Resolved: PCUs ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.

AC/NC/off My opponent claims that education is hurt by hate speech. However, my evidence shows that actually speech codes are what chill education, not hate. Value: They claim they don"t drop it but they literally said in their last round, "Sure. Consequentialism. Is it moral to allow hate speech to go unrestricted?" This means that they agree consequentialism is the value. They also claim I ignore the question of whether it is moral for hate speech to go unrestricted, but I address this throughout my rebuttal, and will continue to address it. Criterion: I do agree that education is important to colleges but they still drop how chilling is bad for education, and how hate speech allows for counterspeech, truly educating instead of just stopping speech. Contention One: They claim hate speech doesn"t help the marketplace of ideas and that is grounds to restrict it. Not helping doesn"t mean hurting and is not grounds for restriction. And, if the ideas bring no value to the marketplace they will be destroyed in the marketplace through counterspeech and education, and if they won"t be they do have value--that"s an unrefuted doublebind. My opponent claims allowing hate speech brings a world of violence, but actually restricting it and allowing it to fester instead of solving for bigotry through counterspeech is what causes violence, so vote pro on that. Not helping doesn"t mean hurting and is not grounds for restriction. They say restrictions don"t cause a slippery slope because they are narrow but this is untrue: even narrow restrictions show that it is okay to restrict speech that is protected, causing more restrictions. They claim they have provided evidence against counterspeech but are unable to bring it up in their rebuttals. Futhermore, I have demonstrated the harms of restriction time and time again in my Majeed card and my ACLU evidence. On the ACLU evidence: They claim that hate speech outweighs "good" speech but neglect the fact that counterspeech is the only way to solve for the underlying cause of that hate speech. Thus, affirm because I actually stop the root cause while they just hide the problem. Contention Two: Completely dropped, so vote pro off the fact that violating the constitution is harmful. Contention Three: ? They ignore this contention to go on talking about counterspeech. This is about court clog. I do have some solvency for court clog so affirm on that. They claim they try to solve for something but counterspeech doesn"t work. Attempts at solvency don"t matter under our framework of consequentialism. Actual solvency does, and it"s only achieved in the pro world. To the NC. They claim they don"t completely solve but then ask for a vote on solvency. This makes no sense. I actually solve through counterspeech and at least don"t make it worse by chilling speech. Thus, you affirm. Contention One: They claim counterspeech doesn"t work but I have shown in my ACLU card it works much better than restrictions. They also concede education is helpful. Thus, we need to educate so vote pro so we can do that! Contention Two: The Strossen evidence, again, shows that any implementation would be biased because the harm is in the people implementing not the wording of the restriction. Here is the evidence my opponent asked for: "Research suggests that restrictions perceived to threaten or possibly eliminate behavioral freedoms may trigger "psychological reactance", and increase one"s desire to engage in the restricted behavior. For instance, Worchel and colleagues (1975) assessed desire to hear censored material among students at the University of North Carolina...Consistent with reactance theory, participants who were informed they could not hear the content of the speech, reported a stronger desire to do so." (Sorry, I mistyped and claimed it was from Northwestern when it was actually from North Carolina!) They impact back to a framework they very clearly dropped and have NO impact to the framework we are looking toward. Counterspeech and education do solve, and they still can"t bring up evidence for why they don"t. Vote pro for actual solvency. Contention Three: They extend claims that have been clearly refuted, and now my opponent can see the evidence so it is still relevant. They claim they have "more than enough" solvency but have not responded to my request to see a single piece of solvency evidence, so assume they don"t. Speech restrictions are actively harmful and they dropped that implementation is bad. Affirm on solvency because if I don"t solve I at least don"t make it worse. They claim perms don"t solve but by saying this they have conceded their own solvency. If a perm is a mix of pro and con, you should get solvency from both places. If a perm doesn"t solve, there must not be solvency from either place, so they must not have it either. That said, I do solve so extend the perms and affirm on that. On the off: 1. They say earlier in their rebuttal counterspeech isn"t bad. Now they say getting someone to talk back makes it worse. Pick a position! 2. They misconstrued my argument. They claim I"m discussing possible marginalization of minorities while I"m actually discussing education of everyone, existance of a working government bound by the Constitution, and courts that do their jobs. 3. Education does solve, as shown in the ACLU evidence. They agree it can help. 4. It"s not a single isolated restriction but shown time and time again through the Black Lives Matter movement, the Women"s Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, etc. Extend the turn and vote pro. 5. They drop the doublebind and just say hate speech is protected. However, once it is threatening it is no longer protected. Extend the doublebind and affirm. They claim I make the problem worse. I have no clue how education, stopping bigotry, allowing an effective government, and stopping court clog makes anything worse. The off is just more evidence saying hate speech has no value. I"ve already refuted that argument. Affirm because 1) I'm the only one to stop the chilling effect and allow for true education to take place 2) I'm the only one to solve for the cause of hate speech 3) I'm the only one to allow the government to function effectively. This was dropped completely. Without a working Constitution, we have anarchy which is bad even under a structural violence framework. The magnitude of this outweighs any other argument. 4) I help solve court clog, they don't do anything about it 5) Logical arguments should be prioritized over a barrage of cards 6) Restrictions make things WORSE and if you don't buy that, 7) I have made three refuted perms to the con Thus, please vote pro. Thank you!