Marilyn Manson should not be banned in any part of the United States.

I'll accept, but I'd like to clarify the burden of proof. There isn't really any way for me to even have a burden of proof in this round let alone fullfill one simply because I'm not presenting a statement and holding it to be true, Pro is. However, I'm not suggesting that pro fulfill a burden of proof in the round. It would seem that attempting to uphold a burden of proof will simply lead to trivial nitpicking in this specific debate, and so I propose that neither side attempt to fulfill a burden of proof. We simply both provide valid reasons supporting our side and the audience votes for the one who provides the best reasoning, not on whether or not someone provided sufficient proof.

I'm assuming everyone's clear on what banning is? I think it's too simple to provide definitions for it :P

Don't worry about specific cases. Although they're used as evidence, debates are normally better when you focus on the justifications behind the actions rather than the actions themselves, as you're doing :)

I guess we should have defined ban after all, I had no idea that the word "ban" implied legal action... However, I guess we can just define it now and debate over it in the rebuttals/last round.
Ban: (tr) to prohibit, esp officially, from action, display, entrance, sale, etc.; forbid; to ban a book[1]
I will not be focusing on legal practices, but rather justifications behind the act of banning the musical works of Marilyn Manson.

Contention 1: Households in the United States
subpoint a.) Raising a child.
When raising a child, a parent may feel that the lyrical content of Marylin Manson would be inappropriate for their children. As parents, they hold the right to bar this music from being played in their household. As this househould would be inside the United States of America's borders, a parent's right to ban music in the household disproves the resolution.
Subpoint b.) Scaring Children.
This somewhat deals with subpoint a. I am personally a fan of Marilyn Manson, and as such I've seen a good number of his music videos. Although I personally enjoy them, I remember a time when I was younger that I would be scared by creepy images on the television or computer. Marilyn Manson videos can certainly be included in the things that can scare a young child [2, 3, 4]. Just like a parent can block certain television shows to keep this "scary" content from their children (at least so they can get to sleep at night without being plagued by nighmares:P), they have a right to ban these videos in the household. As this household is in the US, the resolution is negated.

Contention 2: Places of Business in the United States
The evidence for this section comes partly from my own work experience. I'm currently employed at a roller rink that plays music during work area to help keep the customers entertained. However, we get customers that range from grown adults to toddlers. Because of this, we can't play music that can be found as innapropriate to certain age groups or risk losing business. Therefore, there are certain musicians and songs (like mack city :P) that we ban. This includes profane singing and screaming that could either introduce small children to new curse words or scare the children, respectively. Marilyn Manson songs contain both of these [2, 3, 4], and so our boss has banned them from the playlist. Because she has a right to ban these songs, and the workplace is in the US, the resolution is negated.

I anxiously await rebuttals from my opponent :)

Works Cited:
1.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;
2.(first video)
3.(second video)
4.(third video) ;

Thanks for your response, TheOrator! It seems, however, that we’ve taken on very different interpretations of what exactly is up for debate. My argument was targeted more toward legal bans—such as those created in certain cities and states in the United States. I am arguing against such bans being created to prevent bands like Marilyn Manson from playing concerts based on unverified reasons. My opponent has taken a bit of a different approach, so hopefully we will be able to merge the two together as we rebut and present additional points.

Opponent’s Contention 1:

I do not disagree that households possess the right to ban musicians from their households. If a parent feels that Marilyn Manson is inappropriate for their child to listen to, by all means they have the constitutional right to prevent his music from entering their home. Therefore, while your first contention remains intact, I do not argue its correctness and was referring to city/state bans being upheld rather than household ones.

Opponent’s Contention 2:

Again, any business or household has the legal and moral right to ban music from being played—but only within the limits of their property. The issue I have is not with personal bans, but rather those that are upheld by a city or state to prevent Marilyn Manson from playing there. At one point, a Florida school even threatened to expel students who attended Marilyn Manson concerts (1). THIS is wrong, and this is exactly what I’m arguing against. The right of privately owned businesses and households to ban Marilyn Manson should obviously remain under all circumstances; however the right of controversial bands to play in all areas of America (cities, states) should remain as well.

