School laws ought not to limit civil rights

My opponent has failed to ask my two questions I have asked in Round Two. Moving on to attacking his points. First he says that our society has a moral obligation to keep the peace. Many other societies have no peace because they don’t have the rights we have. I would like to remind you that I am valuing equality in this debate. Back during slavery times, blacks were not treated equal and that resulted in a war which is definitely not peace. The first amendment, limitless, provides us with equality. Blacks, whites, Jews, Atheists, anyone should have their rights carried out and undisturbed whether they are on school grounds or American soil. Equality keeps peace, so by providing all citizens with the right to a limitless freedom of speech we are technically upholding our moral obligation to keep peace. Second, my opponent mentions that schools have a duty to educate. Yes, they do. But, just because their duty is to educate, does not give them the right to limit our rights that are unlimited in society. The limit of our rights is where the right ends in writing, not where we determine it in the right. In other words, if we have the right to speak our opinion but not to protest on public property and that is written in documents, then we still have the right to state our opinion , and that cannot be limited(unless of course in writing). My opponent has found a written quote from Justice Holmes, that sums up to say that if what you say or said is obviously posing danger, we have to punish it. Did I ever say that the only way to express your opinion is through violence or threats? An opinion is expressed many ways. And I agree with the fact that threats should be taken seriously for the only reason that threats do not apply to problem on hand, we are dealing with opinions and threats do not fall under the umbrella of opinions. I should, on or off school property, have the right to say “Obama is a bad president” and not be punished because it is merely an opinion and I am not posing a threat to anyone or Obama. But punishment should occur, I agree, when I say “I will shoot Obama”. That is a threat verse an opinion. Third, my opponent used the example of begging at the car dealership for a very expensive car. And that he would most likely be thrown in jail over receiving what he wanted. I would like to tell my opponent that there is a dramatic difference between begging for a material object and begging, and rather fighting, for a right. We all know that women were the underdog of society. We couldn’t vote, own property, etc. But if you look at all the Female role models that took a beating for us women to have the rights we have today, they begged and they struggled and they got what they wanted, although it took awhile. And my opponent uses the word “annoying”, which inaccurate, because begging for your rights is not annoying it’s a moral obligation to keep yourself and society happy. Although the government thought that these women fighting for their rights by protest and using their voice was quite annoying, they did not give them their rights imply because they felt that they were getting to annoying, they gave it to them because they fought with valid reasons and fair expectations that did not put a negative impact on society. So my opponent should know that there is a major difference between “begging” for an object verse fighting for a right. Fourth, my opponent said “your limits are my limits”. So if your limit out in public is that, by the first amendment, you have the right to state your opinion on something but you are not allowed to protest that point on private property, then that must mean that I am allowed to state my opinion on anything on school grounds and they can’t do anything about it as long as I am not protesting it on private property. And to clarify ahead of time, you can state your opinion without protest or violence. I am merely supporting the full limitless right to freedom of speech for myself and my fellow students. I am not supporting full limitless right to violence and threat for myself and my fellow students. Stating an opinion, school or not, should be a non-punishable act. Violently threatening someone or a group of people to say your opinion, should be punishable and I believe this because it cannot be used against be in this debate because we are discussing the right of expressing an opinion not threat. I feel that these point prove the affirmative to win this case.