Unique Topics Tournament Round 1 User v.s. Fire: Hate speech should be permitted

I shall rebut Pro's statements: Observations In regards to the burden, it is pro's burden to prove that Hate speech should be permitted in general, while it is my burden that hate speech should not be permitted in general. Pro's argument boiled down P1) Con that not permitting hate speech does not mean not banning hate speech, only means consenting. P2) Not permitting means not allowing P3) Ban is close with not allow C1) (Thus, not allow= ban) C2) Therefore I am right. Pro's argument suffers from the non sequitur fallacy because the conclusions do not follow the premises. just because not allowing is synonymous with banning does not mean not allowing=banning. For example, a person can not allow someone to insult them, despite that this insult is not banned by the law. Pro also skips C1. Despite this being an implied conclusion, it makes the non sequitur even worse. Since P3 is wrong, C1 and C2 are also wrong, thus Pro's entire argument here is negated. Therefore my argument remains true, Not permitting hate speech is not a threat to freedom of speech, thus not permitting hate speech does not threaten liberty as a whole. R1. Hate Speech in Society, and why it shouldn't be banned Pro makes the following rebuttal against my school argument: "Bullying is never going to end. The school will be lazy to ban it" It does not matter if bullying is never going to end or not, as a community the people of a school should combat bullying however they can. One of these ways is not permitting hate speech in school by not making hate speech socially acceptable. When a behavior is not socially acceptable/tolerated there is a decrease in this behavior. This is what I am advocating for, to make hate speech not socially acceptable in school on the grounds that hate speech increases emotional harm and decreases academic performance and the quality of education. When a behavior is socially acceptable, however, it increases the likelihood of this behavior. Pro is advocating that hate speech should remain permitted, including in school, which leads to an increase of hate speech, bullying, emotional harm, and a reduction in academic performance and quality of education. Pro also gives no reasoning why hate speech should be permitted in school other than "Bullying is never going to end. The school is too lazy to ban it" while I listed legitimate reasons why hate speech should not be permitted in school, citing emotional harm and its negative effects. Pro also commits the over generalization fallacy with "the school is too lazy to ban it" when many schools have banned bullying/hate speech. Here's an excerpt from my High School in the Student Handbook: "Speech: Students use words to encourage and support one another. Students refrain from inappropriate language, bullying, and other verbal and/or words that tear down one another." (http://www.svcschools.org...) The school also has a policy against harassment. Pro says that teasing=bullying. Teasing is only bullying if it has the intent to abuse, so friendly teasing isn't bullying. Pro makes this rebuttal on my work argument: 1) Emotional harm at work, mistakes, and absences should be permitted (at work) should be permitted 2) If you are absent/doing something wrong, then you should be punished. 3) Con says hate speech should be banned because of emotional harm. 4) Con is unrealistic with saying all work is easy... it can't happen, don't even imagine it. 5) Work is called work because it has some emotional harms and stress. 6) No work is easy 7) Hate speech should and has to be permitted. Basically Pro's argument is: Hate speech should be permitted at work because work has emotional harms. Why should hate speech be allowed if work has emotional harms? Just because something is happening does not mean something should happen. The main cause of emotional harm at work is bullying, which includes hate speech. If hate speech and bullying is not permitted at work, then there will be a reduction of hate speech and bullying at work, thus reducing harm. Pro gives no reason why hate speech should be permitted other than his fallacious circular reasoning argument. Further, Pro states that "Hate Speech should/ and has to be permitted." Why does hate speech have to be permitted? Pro also contradicts his own circular argument "It is the same, only that this means bullying like emotional harm at work, and mistakes, absences, etc. First of all, these things should be permitted. If you are absent, or doing something wrong, then you should be punished." Pro is advocating that these wrong doings should be both permitted and punished at the same time. If something a behavior is allowed, then one cannot be punished for this behavior. "Work has some emotional harms, and some stress, that is why it is called work." No, work is called work because an employee works for an employer. Emotional harms caused by hate speech and other forms of bullying reduces the quality of an employee's work, thus hate speech should not be permitted at work. Article 2 Pro is saying that I am conceding that hate speech should be allowed by stating that "People can still legally say hate speech as long as it doesn't cause violence." This is not a concession of my argument, it is a statement of fact. I was not saying that hate speech should be allowed, I was saying that it is allowed. My R3 argument was that hate speech should not be allowed by a victim of hate speech or by society as a whole (including school and work, despite being legal at times Me stating this does not make me argue his side, because we are arguing different things. Article 3 "My opponent says that "go kill yourself" to sudicial person will harm their life. There won't be lot's of people who are suicidal people in the U.S, probably 1 or 2 million out of few hundred million." It does not matter if there are only a minority of people that are suicidal, each life is precious and should be protected from extreme threats. 1 or 2 million people is still a lot of people, and saying "go kill yourself" to a suicidal person threatens that life, thus saying "go kill yourself," especially to a suicidal should not be allowed since it threatens their life. One of the causes of suicide is depression, which is caused constant bullying, harassment, and abuse by other people (http://www.nhs.uk...), which hate speech is a part of. If hate speech is not permitted by society then it decreases the likelihood of someone committing suicide. For the non suicidal person, saying "go kill yourself" results in emotional harm. Article 7 "My opponent says that he was saying that all people are equal under the law. Not all people," Yes all people, in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the United States all US citizens have equal protection under the law, and in Article 7 of the UN DoHR all people are equal under the law, these are statements of legal fact. Pro states that Hitler lead well, this is false, for under Hitler's leadership Germany lost WWII and was occupied by the Allied powers Conclusion: The BoP of Pro is to prove that hate speech should be permitted and he has failed to do that. His main argument was that not permitting hate speech was a threat to liberty. I disproved this statement, proving that people and society can use freedom of speech to not permit hate speech, violating nobody's liberty. Pro then goes to arguing from the status quo in R4, stating that hate speech should be permitted in school and work because emotional harm happens. I am saying that hate speech should not be permitted on the basis of emotional harm and I have shown the negative effects of emotional harm, such as decreased quality of life, decreased academic and work performance, and increased risk of suicide. Since hate speech results in emotional harm, hate speech should not be permitted.