Everyone should be allowed to say racial slurs.

My opponent provided quotes from people without quoting them. As most of his arguments. I will than refute them. " Norms recognize that history provides ample cases of hate speech instigating violence. History overflows with examples making it clear that propaganda was essential to the Nazis' eventual genocide of Jews, the Hutu slaughter of Tutsis in Rwanda,30s the Islamist Arab Janjaweed continued mass murder and enslavement of Darfurians, the ethnic slaughter during the 2007 Kenya election, and the Turkish exterminationism perpetrated against Armenians. Despite indisputable centrality of hate propaganda in mass murder and hate crimes, the libertarian strain of American First Amendment law denies the potential harm resulting from speech, increasing the vulnerability of groups on campus." Racial slurs aren't hate crimes. Hate crimes is when "criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity." based on the FBI. If racial slurs again are words than why do you call it a hate crime? How does it harm people physically and mentally? The Nazi's genocide of Jews were based on Hitler using them as a scapegoat for the events of world war 1 and the economic crisis? The slaughter of the Tutsis in Rwanda again was not based on hate speech but ever since Belgium lost control of the area where they remained. Now I hope Con will be able to explain why they represent hate speech? All those terrible events now explain to me Con named one event in those that caused the even in the first placed by only hate speech. "This literally correlates with the beginnings of the American Civil war that was largely based around the issue of slavery. The usage of hate speech, words that are protected under the Constitution, caused unspeakable violence, directly refuting my opponent's first point." Name a single event in the Civil War that sparked the two sides fighting based on hate speech? The civil war was primarily caused by state rights vs federal power. The war started when South Carolina bombarded Civil unions in Fort Sumter. I want my opponent to explain how does hate speech sparked the bombardment of the Civil unions. "Looking at the second point. My opponent misunderstands the notion of Freedom of Speech in America. Speech is not "Free" as my opponent perpetuates, nor is speech completely protected. There are some parts of speech, i.e. mainly fighting words, established in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 1942, that are unprotected and liable to prosecution." Look I agree their will be exceptions to the limit. But again if we ban hate speech we are silencing people who has a different opinion on a person. If we bad hate speech than are you saying we should ban people who talks about a opinion you disagree with? "I would also like my opponent in the third round to provide a DIRECT example of how hate speech allows for more ideology, more ideas and ESPECIALLY MORE CREATIVITY. Please answer this directly, if not, your point literally cannot stand." Having more ideology and ideas by allowing hate speech can be good. They are obliged to their own opinion of a person. Hearing someones side of the story with their hate speech of minority's or other people. We can talk to them,communicate with them and learn more about their ideology,their ideas,and thus we can improve our creativity by making a original idea of the person based on their hate speech. By hearing hate speech we can allow for more people with different ideology's more freedom. "Hate speech is not defined by "isolated incidents" or "merely jokes""it is specifically intended to degrade and cause harm to individuals. In the context of historical oppression and discrimination, hate speech has larger implications for all members of the targeted group, not just the individual. Victims of hate speech suffer both emotionally and physically. "Psychological responses to such stigmatization consists of feelings of humiliation, isolation, and self-hatred" (Delgado, 1993, p. 91). Hate speech takes away human dignity and self-worth, and causes self-doubt." What do you propose banning insults completely? "Mr. SMALL: Well, according to the European Union, there was a treaty passed in 2008 which specifies that hate speech would be sanctioned and punitive measures could be taken against individuals or groups engaged in hate speech." This quote says that the European Union made a law that sanctions hate speech. That basically means people are un-equal? How because people that the law protects only protects them and not other people basically means these people are worthy of being protected and not me. Bring me evidence other than a quote that proves to me that hate speech takes away human dignity,self worth and causes self-doubt. Cause all your arguments are just quotes of people. "If someone were to suggest that all Muslims should be tortured because they are potential terrorists, or that rape is acceptable, then clearly no rational argument will ever change their mind, or that of anyone who accepts such claims." This quote claims that these people are outrageous and won't present a rational argument. This is hatred. Now how do quench this hatred by using hate speech. We use hate speech to try to find the people who aren't tolerant and try to persuade them into the side of tolerance. if you don't like the persons claim call them out on it instead of ignoring the problem. This quote says if someone who has a controversial claim don't try to debate them or argue they are wrong and ignore it and let them spread their idea. To shut down ideas you got to prove them wrong. "the traditional defense of free speech ignores the fact that it favors those who already hold power in a society. Liberties are not wielded equally by those who do not enjoy equally; it is an empty formalism to claim that all have equal freedom to speak. Instead, hate speech, and the tolerance of it, is used to perpetuate social hierarchies. It further marginalizes the disenfranchised. There is no "equal right" to engage in hate speech, supporters point out-after all, what is the white equivalent of calling someone a "nigger"? There is no such word that demeans whites in the way this epithet demeans African-Americans. They argue all students, especially the disadvantaged, must feel safe and accepted on a university campus if they are to experience equal access to education. Hate speech denies minorities this equal chance to learn, say the supporters of restrictive codes." If we ban hate speech we are still saying people are un-equal. This quote is saying to be more equal banning hate speech can help. But it will not banning hate speech will tell people that saying hate speech to a person based on their race and protecting them based on their race,ethnicity,sexual orientation,and even disability's? Does that sound were equal cause it sure is not for me. Banning hate speech will still be allowing for people to know that their are no equal rights. All my opponent did on the last round was post quotes from people. Source: https://www.fbi.gov... http://www.civilwar.org...