the U.S. should ban such talk as deneying the holocaust or supporting terrorism.

Ok, so first of all I would like to ask that people vote on better debating, not bias. Second, my arguments may not quite fit together very well or at times maybe even contradict, however my only job is to prove my opponent wrong, however I accomplish that. Also, I am a policy debater, and will use those type of tactics in this debate. I mean that in I will be arguing terminal impacts and net benefits.... With that, lets do this. So first and foremost in the actual debate, what we need to see is that I gave up my first speech to ask my opponent questions. She didn't really answer the first one directly, but I am going to assume that she does intend to mean that people would be locked up. My second question went unanswered however. I asked my opponent what benefit does free speech give us. She had no reply. I will go on to prove in these to specific instances that denying the holocaust or supporting terrorism will cause bad things to happen. So much that they outweigh any good that the pro can bring. "I simply believe that you can not make a belief illegal." and "If some one wants to vocally say that the terrorists were right and that we all deserve to die, unless he makes plans to carry out terrorist activities he/she can say what ever they want to who ever they want." I believe these to phrases by my opponent are the most incorrect, and are wrong on the same level. I also believe this to be my strongest point. She states that beliefs cannot be illegal, and that a terrorist can wish death upon us if he/she so chooses. However, what my opponent fails to see is that this is already illegal. This is verbal abuse and is punishable by law. When a person says something that puts the other person in danger of their life or health, that is verbal abuse and can be punished by law. I may believe that person B over there should die, but when I say to him, "Hey person B, you're a jerk and I'm going to kill you," that is illegal because I have threatened him and now they can lock me up. My opponent is arguing against safety. This is already law and most (if not all) people think that it is a good thing. My next argument deals with backlash. Post 9-11, there was a lot of backlash against arab-americans. Simply because they were of the same ethnicity as those who attacked us justified them being attacked back. If my opponent gets what she wants, and people start vocalizing how great the terrorists are, there will be massive backlash against them by those who despise terrorism, and the US will crawl into a quasi-civil war. If ethnicity started beatings, openly supporting surely will too. My opponent's resolution has an OR in it. Thus I only need to win one side of it to win the debate. My opponent states that people should be allowed to deny the holocaust if they so choose. This means anyone as the resolution was not limited to certain people. So now history teachers can start saying that the holocaust never happened. They will, as they should get fired, because they job is to teach history, not fabricate it. Less teachers = a bad thing. Secondly, if people are now allowed to stand up and lie about a very well documented incident that took place, what else can they lie about? When will this lying stop? The denial of the holocaust will open the door to more and more lying, soon the US will not know what its history is because someone will make something up about it. The rewriting of our history is one of the worst things that could happen to America. Thus, with safety being decreased on many levels, history being rewritten, and current and good laws being broken, my opponent argues for things that are far worse than any good she can bring.