Famous' Unofficial Tournament: R1

Safety - Introduction My opponent starts out with quoting the first amendment, and listing exceptions to the freedom of speech promised within our Constitution. She says that there are two types of words not protected by the First Amendment, obscenities and fighting threats. I do not know how this applies to the resolution, since the freedom of speech that comes into conflict with societal moral standards is used to hopefully bring about change through peaceful methods. This study on the history of Freedom of Speech and Press (1) reveals that, “For that reason, profane words that are not accompanied by any evidence of violence or public disturbance are not “fighting words. ” To come into conflict with the moral standards of a community would mean to verbally challenge the norm of society using free speech, therefore making an effort to bring about change. I would argue that when the ability to bring about change using freedom of speech has been exhausted, those seeking to speak out against moral standards would go so far as to incite violence, which carries the same weight as committing it, transforming into something far worse than freedom of speech. (1) . https://www.fas.org... Safety - Verbal Abuse Without a doubt, this is the argument that impacts the resolution of this debate the least. Speech unrestricted by the government, coming into conflict with societal norms, will not “hurt” anyone or “traumatize” anyone. It is purely to bring about change, which I cannot emphasize enough. My opponent introduces a number of examples of verbal abuse and their possible side effects on others. I do not know how this impacts the resolution, because we are clearly arguing about freedom of speech v. societal norms, not whether hurtful words can harm anyone. This point is rendered null and void as it contributes nothing to the resolution. Safety - Endangering Communities In this contention, my opponent makes the observation that in some cases free speech can be misused to harm a community as a whole, specifically minorities. My opponent also uses a quote to state that bigotry is very harmful to vulnerable minorities and bars them from attaining true freedom. Clearly this argument is being presented as a scenario of majority v. minority in society. My opponent portrays the minority group as vulnerable and unable to achieve freedom with bigotry from the majority group. This contradicts the basis for all of my opponent’s arguments. I am arguing for the individual’s utilization of freedom of speech as a means of change, my opponent is arguing in favor of established societal standards, which should be challenged as time moves on. In source seven of my opponent’s argument, it points out that hate speech and bigoted rhetoric are directly linked to rising hate crimes. While this may be true, the article displays struggles in various communities in which the majority group is speaking against the minority group. As a matter of fact, in lots of cases, it is a societal standard of the majority group to discriminate against the minority group, like in the 1960’s when it could be argued that African Americans were treated as second class citizens. Take the current situation in Burundi for example. The Hutu (majority ethnic group) controlled government is spreading murderous and hateful rhetoric against the Tutsi minority group, generating echoes of the 1994 Rwandan Genocide (2). The President of the Burundian Senate has called for “the extermination of those who are only good for dying,” and has time and time again displayed a willingness to spread divisive rhetoric against the minority group and government opposition. Also, the president of Burundi vowed to have security forces use violent methods to search the homes of citizens for weapons and hiding opposition members. (2) . http://usun.state.gov... I cannot comprehend how “freedom of speech can be used to harm minorities” can be used as a contention when it is the standards of the society that my opponent is arguing for. Bigotry and hate for minority groups has existed for thousands of years and still exists around the world today. Freedom of speech is what minority groups utilize to speak out against the majority, against those who would spread hate speech, so that they are able to achieve greater freedoms in their society. Only when freedom of speech is ignored as a means of change by the majority will the utilizers of freedom of speech be compelled to commit acts of violence as their only outlet of protest. General Welfare This argument is made up of several paragraphs in which my opponent confusingly repeats the idea of promoting the general welfare. Those who would seek to change the moral standards of a community are either a minority group left out of society or a citizen committed to the struggle of the minority group. For a government to sanction peaceful discourse, utilizing freedom of speech, IS promoting the general welfare, by allowing all citizens, regardless of color, race, or gender, to have an equal playing field. By allowing societal norms to be unchallenged by questioning or interpretation is an example of NOT promoting the general welfare. Therefore to allow freedom of speech to be utilized by those who think they are unfairly treated by a community’s moral standards is undoubtedly promoting the general welfare. Social Good This is perhaps the most preposterous of my opponent’s contentions. In one of the first paragraphs, my opponent presents the end all, be all question. “How important are morals? ” Wow. My opponent, following this question, brings up traffic rules, the completely misplaced analogy. The reasoning for having traffic rules is to… well. .. control the flow of traffic to maximize efficiency. My opponent states that basic rules are needed in order to keep society in check, or chaos ensues. I’m perfectly okay with that observation. However, traffic rules have nothing to do with moral standards in a community. Freedom of speech is needed to raise questions about the legitimacy of moral standards, not traffic laws (hint voters). Next my opponent brings up the reasoning for morals, which every sane person on the plant would agree with. It is the moral standards that society constructs that put a certain part of the population at a disadvantage that need to be challenged through freedom of speech. I am not arguing for the total removal of morals in our society, I am merely arguing that individuals utilizing freedom of speech to speak out against unfair societal standards should have their voices heard and their messages considered, so that our moral standards can adapt to changing times and values. It is not about rejecting morals over freedom of speech, it is about moral standards and causes that utilize freedom of speech coming into conflict, and weighing the message of freedom of speech so that society is able to move forward and bring about change. Lastly, morals do not benefit everyone (slavery, civil rights, Burundi, Uighurs). This is why freedom of speech should be valued above societal norms in order to shape moral standards to fairly fit all. Overview Throughout my opponent’s argument, I frequently found contentions that contributed no or little substance to the resolution. Secondly, my opponent did not show why, when in conflict, the moral standards of a community should be valued above an individual’s freedom of speech. Therefore my opponent’s burden stands unfulfilled. This debate revolves around moral standards and the individual’s ability to use freedom of speech to question those standards. If this is not allowed in our country, these individuals can resort to violence as means of getting their voice heard. Therefore I stand with my claim that freedom of speech, and the questions that it raises about community moral standards, is worth more than moral standards when the two are in conflict.