Snyder vs. Wesboro Baptist Church

I would like to begin by apologizing for the arguments I'm about to make. No one likes debating debate, but occasionally the technicalities matter. Debate can be defined as "A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition (1)." Debate is different from simple discussion because "[d]ebate is basically an argument where participants take a particular stand on a given topic and stick to it as they speak on it. Group discussion is a cooperative process in which members discuss a topic with a view to reach group consensus. You need to be very flexible in a group discussion. That is you consider others' points of view also. However, you need to have just one particular view point in a debate (2)." I bring this up because, although I haven't seen any "rules" on this site, debate, by its formalized nature, possesses certain inherent rule or guidelines. The particular rule I'd like to draw attention to is that no new arguments can be initiated in rebuttal speeches (3). This is only my second debate here, and I invite correction from the community if I'm wrong on this issue. Again, this is not the fun side of debate. My opponent has chosen the 3rd round to introduce the following arguments: "On the basis of "domestic tranquility", I stand in the Affirmitive of this resolution. The right to privacy is here, in the Bill of Rights: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Amendment IX "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Amendment X In this case, it is reserved for the people, particuarly Mr. Snyder." I respectfully ask the judging community to disregard any arguments along any of these lines, as the Pro failed to initiate these arguments during the constructive portion of the debate. Their introduction at this point is abusive to the Con. Now on to my opponent's arguments. My question for the Pro is "WHY?" The pro asserts that the Snyder case is one in which the freedom of speech should be limited or revoked. Why? On what basis should the government infringe upon the rights of its citizens? The Pro has failed to give us a standard that would justify the limiting of the freedom of speech in this case. The Pro has offered several Supreme court decisions that support the Con position, but has not presented one shred of evidence to support his claim that this is a case in which the freedom of speech should be limited. Therefore, according to the evidence offered by the Pro, you cannot vote in favor of limiting speech in this case. The pro asserts without evidence that the government has the right to limit speech in extreme cases such as war. Without evidence, this assertion is meaningless; however, I'll go ahead and give the Pro a hand here. The case he likely refers to that set the standard for the government's limitation of free speech on security grounds is Schenck v. United States, (1919). According to the Court, "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent (4)." For this argument to stand, the Pro would have to prove that the WBC's words constituted a "clear and present danger" to the United States. The Pro has failed in this burden, and by this and every other standard offered, the freedom of speech should not be infringed in this case. The Pro has stated that the issue in this debate is which we as a society should prioritize, the freedom of speech or the "right to privacy and to grieve." However, he has given us no right to privacy or right to grieve. He has not challenged my contention that freedom of speech is essential to a free society – in fact, he concurred, to wit: "I too support this, and the right to freedom of speech is irrefutable and undeniable." My opponent did attempt an answer in his new arguments which the con has previously rejected as abusive. However, I will answer to one point on the argument. The Pro states "The right to speech is not key to preservation of a society." I would have to agree, it is not essential to every society. The Nazi's nearly overran all of Europe without the freedom of speech. The Soviets had a pretty good run denying the freedom of speech. In fact, the bulk of historical societies existed with extremely limited speech. However, a FREE society cannot exist without the freedom of speech stringently safeguarded. Society will continue if we deny the freedom of speech, but it will not be a free society, and it will not be a society worthy of the deaths of American servicemen and women. My opponent also failed to answer my contention that the freedom of speech protects unpopular speech. This becomes critical because my opponent has failed to provide evidence to support his claim that this is a case that deserves the Court's intervention against the WBC's right to free speech. Rather than provide some proof, the Pro relies on the argument that essentially, people didn't like what the WBC said, so it should be limited. He relies on the inherent unpopularity of the message as his sole support for limiting the freedom of speech – it caused an international uproar and national outrage. This is precisely why it must be protected. In any lesser society, people do not possess the right to say what others don't want to hear. In our society, however, there have been many cases when the unpopular opinion emerged as the true one – such as the anti-slavery movement and the civil rights movement. And even if it is not correct, the idea still deserves its chance in the marketplace of ideas so that it may be exposed for the foolishness that we all believe it to be. My opponent has failed to present any reason why the freedom of speech should be limited in this case. He has failed to provide any affirmative case to vote for. Neither the right to privacy nor to grieve have been affirmed in this debate. Therefore, the only voting issue remaining is whether or not the freedom of speech should be limited. Since every single bit of evidence offered by the Pro supports the Con's case, since the Pro has failed to advance any standard that would negate the freedom of speech in this circumstance, since the pro has failed to refute my arguments with evidence or reason, as outlined in the Con's voting criterion, for all these reasons, you must vote Con. (1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (2) http://www.myengg.com... (3) http://facweb.eths.k12.il.us... (4)http://scholar.google.com...