Political correctness attempting to limit free speech, and turn people into weenies

I'm glad Pro returned. Not many forfeiters do. I'll outline other categories first and then move onto the arguments.First, a note: Pro has introduced new arguments in his final round. Therefore you should allow me to do the same and consider my arguments just as you would any other part of the debate. It is not my fault that he forfeited.Voters should give me all seven points for the following reasons (don't feel shy about it because I explain exactly why I should be awarded every one of those points):Sources:1) I'm the only one that actually used a source to back up a substantive argument i.e. my link to hate speech and hate crimes. Pro used no sources besides citing the dictionary. While source points should not be awarded because a side has *more* sources, I as a debater am arguing that only side backing up their arguments with a source means that side should win source points. This is not about who has more sources but who has them at all.2) I deconstructed Pro's dictionary source for him and framed the resolution myself. The dictionary had two definitions. Pro didn't mention which one he wanted or even refer to them in passing. All of the work of drawing from Pro's source to frame a resolution was mine. Considering that only I used Pro's source and only I cited a source that backs up my argument, I should win the sources point.S&G: 1) Pro did not write a resolution. He ranted in the first round about political correctness after which I had to spend effort forming his resolution for him.2) Pro writes in small little paragraphs each of which contains a mini-rant about political correctness and has random examples. It is tedious to summarize Pro's position for him, understand where he is coming from, and then provide sufficient rebuttals. Contrast that with my own arguments which I have presented beautifully.3) S&G typically includes presentation, not just spelling errors. So, while Pro didn't have spelling errors, his format significantly detracted from the activity of debate. He doesn't follow any sort of format which makes it difficult to flow our arguments.Education is a voter. By voting S&G for me, you teach Pro that well-formatted debates are good and shodilly written debates are bad and will help him be a better debater in the future. By awarding me sources, you also teach him to back up his arguments with evidence which is an important skill in life.Conduct: This is obvious. Pro forfeited a round, therefore he should lose conduct. Not to mention no shows are bad.Arguments:Now let's look my offense which Pro conceded:Pro cold conceded my hate crimes argument. I win based off of this alone. Nothing that Pro has posted matches the magnitude of my hate crimes impact. Pro could perhaps argue probability but he didn't. Because he dropped my argument completely, tabula rasa judges have no choice but to weigh it as I tell you to. Hate crimes are high probability crimes. Calling someone a "negro" immediately causes Klan members to erupt out of the woodwork and murder all black people in the vicinity. Judges must assume this is true because I'm the only one who made the argument in R1 and Pro dropped it.Pro completely dropped my framework. This means that you MUST assume as true the restricted definition of political correctness that I provided. You must also not give Pro access to freedom of speech arguments. Pro flat-out gives up and no longer argues for freedom of speech once I posted my advocacy indicating no governmental action should be taken.Now let's take a look at Pro's last round. He made three points:1) He says that people who advocate political correctly throw derogatory terms using an example of Romney. First off, this statement is unsourced so I don't know the exact phrasing or the context. It should be kicked out as evidence. I also don't know who these left extremists were or what they said or whether they are being politically correct. So discount that assertion. Secondly, Romney was potentially racist to say "we're never getting the minority vote" because he is implying that minorities are not objective voters. Racism is defined as "a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another" and Romney clearly betrayed the belief that only his race is capable of voting objectively.2) He asks what is wrong with the term "negro" citing Martin Luther King using it. Times change. Archaic terms that were once okay are not acceptable today. See Pro's "fireman" example. Fifty years ago, I'm sure it was acceptable. [http://ell.stackexchange.com...]. It is better to use more neutral terms. During the Americal Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, black leaders in the United States objected to the word Negro because they associated it with the long history of slavery, segregation, and discrimination that treated African Americans as second class citizens, or worse.3) Pro's final argument says that political incorrectness does not correspond to racism. This is a bare assertion. Politically incorrect speech is offensive speech. I have also shown a link between offensive speech and hate crimes. Pro offers no net benefit to using offensive speech besides an arbitrary "cake up what you are trying to say" which is a meaningless statement. The only thing you would be rephrasing is offensive speech and it is worth it to do because of the link to hate crime.Vote all seven points to me.