to this so far: If you believe my opponent that the freedoms in the original Constitution are unlimited in all cases whatsoever (except for when Pro shifts his argument to dodge my refutations), then yes, vote Pro as I suggested in Round 1; however, if you believe in the necessity of protecting children and adolescents from inappropriate, explicit, harmful content, if you believe in the adaptability of the Constitution to serve public need, and if you believe in the censorship rights that belong to parents, private organizations, and society as a whole, then you know that you need to vote Con.