The USFG should have the power to limit citizens freedom of protest if it weakens our military power

On the first point to clarify what was said, I was saying that you dropped the value criterion from my first speech "So I affirm this topic with the values of utilitarianism though the criterion of protection" and then was showing how my newest contention linked to my value. But the fact that you dropped my value criterion still stands. Then on the debate over the first contention Well my opponent basically conceded that we shouldn't debate over it so I see no point in debating it further My second contention The pirate Well first to make things easier group "the pirate" and "the Uncle Sam" because they kind of work together. Next my opponent argues that people join the military to protect people's rights while this maybe true I have 2 arguments to defend against this. One because of the fact that there will be more pro-war propaganda (which I will defend below) people can be made to think they are protecting people. 2 people also join the military to help other people and defend their rights as I will get to in "the boar". Then my opponent argues that this will weaken our military but I again have 2 arguments to defend this. 1 as I said above that the plan will not lower people's moral. 2 because the fact less people will think the war is bad their will be an increased number of people serving in the military. Thus because more people are in the military the US military power will be increased Now to defend the Sam part. My opponent breaks it down into arguments about more pro-war and anti-war so I will do the same. More pro-war First off I would like to clarify that when I clarified the resolution in the first round by saying freedom of speech I was including the freedom of press as well as petition so what my opponent says has no point. Then my opponent claims that it is hypocritical but again I have two answers to this. 1 first this will not be seen as hypocritical because US propaganda will prevent it from being seen this way and because no will say that it is because it is against the law. 2 as long as there is a justification behind it there is nothing hypocritical about it. Less anti-war This point is based off the fact that people get their ideas from other people and because there will be less protest and less anti-war news on the TV then less people will think this way. Look in my second round when I say that one of the driving force behind protest during Vietnam was the fact that there was anti-war news on TV, meaning that if there is no anti-war news then less people think badly of the war. then secondly because of pro-war propaganda people will be more likely to support the war thus turning your argument. Now of each point 1.Because of the limit on speech there will be no communication against the war 2.As I said above government propaganda will make people support the war 3.Cross apply what I said in point one 4.Cross apply what I said in point 2 The boar Well most of the stuff I going to use to defend against this I have stated above. First as I state when I defend the pirate that this will not make our military weak it will make it stronger. And secondly opponent claims that it is hypocritical to take rights away to give others rights, but as I stated in my last round that we only give up our rights for a short time but we give the ones we help rights for ever thus justifying these actions Last contention This just shows more benefits of US military strength so if you don't buy what I said in the boar you will buy the fact that the US hegemony leads to a better world.