Welcome to the site. :) First of all, thanks for taking an honest effort to try to improve your question-asking here, that's a kind of "meta" cognition we don't see very often in newcomers. :)
Before I address your questions, you should note that we have a steadily growing but still fairly small community of people here; even pretty good questions will max out around 4-6 upvotes and many will still only get a 2-3 while being acceptable questions. The amount varies based on how the question was posed and how interesting the topic is to people. For example, if your question is too long no one wants to read the whole thing, or if it's about some obtuse theory no one really knows much about or cares about, or if it's poorly formatted and difficult to follow... these things will tend to discourage people from upvoting your questions. I'm not saying your questions are like this; these are just some examples of how some questions can get lots of upvotes and others not so many.
In your case, here are the issues:
Does freedom of speech exist?
I'm just confused about this question overall. I do not see any clear logical deductions/reasoning, it seems you are just jumping around in your explanation. All we have left then is to assume you are asking what the question title is asking, and a question like that is off-topic here. Do hummingbirds exist? There's no philosophical question there.
What are some tools for overcoming bias within a participant when engaged in a Socratic debate?
As I wrote, I don't really understand the question. What biases are you talking about? Remember, we are not mind-readers, and we may not all have learned the same stuff you have learned even having taken similar philosophy classes, so you have to be clear to explain every part of your question clearly and define terms you use. This question also appears to be a poll (asking for ideas, tips, "tools") which we discourage here.
How have propaganda techniques refined with an increasingly education and internet?
It's not a philosophy question, it's a history / anthropology / sociology (maybe) question.
Is it true that 'there is nothing new under the sun'?
This question is simply too broad. The major thing that needs to be addressed before the question can be reasonably answered is: What does it mean for something to be "new"? Without that definition, the question simply cannot be answered. Now, we could (as question answerers) simply write an answer describing several possible definitions of "new" and speculate on whether anything could actually be "new" according to each of those definitions, but that's a lot of work for a single question. You should narrow down your questions by defining your terms in advance, and often the very process of making your question clearer to others will lead you to the answer itself. :)
At any rate, your questions are not bad. They just need a little work, that's all. You'll get the hang of it pretty quick, esp. as you study more philosophy. Eventually you'll understand more clearly the subtleties of philosophy questions vs. other types of questions, and know exactly how to phrase them to voice your particular confusion. :)
