Holocaust Denial and Similar Acts Should Be Illegal

I agree with my opponent. I will first go over my argument and then my opponent's. 1) [fighting words] My opponent never actually responded to my argument. He elaborated on the history of yelling "fire" in a theatre and afterwards he proceeded to ask questions fundamental to this debate. However, he does not assert why he believes or even how he answers the question in general. I would like to extend my argument as it has not been properly refuted. Allowing these thoughts to exist leads to fights as they're dangerous, controversial phrases of speech. Since people can be damaged or even lost during fights, humanitarian values as stated previously are not upheld. 2) My opponent once again does not actually refute my point. All he does is reassert his claim over mine without explaining why his claim is correct. I would like to extend my argument that these thoughts are offensive. Because these thoughts disrespect those who have lost their lives, they do not hold humanitarian values. 3) My opponent finally makes a claim to which I can negate. He says that facts are more likely to occur without laws restricting the thoughts that are clearly wrong. However, I disagree strongly. How can facts flow well if the ignorant spout out absolute nonsense? My opponents counter argument actually works for me once again because my opponent doesn't explain how absolutely offensive and absurd thoughts help progressive thoughts and speech become widespread. It's absolutely absurd that nonsense will help facts become more likely to be believed in. Facts will have to compete with pathological nonsens in my opponent's world. In my world, facts will not have to compete for the mass' preference. Therefore, facts will flourish. Finally, my opponent doesn't even connect freedom of speech to humanitarian values. Even if he did, I've already proven that these thoughts and speech don't fall under freedom of speech in my first contention. Neg 1) Once again, my opponent doesn't prove his argument. He simply restates his claim without analytical evidence to back it up. That's what is silly. Neg 2) Burglary and holocaust denial are closer than my opponent think. Both are hurtful actions that are negative to society. Speech is an action as well. How is moving one's lips different from parking in the incorrect area? Assuming the speech cause the same negative consequences as a parking ticket, they should have equal punishment. Neg 3) My opponent once again just reasserts himself with no new evidence or reasons as to why I was wrong to attack his arguments. For the second subpoint, I'd like to negate the idea of suppression by giving this example. My friend sits on a couch and he quickly combusts. Do I now think that I should also sit on the couch? No I don't. This can be tied back to my third contention. For the Darwin subpoint, my opponent has brought up a new argument which I will not respond to as it is unfair to give me one less chance to argue it. Framework) I concede to my opponent's idea of freedom of speech tying to humanitarian values. We must now see whose world has greater achieved humanitarian values. Which world is more just? The only humanitarian value my opponent upholds is the freedom to speech. However, I uphold the humanitarian values of respect to others, general welfare as well as facts, and human life. For this reason, I have won the debate. In summation, I affirm the resolution "Holocaust Denial and Similar Acts Should Be Illegal. "