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

The order will be refutations, and an overview. //Refutations\On the Stanford link: My opponent's original argument was "When a government tries to regulate Television programs it deems unsuitable to be watched by the masses, basically it gives the following message: You are old enough to decide who should run your country, but not old enough to decide what to watch on television." To this I said that there is no evidence to back this claim up which is true. If you actually go to the Stanford link, the sections are Citizen's rights, Federalism, Seperation of Powers, Executive power, What is democracy, The global spread of Democracy, Participation, Rule of law and Due Process of law. Nowhere in there does it say anything about us being "too young". At the point where my opponent provides no evidence for that claim it becomes his word vs mine. The first section on here is the only thing he talked about and even that is incorrect. It says that everyone ha rights that are respected everywhere such as the right to have their own beliefs and say/write what they think but this is just not true. Not everywhere is this recognized and in no way does it talk about his original argument about being "too young". //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.// It is the government's duty to care about your safety seeing as the government must protect it's citizens which I have proved numerous times and has gone unrefuted. //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.// My definition of censor and restrict were agreed upon and as I explained, child porn does fit within those definitions. You have made no attempt to refute that, just say it's illegal. Under my definition of censor, making something illegal is still topical and thus my child porn argument stands. //*Censoring*- isn't fine. Don't twist my words to suit your objective.// You said right here "*censoring* child porn is not bad, *child porn* is bad" thus showing that censoring it is not bad. You wrote this in your speech! //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.// What? The resolution says that "In a democracy, government should not try to censor/edit/restrict the Tv content..." yet here you said that it is all right for the government to restrict the commercial. This is contradictory to your advocation. About "not ‘mature enough to decide who should run the country'" Where does this fit? I'm not arguing that kids should be able to run the country. //That was a good argument, and if you do not respond to a argument, it means you have nothing to say.// I kicked it because it didn't work and you proved that my assumption was incorrect. My argument about bomb plans does not work and I admit that. //How would they get troop positions? Enlist the scenerios, and I can respond.// Ok, 1)Go to a place that houses the military computer server and get the info there. 2)Go to a headquatars that is not at the battlefield. Do I need to provide more examples? You have not refuted this at all. Troop positions are planed out before an invasion takes place. You assuming that the only way to know where they are is by going to the front lines is just false. //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.// I have shown that censoring our right to say certain things saves lives and you never negated this. Also this directly contradicts your Stanford link which says that the rights are honored everywhere which is not true. I'm sorry if I irritated you but I was responding to your OH MY GOD! argument. //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.// Fair enough. You have disproven this. //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.// I am aware that they are two different things but they are both assumptions. It's pretty obvious? Just saying that proves nothing. I could say it's pretty obvious they wont. And the comparison to China, the US and China are two entirely different countries. You are comparing apples and oranges. About the NYT and CSmon links, those are about China. I never said China wasn't censoring information, I said you have no evidence that the US will which is still true. Here it is, again, your word vs mine. //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*.// Well the problem with the resolution is that you only talk about censoring TV. There are other ways to get information so even if we assume that the government will cover up everything on TV, the resolution takes no stand on the internet, newspapers, radio ect.. so the people can still hear about what the government is doing. Also, wrong is all subjective. Not everyone will think X action is wrong. //Whaa??? Are you serious?// Let's say I killed a women with a baby in her womb but you only knew I killed a women, not that she was pregnant. You could sill oppose me killing her even if you didn't know the whole truth. Your argument here does not work. //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.// Only on TV. The resolution is talking about TV and thus you cannot make assumptions on what will happen with other outlets. //Overview\My argument about explicit commercials for kids still stands seeing as my opponent said that the government has the right to restrict it which is contradicting his advocacy. My argument regarding child porn still stands seeing as, according to the definitions which my opponent accepted, illegality can still fit and child porn is censored. My third argument did not work and my opponent beat it. My fourth argument still stands and my opponent has done minimal work on it. My fifth argument still stands and my opponent seemed to not know what I was arguing. Conversely, my opponent's main argument that the government is deeming us "too young" has not been defended and most if not all of his arguments are either his word vs mine or have been proven wrong and thusly, I urge a Con ballot.