Additional Argument:

In addition to my previous argument, I’d like to present one to counter what I’m sure will be brought up: illegal activity taking place at concerts. One might say such activity would permit the righteous banning of a band whose concerts contained this, however I dissent. While Marilyn Manson has been caught engaging in illegal acts onstage, this is no reason to ban him altogether. A more reasonable approach is to terminate illegally charged concerts as they occur, but to still allow the artist to perform in the future. This would leave it up to him to decide, ultimately, whether or not he will perform without having his show terminated due to illegal actions.

Again, I thank my opponent for his response and await his rebuttal with much excitement!

Observations:
1.) It seems that my opponent has focused more on the legal justifications of actions wihle I have focused on the moral justifications. This is fine, seeing as my justifications weren't as based on morals as they were on fundamental rights, so both cases can be adjusted to a more middle ground. However, I would like the audience to remember the fact that we still won't be able to completely abandon our cases, so it will seem a little akward for a while here.
2.) My arguments about my case will likely be a bit shorter than my opponent's. I'm not trying to be lazy here, but the majority of my argumentation will have to do with the resolution, and as such will be fairly simple.

Arguments:
My Case:
My C1:
I will begin by stating that there is no refutation of the legality of parental bans in the household in this contention. My opponent seeks to overturn it by stating that it does not refer to the resolution, however I'd like to point the audience's view towards the structure of the resolution itself. Nowhere does it state that cities or states can't ban his music, simply that it shouldn't be banned anywhere in the United States. Despite her original intentions, my opponent cannot alter the resolution after initial arguments have been made. Therefore, as we agree that parental bans on Marilyn Manson's music are legally acceptable in the US, the resolution fails.

My C2:
My opponent does not dispute the legal right (and in fact reinforces it) to ban Marilyn Manson music in the workplace, and so for the same reasons as in the C1 the resolution or negated. My opponent proposes a bit of a strawman about Florida School systems, but this is irrelevant as we've already agreed upon two places in the US that can ban Marilyn Manson's arguements, and so the resolution is negated.

Pro's Case:
First Amendment:
The majority of my opponent's case has to do with the first Amendment. The only problem with this is that many of these rights actually work against her case, which I'll show in the following argumentation.

1.) Freedom of Religion: Unless the religious establishment in question is practicing illegal acts or otherwise harmful activities, the government cannot intervene in religious practices due to the First Amendment right of freedom of religion. Because a ban on Manson's music within the religion in question is neither harmful nor illegal, the government has no right to prohibit the ban of his music within the churches themselves. Therefore, the American churches, mosques, synagogues, and so on are places within the US that hold the religious and moral right to ban Marilyn Manson's music within themselves, and so the resolution is negated.
2.) Freedom of Speech: The freedom of speech is a two-way street, so to speak. Although opponents of Manson cannot legally stop his fans from listening to his music (unless they are minors, as they do not hold full rights in the US), the fans of Manson cannot stop individuals from placing bans on his music within their families.
3.) Freedom of Petition: Although I don't have any specific arguments to reinforce my own beliefs in this section, I believe that my opponent misunderstands the freedom of petition. The freedom of petition protects the people's rights to demand certain actions from the government, whether to protect them or correct "grievances".

So, as we can see, the first and second rights listed in the First Amendment actually reinforce my case, and present further reasons why the resolution should be negated.

Additional Argument:
Although I'm sure my opponent agrees that parents are able to prohibit their children from attending these concerts, I'm not advocating the prohibiting of the concerts themselves. I am simply listing reasons why the resolution is false, and so I have nothing against this arguemnt.

And so, because there are places within the United States where Marilyn Manson's music can be legally and morally banned, and because my opponent cannot alter the resolution this far into the round, the resolution is negated. Vote Con :)

All right, in the model of my opponent's final round I'll also just post a conclusion paragraph.

All I'd like to remind the audience of in this round is that my opponent cannot change the resolution after the initial arguments. Although I tried to change my argument to include the legal aspect on musical bans, the problem with altering the resolution after people have built their cases is that it completely scews the argument to favor the one who altered it. This is a perfect example, after I built my case, my opponent attempted to alter the resolution in such a way that it completely obliterated my case without any legit argumentation about them. I'm not saying that my opponent did this with malice in mind - I don't think that's the case at all - but you can see how unfair that shift is. So, in the aspect of fairness, the argumentation should be over the resolution as shown in the debate and clarified in the first round (pre-argumentation). And so, because we need to look at the resolution that was originally stated, you can see that both my opponent and I agree that there some places in the United States that where it is legally and morally justified to ban Manson's music, and as such the resolution is negated.

Vote con :)