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

This is the last round of the tournament, well the round 1 part of the tournament. My round will be precise, as precise is important in a debate. I thank User for being my opponent, and bsh for being the person who made the tournament.ObservationsMy opponent does not rebut anything about the burden check, so I assume what I said is right. My opponent says that I have to prove everything situation of hate speech should be permitted, and is basically telling me to explain. This is shocking, as that it is not part of my burden. My burden is to say that hate speech should be permitted, not "all" basically means that if I show some hate speech should be permitted, then my burden is full. My opponent gives no rebuttals on my argument about swears, so that is dropped.I did say that that hate speech can threaten liberty, well some hate speech can. My opponent says that not permitting hate speech does not mean not banning hate speech, only means consenting. This is shocking too. In Merriam Webster, the definiton of permit is, "to allow (something) to happen : to give permission for (something) [1]" Not is basically the opposite. So, it means "not allow" Ban is a close with not allow. So, I am right, as I showed some definitions, and I don't get how my opponent can say this. Me and my opponent agreed that rule 9 should be ignored, and we can make rebuttals in the last round, but not new arugments, or contentions as you call it. So, you cannot punish us for not following this rule, if you punish for making rebuttals in the last round. New contentions are punishable.R1. Hate Speech in Society, and why it shouldn't be bannedMy opponent make some new arguments here, so I'll rebut them, then go onto the rebuttals of the defense. My opponent says that two main parts of a person's life is school or work. That is, if you are a student. I'm a student, so I'll just say it is. My opponent says that bullying is a type of hate speech. Only when actually talking, as it is speech, not actually beating up. Bullying is never going to end. The school will be lazy to ban it. And, teasing is a type of bullying [2] [3]. Teasing can't actually be stop. Then calling "monkey face" is hate speech, and should be banned. Monkey face can be a nickname also. Then probably these nicknames would be banned too. Also, there is friendly teasing, and other types [2]. They are teasing. My opponent is basically saying that bullying should be banned. Then this teasing needs to be banned.Okay, now it is for the work part. 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. My opponent says that hate speech should be banned because of emotional harm. My opponent is somewhat dreaming of a future where all work is easy, no one get's in trouble, and a clean world. Well, that cannot happen, don't even try imagining it. First of all, work has some emotional harms, and some stress, that is why it is called work. No work is easy. Then it isn't really work. Hate Speech should/ and has to be permitted.D1. Article 2Now let's go on some defense... Okay, now I will go onto Article 2. My opponent says, "People can still legally say hate speech as long as it doesn't cause violence..." My opponent is therefore conceding that some hate speech should be allowed, the ones that don't cause violence. I don't need to argue about all hate speech, only some. I am saying that non-violent hate speech should be allowed, and my opponent is basically agreeing with me that some hate speech should not be banned. My opponent concedes his side. Vote for Pro.My opponent says that hate speech with not violence is freedom of speech, and should be allowed. It is hate speech. As the definiton says that not all hate speech does violence, this isn't freedom of speech, it is hate speech. It has to be all hate speech needs to be freedom of speech, which it is, making my argument suceed, my opponent is basically arguing my side, or only hate speech, which still comes to my side, as this is not violent.D2. Article 3My opponent says that his argument is still valid if hate speech does have violence. Hate Speech doesn't really threaten someone's life, as I already said. Not all Hate Speech does. And not all hate speech gives violence. I don't need to say we need to permit all kinds of hate speech. It is "should", so meaning "some" And the "some" here is the ones that don't cause violence. 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. So, the changes are low, and most of the time it won't cause violence. That's my point. There are other kind of hate speech like "a$$", does that cause violence? No, it probably won't. Or many other kinds of hate speech too.D3. Article 7My opponent says that he was saying that all people are equal under the law. Not all people, as I said. Some rich people and some poor people, like hobo's are not equal. And if they are, my opponent does not say how this gives an impact. My opponent says that everyone is equal, so we should ban hate speech, but he doesn't say why we should ban hate speech just because everyone is equal under the law. And, my opponent can't just add a reason, because I can't rebut it, and it is basically a contention, which won't be allowed in the debate, as it says in Rule 9.My opponent says that Hitler was a bad leader, because he killed many people. He didn't really look at what I said. I said, "he leaded for the other side" If he leaded against any bad place, then he would have been a great leader, it is just that he wasn't thinking right on who they should attack. He leaded pretty well, by using hate speech though. So hate speech is good for leading, as people like soldiers can be scared to what they say, and I also gave an example about Hitler, and how he leaded, only for the wrong side.ConclusionMy opponent is saying that I have to show all kinds of hate speech needing to be permitted, and makes me do that. That is not part of my burden, my burden is to show that it should be permitted, so if I show some times that hate speech should be permitted, or at least one time where hate speech should be permitted, then I fill my burden. I have shown that swears should be permitted, and we should permit hate speech because it harms liberty if we don't, and my opponent doesn't really rebut these arguments. My opponent also concedes that he/she allows hate speech which does not have violence, and he/she says that is freedom of speech. I said there was 2 premises, and both fall to my side. My opponent concedes that some hate speech should be permitted, and that is basically my burden, so my opponent basically gave my burden, and made me fulfill it. My opponent drops that banning hate speech is banning liberty, thus turning into slaves. My opponent rebuts no arguments of mine, and only concedes to my side. Then I win, as my opponent is conceding. Therefore, vote Pro.Sources[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] https://www.kidpower.org...Therefore, vote Pro. Thanks for the debate.