"Non-Americans Should Not Come Onto This Website and Give Opinions About George W. Bush."

My opponent has seemingly disregarded the resolution, which, to reiterate, is: <""This should be an American-only website, and non-Americans should not come onto this website and give opinions on "American issues," as defined by my opponent to be issues like George W. Bush.""> Instead of saying why this should be an American only site and why people on debate.org shouldn't come to this site and give their opinions on "American issues," my opponent decided to ramble about how Canadians unjustly complain about America. I'd like to ask him to do what he can to stick within the parameters of the debate, and actually give some reasons as to why non-Americans shouldn't be allowed on debate.org, and why the non-Americans that are currently on the site shouldn't give opinions on American issues. <"He claims G.W.B. is a bad pres. Even if this is so, what did he do that affected Canada so much?"> Ok. If it *is* so, then my complaint would be justified, no...? What I wanna know is...why is it relevant how much his choices affected Canada? Assume his choices didn't affect Canada -- why does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to criticize him? And lastly, why should speech be limited? Morally speaking, if where you live doesn't give you the freedom to speak your mind, then I don't see how it's "free." So please, assuming Bush didn't affect Canada, explain why Canadians should have limited speech because of decisions that were irrelevant to us. Why should something so irrelevant affect our freedoms? However, the U.S.A. and Canada are clearly involved in a mutually beneficial relationship, which is a point my opponent actually concedes, when says this: <"U.S. & Can. conduct the worlds largest bilateral trade relationship, we need eachother."> Right. Taking into account that both countries are, indeed, relevant to one another, why, then, shouldn't Canadians complain about the actions of Americans? <"The only bad thing I know about Canadians is that you say we are trashy people and that we are dirty. Like in NYC my grandfather met a Canadian and she started going off on how filthy we are and how much she dislikes us."> Wait, what? Your basis for claiming that Canadians think Americans are dirty is...one person? One person does not represent the majority -- an individual does not constitute a sufficient sample size. Further, my opponent then said this: <"I hate people that stereotype America."> ...so then why is it ok for you to do the same thing to Canadians? You can freely claim that Canadians all say America s-cks and that we think it's filthy, but that is nothing more than an absurd stereotype, which you seem to be so vehemently against. So, again, why is it acceptable for you to stereotype Canadians, but not for Canadians to stereotype Americans? A large part of my opponent's argument was...incoherent attacks against Canada, and, for whatever reason, France -- such as this: <"We do everything for Canada, God forbid you guys were ever under attack, because that would be on us. Anyways, let me state another country that is always there to b***h and complain but never does s**t. FRANCE! They always expect us to be perfect and to do this and to do that and that we do this wrong and we do that wrong, what do they do besides complain and hide? It must be convenient for them to complain about the war or G.W.B. and not do a thing about it. It has nothing to do with them."> Such an odd attack is...well, irrelevant. Most of what my opponent said is irrelevant to this debate, but this is just ridiculous. I'd again like to request that he stick within the parameters of this debate, and actually attempt to put forth some kind of reasoning to justify the resolution -- up to this point, he hasn't done so.