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

//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.// That's precisely what my entire entry explained. I gave you the whole link. Just read it, okay? // 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.// My Stanford link was in reaction to your argument that stated that this was a battle of our *feelings*. Alas, I have shown that the argument was a fully objective argument, backed by sources. Reply to it. //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.// I thought I explained how it is *not* government's duty to care, and that was provided with the example, which I noticed you didn't refute. So, here we stand again. //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... :)// I do go crazy over it. I do not support censorship, and I think my previous response explains my feelings well. So you *analysed* wrong. //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.// It has nothing to do with censorship. We are not removing child porn from television because it is sick for the eyes, Child porn is illegal. It does not call for censorship, it calls for arrest. //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?// *Censoring*- isn't fine. Don't twist my words to suit your objective. //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.// It is all right for the government to *restrict* the commercial to be played during cartoon time, because children are not ‘mature enough to decide who should run the country'. This was my argument, and arguments like these do not ask for generalization. Either respond to the whole argument or accept your defeat. // I'm kicking it. My opponent has no offense, just defense and seeing as I'm neg I will kick it.// That was a good argument, and if you do not respond to a argument, it means you have nothing to say. // 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.// How would they get troop positions? Enlist the scenerios, and I can respond. //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...)// I said government should not take away our fundamental rights. And I haven't conceded to anything. I have to say, this is a little irritating. Listen, when a person shouts FIRE in the middle of a road, everyone HAS to listen, they have no choice. When a program on tv comes up, People CHOOSE whether they want to watch the program or not. They have a time to react, to understand the content, and then chose what they feel is the best possible alternative. Restricting omething on Tv is restricting information, which is basically- *not confusing the public with the truth*. Or trying to. Which means These are two different arguments. //Nextly is a word see above^^. I suggest you do research before you spew false information.// Okay, this was a mistake, I concede. //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. // Making assumptions about me and making assumptions about the implications of some action are two very very different things. One is called presumption and the other is called analysing. It is pretty obvious what the government would do. The same is happening in China, who is monitoring all the information sources to control information exchange regarding the East world revolution. http://www.nytimes.com...) http://www.csmonitor.com... …Few people in China have even heard about the Middle East upheavals that started with Tunisia's so-called Jasmine Revolution last month. But the authorities are taking no chances here, clamping down before major protests are able to take shape…. // It is just not showing the people everything. // So if people don't know what the government is doing wrong, what would they get upset about? Let me explain it with a painfully close example. During Commonwealth games 2011 held in India, people here in India were angry about the sloppy way government was organizing the games. There were reactions with people all over the place, anger, marches, facebook updates, media reports that finally propelled the government to *work*. http://naomicanton.blogspot.com... http://www.lankanewspapers.com... http://www.bbc.co.uk... So if we are informed about the mishaps, then only we can work towards it/protest. //My opponent's argument here makes no sense.// Really? I should have thought it was pretty clear. What didn't you understand? //Just because not everything is shown doesn't mean that we can't still oppose the government.// Whaa??? Are you serious? // 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.// Of course. The bad actions, scams and corruption charges are stopped, and the news showing the government in positive light is highlighted. Information is restricted.