# data[].attributes.body
I believe that Mahfuza won the debate because of her expression of her opinions about hate speech and the effect of limiting free speech on activism. Her evidence also clearly showcases her points about how hate speech, although not always thought of as something good, can act positively. Mahfuza's evidence also shows that revoking freedom of speech will stunt movements and make changing the nation for the better more difficult than necessary, taking away the voices of people and publishers.

# data[].attributes.body
There must be a middle grounds in the context of this debate. There can't be all out free speech, nor all out denial of the right. There must be some limits on free speech in order to preserve the knowledge and information accumulated by science throughout the years. There must be a limit in order to maintain an obedient and peaceful population. With the rate at which information can be spread, there must be a means to limit the dangerous ideas of others, and a means to promote the great ideas of others

# data[].attributes.body
Closing:
Free speech and free press must be protected. Although their is the mass spread of misinformation, limiting free speech and free speech would only limit the changes people can make society. As societies grow, they need change and as times change, different circumstances are brought up, and limiting free speech would thus make societies unable to grow because as MLK once said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter".

# data[].attributes.body
Free Speech has become an antiquated feature of our Constitution, given the rise of the internet. The words and opinions of others can be shared to hundreds of millions of people with the click of a button. This wasn't the way before, where people would usually think before publishing a paper. That being said, massive amounts of misinformation can be spread through the internet at a stunning pace. There are the "flat-earthers" and the "anti-vaxxers" whose ideas are based upon skepticism and misinformation. The anti-vax movement has become so bad that there was a recent (edit) measles outbreak in San Diego. There has to be a limit on what we are able to say on the internet before severe damage can be done.

Articles:
https://www.voanews.com/a/mayor-s-killing-in-poland-sparks-anger-against-hate-speech/4746637.html
https://globalnews.ca/news/4853174/health-threats-2019-who/

# data[].attributes.body
Free speech and free press are fundamental principles of the American people. With free speech, people have the right to speak their truth, their opinion, their mind, etc. Free press gives people the ability to print whatever they would like to, giving all access to their writing. Taking these two rights away will only hinder what people say. Especially among world news, there are many different perspectives, and limiting free speech will only limit the truth. Though there is the possibility of falsehood, the diverse views brought into the press will expose the truth, and bring out needed changes in society.

Resources:
https://www.liberties.eu/en/news/freedom-of-speech-liberties-advocacy/12506
https://www.thesouthend.wayne.edu/perspectives/article_cd17e232-9267-573d-9705-181a467c1714.html
https://www.theperspective.com/debates/politics/first-amendment-cover-racism-hate-speech/