Freedom of Speech Is Superior to Freedom of Assembly

On my opponent"s case, I will hit each of his or her arguments in chronological order. I am happy to see that my opponent has utilized my definitions. However, you cannot just rally. You must rally to achieve a common goal. What offer would force someone to rally to achieve a common goal? One example my opponent gave was when you are watching television. He or she says that people are forced to unwillingly rally when watching an indecent broadcast. However, there is no common goal that needs to be achieved in mind when turning on your television. Therefore, my opponent"s argument about unwillingly rallying in front of a media device is invalid. My opponent"s link on their second article is a logical fallacy called slippery slope. A slippery slope fallacy is, "Asserting that if we allow A to happen, then Z will consequently happen too, therefore A should not happen. " In this case it would be is asserting that if we allow the freedom of speech to remain superior to the freedom of assembly, then *insert all of my opponent"s impacts here* will consequently happen too, therefore allowing free speech to remain superior to assembly should not happen. While this is not a valid reasoning for their argument to be wrong, I would just like to point out that my opponent"s argument for their second source is a fallacious argument. Moving on to the real argument, my opponent says the impacts of this heightened free speech are affecting how people assemble. However, my opponent isn"t showing that it prevents people from assembling peacefully. While they provide that the indecency and such on television leads to men acting negatively towards men, they do not prove that this is affecting their ability to assemble peacefully. My opponent has completely disregarded my argument on their third article. I stated that stalking/harassment does not impede on an individual"s right to rally to achieve a common goal. Nor are they being forced to rally to achieve a common goal. While stalking is completely illegal in other aspects, it does not lead to the right of free speech being held over the right to assemble. Finally, I have come to the fourth article. I did not mean for the rehash statement to be taken in bad light. I simple did not feel it was necessary to repeat what I have said continuously in the last three paragraphs. The problem with my opponent"s argument here is the link in their third bullet point. They state that property rights are a form of the right to assemble. Again I will pose the notorious question, how do property rights affect an individual"s right to rally for a common purpose? As my opponent has dropped my final definition question of their use of the Islamofacists, it looks like we must assume that my point was correct from the previous round. My opponent"s final statement did not refute my idea that the right to free speech and the right to assemble were exponential. They simply state that, ""speech can be used to harass others into assembling without consent. " However, I have proved that in no way speech can be used in this way when you utilize the correct definition of assemble. The voting issues for the round go like this: 1. I proved that my opponent was not using the correct definition of assemble. Under the correct definition, stalking, harassment, watching TV, or property rights do not have anything to do with the right to assemble 2. I must win this debate because I have defeated all of my opponent"s arguments and I have shown that the relationship between the right to free speech and the right to assemble is exponential in the status quo (utilizing my new format of the resolution).