Resolved: Cities should deny Chick-Fil-A from expanding their franchise into their perimeter.

You brought up the way my response was organized a few times. Since most of what I wrote followed your outline, this just seems like an attempt to discredit my debate skills. I prefer that you focus on content. 'Inhibiting' Speech that "Inhibits Democracy" is "Justified"In my last resonse I noted that you didn't "bother to provide a definition". You did not respond, so I'll make an attempt. One definition of "democracy" is: "a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives." It seems that you have the idea that it's possible for someone to "inhibit democracy" by talking. I disagree with this premise. By definition, the real threat is not allowing people to have an "equal say", which is exactly what you're attempting. Q1 How does limiting free speech promote "democracy"?CFA's Stance is "detrimental"I asked you to "please provide some evidence of how exactly it "detriments" gays for some people to disagree with being gay". You failed to respond and still discuss it as fact."Authority" for OppressionYou wrote that CFA's position "compromises... democracy" thus "the authorizing body" has a "duty" to "cease the threat". I take issue with you clinging to "democracy" as a basis for encroaching on free speech. I imagine people in Russia or China using the exact argument to silence dissent. Censorship is the hallmark of oppression. Saying my argument is "unfounded" because it "doesn't look toward the Constitution" implies that freedom of speech is not universal and that we can't say what we want if we don't have approval from pieces of paper. Q2 Why do you think we need pieces of paper to say what we think?"When the words used are inherently oppressive"I don't think words can be "inherently oppressive". Words reveal what people are thinking and possibly intending to do. They can be hateful, rude and intimidating. But, in reality, words are just noises. They cannot oppress anyone. Look at the things Martin Luther King accomplished. He stood up to racist folk a few generations removed from slavery. If words can be "inherently oppressive", then MLK was certainly oppressed. I can only imagine the slurs and death threats. However, a cursory glance at history shows MLK was not oppressed, he was free. He used the power of logic, argument and truth. He responded with love, not censorship. Q3 If words are "inherently oppressive" how do you explain instances where people are not oppressed by hateful words?"When the certain someone is using them to destroy the rights of another" Q4 What "rights" are being "destroyed" by CFA?"Giving money" is worse than just "opposing"CFA is willing to put their money where their mouth is. They're just being consistent. Q5 Why is it ok for CFA to be "opposed" but such a huge offense when they donate money? Later on, you write that CFA's position causes "imminent harm" and has "destructive consequences". Q6 What "immenent harm" or "destructive consequences" are you referring to?"The ideology they help permutate physically and psychologically destroys the gay community"I don't think this can be supported by evidence. Gay people have faced opposition for thousands of years. Today, they appear to be doing better than ever before. BTW, permutate means "to arrange (items) in a different sequence". I think you meant to say "perpetuate". Q7 If the gay community is "destroyed" by "the ideology", why are they thriving despite centuries of it's use?"Banning Christians... just a red herring"You're free to think so. To me, it's just a logical extension of your position. You don't like what CFA says so you'll ban their stores. I just substituted different groups to show the implication of what you're supporting."Case 1"You wrote, "My opponent himself has stated that there are limitations" and said I was "vague" for not providing "a threshold as to where those limitations begin". To be clear, I said that freedom of speech can be limited by coercion or threat of coercion. There's a big difference. Just because something can be done doesn't mean that it should be done or that it has to be done or that we can't avoid doing it (inherent limitation). I also stated that unpopular speech needs to be protected and asked "Why should anyone be able to tell anyone else what noises they can and cannot allow to come out of their mouth?" You did not answer this question and, instead, you misrepresented my position. Either you did not understand what I was saying or you are trying to make it appear as if I support your argument. I don't."Case 2"You're trying to create a contradiction where there isn't one. Just because some people look down on gays, doesn't mean "there's nothing we can do", as you conclude. I never said that. I just don't think banning stores from opening is effective, fair or reasonable. To be more clear, I meant that it's unrealistic to expect to completely eliminate discrimination against gays. You've also created a false either/or scenario... 'either we ban CFA's stores or we "do nothing"'. There's plenty of more effective and interesting options as demonstrated by MLK in his own struggles against discrimination."Case 3"You wrote, "It's one thing to be able to say what you think and another to provide money so that others can't be able to do what they think". I think I've already dealt with the idea that saying something and donating money are so drastically different that it would allow you to ban stores and limit free speech. You again discuss limitations. I don't think there are "inherent limitations" to free speech. Humans can talk and think, therefore humans should have the freedom to say what they think. Also, in the interest of grammer, I don't think "can't be able to do" is proper English. You could have used "aren't able to do" or "won't be able to do" or "can't do" instead."Conclusion"You wrote, "This probably seemed to be a lackluster rebuttal". I can't help but agree. You've ignored a lot of what I wrote and distorted some key points as outlined above. You also call my rebuttal "more of a questionnaire filled with personal positions with no warrants rather than a rebuttal that knocked down anything I said". I ask questions because either a) I don't understand what you're saying b) I don't agree with a statement and I'm trying to understand why you said it or c) I'm trying to get the readers (and you) to think about what you're saying. The number of questions I asked has nothing to do with the validity of my rebuttal.Also, I'm not trying to knock down what you say and I apologize if it came across that way. I'm trying to use reason and logic to argue against your position. I don't think knocking down what others say is very nice and that would include the people over at CFA. I fully support your freedom to say what you think. That doesn't mean I'm going to agree.Finally, you wrote that "[my] questions seemed like things [you] already answered when [you] wrote the case". It may seem that way but you have not addressed a few of my questions in either of your posts. For example:a) To me it seems that millions of Christians hold the exact same stance. Why not, therefore, ban all businesses with Christian ties from opening? What makes Chick-Fil-A any different?b) How exactly does opposing same-sex marriage "exceeed the limitations of free speech"?c) Is Chick-Fil-A advocating any of these forms of discrimination (you mentioned)? d) Also, I wrote "in the end you want to take away someone else's ability to say what they think because you don't like what they have to say." I said that placed you in "opposition to freedom" and informed you that "I think that's a position of weakness". This is my key point and you have not responded to it at all. This leads me to ask: Q8 Why do you think it's more effective to use coercion (banning stores) instead of logic and reasoning or non-violent protest? Sources:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracydictionary.reference.com/browse/permutate