Res- Governments ought to have the right to regulate the media in order to protect national security

During this round, there have been a lot of arguments presented, but now I would like to really break down why governments ought to have to right to regulate the media. Therefore, I have set up the following reasons of why you should vote for me in this round. 1. The resolution says ought to have the right. -Within this debate, you have to see is that all I have to prove is that the government OUGHT to have the right. There is nothing else that I have to prove, and I have proven that with all of the examples I have such as the when and where we attack another nation, the world ending, and the lack of leadership within a government. 2. My question in my last speech went unanswered. -In my last speech I asked my opponent to answer a very simple question. I asked that if we were planning to invade a nation and the media found out when and where, would you let them leak the information or would you regulate them? This question was quite simple, yet my opponent never replied to it. Also, don't let him "kind of" answer this within the next speech because I would then have no chance to reply. Basically, what you have to see is that OBVIOUSLY you would tell them not to report this because the effect of them reporting it (and having their freedom of the press) would be outweighed by the enemy getting this information (and losing their freedom to life). In other words, you HAVE to see that these regulations ARE for national security, something that is a little more important than freedom to the press. If you vote for me on anything, vote for that. 3. His big argument is only that governments have corruption. -Through out this round, his major argument has been that governments have too much corruption. For the following reason, don't buy this over my side... I. Media corruption is not as risky as the government regulations. -Sure, I admit that the government could go overboard with this regulation right, HOWEVER, the media will DEFINATLY go overboard with their right to report EVERYTHING they discover from the government. Its the same reason why there are five security levels in the government (which went unargued) and is similar to why they can't show pornography and swear on their reports. These regulation remove peoples right to the press, but yet these small regulations support the society's best interest, within this resolution, I am only extending that right to protect the most important thing we have, our national security. II. Even a corrupt government will protect national security with regulations. -What you have to see is that even the most corrupt government can be successful in protecting their nation, however, a nation without the right to regulate the media, then becomes incapable of doing this. Still though, a government would never be stupid enough not to keep certain things a secret, such as where and when we are invading a nation, or when the world will end. Which brings me to my final reason to vote for me. (This is simply a response to where he asked me to prove why the everything would crash if the world was to know of its doom date). 4. No one would want to do any more work if the world were to end. -I guess I assumed too much when I said that everything would crash. I assumed that if people were to know that they would be dead in 6 months, that they would stop going to school and work, and would only begin caring about number 1 , them self... and with no one working or AT LEAST not very many people working, there would be nothing to support anything. The economy as we know it would be gone and everyone would only become interested in their own interest which would mean the "crashing of everything." -In the end, you vote for all of the previous reasons. Also if you look to ALL of my examples, none of them are things that wouldn't be released in the media eventually. It just so happens that knowledge at the wrong time is when it is truly, deadly power. Therefore, certain information should be regulated at least until it is a more appropriate time. It would be ridiculous to say that the freedom of the press ought to be valued about national security in any manner. Therefore, you vote Pro. -Thank You for this GREAT round. I hope we can debate another time. Until then, good luck on you final speech and thank you.