All politics propaganda should be banned

Rebuttals: It seems that instead of actually providing any actual "evidence", Pro is again referring to personal opinion in round two. Having some friends in Russia that *may* have a negative impression of the U.S again doesn't constitute as objective proof of anything, as does a CNN video highlighting that Russia has introduced a new "high tech" battle tank. Rather as a media outlet is is simply covering international news. Additionally, I know full well that the 9th of May parade [and the entire day itself] is very significant to the Russian people--but this still doesn't show exactly how the media exclusively promotes political "propaganda". Obviously Russian media is going to place more emphasis on the 9th of May as it has considerably more historical importance to them than it does the U.S; which is hence why American media coverage of the event was likely more limited. It's evident that Pro has a rather exaggerated view of the term "propaganda" and is therefore applying it to every media scenario where he/she thinks there's been biased coverage or not enough effort to include certain information. Regarding Pros second point, once again there is literally no evidence or alternative sources displayed to support their assertion--and they are relying only their own individual views and how they interpret things. Whereas in round one I argued in detail about how expansive the television generally is and how televised news is an absolute requirement for many people, especially those who are older. Pro has essentially dropped my case and ignored the vast majority of my points. Additionally, they haven't presented any explanation for how this "ban" on propaganda is to come about. There's also the very large question of what is to be considered "propaganda" and what is not. Two countries [I.E Russia and the U.S] simply reporting on each other doesn't exactly classify as propaganda at all and rather comes under the basic category of "news". Such a thing would heavily undermine "freedom of speech" as it would dictate to what media outlets can and cannot show. And I will point out again to Pro that what constitutes as propaganda could become extremely sketchy, and anything about another country--regardless of how the content, could be treated as biased information. An example here would be the Greek economy, any international outlet could be accused of promoting "propaganda" when covering it. Some people could see it as being too much in favour of Greece and its decisions, and others could obviously see it as vice-versa. So "defining" what the boundaries are would be a huge task, and is a key thing that Pro has entirely left out from their argument. To conclude my case for round two, Pro admits they have "failed" on the basis that this is their first debate--which is acknowledged. I will reiterate that as the Pro, they are required to present an objective argument and support their contentions with sources, which so far they have not done. It's their task to show how a ban on what is basically just news coverage is Going by what Pro has already argued, potentially anything about another country could be exploited and lableled as propaganda, thus making information become wholly limited.