'The Interview' is a disgusting film and should be banned

______________________________________In this, my final round, I will summarise the themes and directions of the debate, repudiate my opponents arguments, expound upon my own and finally leave my opponent and the audience with absolutely no doubt that 'The Interview' ought not be banned. Debate summaries: Pro Position: That because the movie is offensive to the North Korean government, it should be censored. In addition, the film is likely to cause an elevation in the risk of global conflict, and for that reason, the movie ought not be shown. My position:The North Korean government is substantially more offensive than the film portraying it. Any person or group of people who threaten violence in response to nothing more than a movie are bullies and terrorists and we should not submit ourselves to their dictate, as their people are forced to by famine and violence. Criticism of authority and freedom of speech are rights which are not afforded to the North Korean people, and we should exercise our rights on their behalf, by proxy. Refutations:- "The purpose of this debate was for me to prove my point that 'The Interview' is morally wrong and could lead to genuine consequences for the USA and other Western countries while your goal is to try to prove that it serves a noble purpose on this planet, but all you've spouted thus far is drivel regarding North Korea and how they're the most manically evil nation ever spat out onto this Earth. " Here, Frank is using 'flail' and 'tail whip' in an awkward attempt to invalidate my arguments instead of refuting them. Of course, the action that he says I am obligated to undertake in order to win the debate is exactly what he says I've done by describing how they are essentially a maniac state. To be fair, I then went further to discuss why the movie is important in addressing this. I won't repeat myself here but I was very clear on this point. - I did not say that the crimes committed by the US aren't comparable. I said that just because the US commits crimes, that serves as no validation for the crimes committed by NK. I described this as the Tu Quoque fallacy and gave you a reference to the definition and explanation. - You go on to conflate the actions of the U. S. government and Sony as if they were in the same league. Note that Sony does not represent the American government. On the other hand, the NK government is a state entity. See the difference? If this had come out of the Foreign Secretary's office, you'd have the ghost of a point. But even then, only a ghost. As it stands a private company not in any way elected or representative made a film; this has nothing to do with American bombing etc, it was a private company, not the government. - Why are you only having a go at Sony about DPRK? How about DICE for developing Battlefield where you fight and destroy the Chinese and the Russians? How about James Bond movies and books for portraying Russia as the perpetual bad guy (set during the Cold War, an era of paranoia about Russia and the East, in the same way that we now live in fear of NK? ). Why not chastise the producers of Tropic Thunder for the production of an anti-Viet Kong film? - Again, you bring up revenge. Revenge is not a feature, theme nor motif of the film, nor my any of my arguments. We now breach the core point of your arguments, summed up in this quote, which is representative of your case:"It's not offending North Korea that we should be concerned about though, it's what they do in reply to the offence that should be our primary worry. " Your case is patently absurd. Should we not tell the church to stop raping children to avoid stepping on toes? Were we egregiously insulting Hitler by telling him that the slaughter of millions of people and bringing the planet's resources to its knees was immoral? Should we abstain from upsetting the feelings of people like Mussolini, Stalin, bin Laden, Gaddafi? Where we are told that we should forfeit our rights and freedoms in the face of violence, that is the time for defence, for intervention, for speaking louder and shouting longer. It is the time not to cower behind a wall of political correctness but to make the atmosphere burn the colour of resistance. Where we model robust and steadfast morality in the face of threats of intimidation and force, we must remain resolute and united. That is why the movie is important, regardless of the quality of the jokes or the specifics of the content. In Summary:You have suggested that the banning of the film is necessary to effect meaningful multi- and polylateral discussions. I say that where any such new friendship is formed on the basis of restrictions of the most basic of rights, then substantial edits need to be made to the conditions of discussion. Cultural sensitivity is one thing. Bullying a civilian company and explicitly threatening the deaths of civilians is another. We must not allow the game to be played in this way. A movie is a movie, and this one may be seen as offensive to the NK government. That's too bad. The actions that they threaten as a result should not shunt the West into a position of kneeling prostration. It's time for the government of the DPRK to grow up.