Internet Censorship

I will refrain from asking questions as this is the last round of the debate and my opponent will have no means of answering them. "Internet Censorship hinders our ability to speak the truth, [and our ability to] organize [either] against or for the truth."This statement is both true and untrue. I say it is true because it may prevent us from either posting or reading something that may not be approved by the filtering systems that may be implemented (hypothetically). However, I say this is untrue because the internet is not our only means of spreading the truth. I believe a quote you used was, "The First Amendment's Freedom of the Press Clause has been extended to media including newspapers, books, plays, movies, and video games." This statement, specifically used in your initial argument, shows that we spread truth and the ability to organize either against of for the truth through mediums other than the internet.My opponent gives a hypothetical situation and states that this situation "limits our Freedom of Speech."However, this situation of government secrecy does not limit our Freedom of Speech. If the goveernment lied to us, regardless of if we realized it was a blatant lie or not, would we not still have our rights to Free Speech against or for what the government has told us? We would, indeed, still have the rights to Free Speech whether we are speaking for/against the truth, for/against what we believe to be the truth, or for/against what we know to be a lie. "They don't protest... This limits our First Amendment." When following a quote about China, you cannot refer to America's First Amendment as it only applies to America, not China. Also, our First Amendment is not limited, it is our rights that (according to you) are limited. The First Amendment has not been changed or altered, meaning it has not been limited."Internet censorship is both [a human rights abuse and a disguise for human rights abuse]"Note that I am not changing the meaning of his argument, but clarifying what it means. By saying that Internet censorship is both a human rights abuse and a disguise for human rights abuse is saying that an apple is a fruit and a disguise for a fruit. It cannot be a fruit and be a disguise for a fruit, and it cannot be a disguise for a fruit and be a fruit. I would like to note that this argument by my opponent that it is both a human rights abuse and a disguise for such be taken into consideration as one "fact" has to in fact be false, negating a chunk of their argument either way."Taking away rights for some so that everybody is on the same level cannot be considered human rights." I would like to point out that in my argument, I did not state that taking away rights was considered human rights. I pointed out that, in his example of slavery, slaves were not seen as human, therefore undeserving of human rights. My opponent has failed to counter this argument but instead has danced around the subject, in a confusing manner, I might add."Women's Suffrage can be considered humans' rights because it does not limit the rights of man."So under this, you have stated that humans are only granted rights when they do not limit others' human rights. This would negate another section of your argument that everyone is entitled to human rights as you have just set a limit onto when a human gets their rights.Summing up another argument by my opponent, if there is no Constitutional right, there are still human rights that are abused.Because you have set a limit on human rights (saying one deserves them only if it does not strip anothers' rights), I will have no idea of whether or not you consider these people to have human rights. Extending on the limitations, do we take away the rights of a felon, even for a minor crime like harrassment due to their infringing someone else's rights?I would also like to note that Human Rights has not been defined by my opponent throughout this whole argument. I, as the contender, not the creator of this debate, had to set the terms under which we are debating."I support a parent's right to censor their child... and receive all of their rights... right to choose..."This would infer that you suggest that internet censorship DOES apply for people under the age of 18, in which they "receive all their rights." You have stated that all humans have their human rights, but in this quote, you stated that they receive their rights at the age of 18.In conclusion, before I run out of characters, I have negated majority, if not all of my opponent's arguments while he has failed to do so to my arguments. I would also like to show that I have pointed out flaws in his argument and flaws in his logic. So, if my opponent wants a vote based on logic, then I may have to apologize to him.Thanks for the debate!