In the United States, Hate-Crime enhancements are unjust.

For the purpose of clarity, I'll start this round by restating my argument briefly. My argument is based on a syllogism: Major Premise: The action of punishing and suppressing freedom of speech and thought is unjust Minor Premise: Hate Crime Enhancements punish and suppress freedom of speech and thought. Conclusion: Hate Crime Enhancements are unjust. A=B, B=C, therefore A=C My opponent chose to attack the Major Premise of the syllogism by arguing that free speech ought not be protected, and she presented a variety of reasons for that. Even if I accepted that free speech should not be protected, my opponent did not address in any way the second part of the premises, which is that hate crime enhancements would also punish freedom of thought, and she therefore concedes the point. . Even if suppressing freedom of speech is just, Con has conceded that suppressing freedom of thought is unjust. Since she did not address and therefore accepts the minor premise of the syllogism, which is that HCEs punish and suppress freedom of speech and thought, there is only one conclusion we can draw: Hate Crime Enhancements are unjust. As such, the semantic and logical conditions in order to prove the resolution true have been met, and you must vote affirmative. Please don't allow my opponent, Vi_Veri, to respond to the arguments centered around the suppression of freedom of thought. She already conceded that suppressing freedom of thought is unjust, and she also already conceded that hate crime enhancements suppress freedom of thought. These arguments have been extended, and we must ignore any response to them in her future responses. Even though I've already demonstrated why I should win the round, I will now respond to my opponent's case just so she can't spuriously extend anything to claim the win. My opponent's first and only contention is essentially that the suppression of freedom of speech is just. She provides various examples of hate speech in a list of quotes, and then goes on to say why we shouldn't allow people to say those things. For the purpose of clarity I'll list out her justifications for her contentions, followed by my response. 1) Her first justification is this: "Condoning racist speech is supporting it. " She provides no evidence for this statement, no warrants or explanations. She simply assumes that the rhetorical power of the statement will buy over the judges. The fact is that this is not true, and I challenge my opponent to show why it is. My response to it is this: For the government to punish or suppress free speech, including hate speech, is to say that the content of ideas is a realm that the government can control. It also means that the government is favoring one idea over another, and like I said in my case - which my opponent did not respond to - it is not the responsibility of the government to say which ideas are right and wrong. John Stuart Mill elaborates: "Not the violent conflict between each side, but the quiet suppression of half of it, is the formidable evil; there is always hope, when people are forced to listen to both sides; it is when they attend only to one that errors harden into prejudices, and truth itself ceases to have the effect of truth, by being exaggerated into falsehood. .. it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. " Supreme Court Justice Brandeis continues: "Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, [our forefathers] eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. " 2) My opponent's second justification for the suppression of free speech is that "racist speech leads to violence. " This is a blatant assumption, a statement with no evidence, just a piece of rhetorical fluff that sounds good as a sound-byte. Furthermore, by allowing people to express their opinions, racist or not, into the marketplace of ideas promotes discussion. For the government to punish people based on the content of their ideas only sweeps the problem under the rug, and those opinions will still prevail, perhaps more vehemently. Vi_Veri seems to misunderstand the concept of free speech. By allowing everyone to express their opinion, perhaps we can reach some truth through the exchange of ideas. She claims that we ignore hate speech when we don't punish people for their ideas, but it's quite the opposite. When we punish people for their ideas, all we're doing is putting them in prison, where those ideas fester. We hide those ideas from society, and in fact it is THAT process that promotes ignorance. By allowing people to say what they think, we confront issues head-on. This is the basis behind John Stuart Mill's marketplace of ideas, and if my opponent disagrees, she missed her chance when she failed to respond to the John Stuart Mill card in my case. 3) My opponent's third contention is that it is okay to punish people more if they think something we disagree with. She cites the example of the state punishing people more if their intentions are more vile. However, in this exploration into the intent and motive of the accused, the government steps into a realm it is not equipped to go into. Daniel E. Troy explains why: "For many crimes, mens rea, or intent, must be established. Yet the inquiry into whether a defendant acted willfully is very different than an inquiry as to whether the criminal was motivated by bias or prejudiced. .. . The wilfull inquiry is based on conduct not constitutionally protected. By contrast, a successful hate crime prosecution might well rely on evidence of the books the defendant read, the political organizations to which he belongs, and even the remarks one makes. For example, an important piece of evidence in Hate crime laws ultimately force courts into making rulings like this one, because they must enter a domain for which they are ill-equipped and ill-suited -- the probing of individuals' constitutionally protected beliefs and associations. Courts of law should be wary of inquiring into the most intimate details of an individual's personal beliefs, and then meting out punishment accordingly. " 4) My opponent attacks the example I use of Justice Jackson because the case in which he ruled in favor of free speech was not a case involving hate speech. I don't see why this is important. I cited Justice Jackson to provide evidence as to why it is not the job of the government to "prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. " I wasn't trying to justify hate speech, as seem to think I was, but rather I was saying why the government is not justified in punishing people for the content of their ideas. As you can see, my opponent really has no offense on my case, and she provides no reason that hate crime enhancements are indeed just. She gives the judges no reason to vote affirmative. FURTHERMORE, as I showed at the start of my response, my opponent essentially accepted my syllogism by failing to respond to all parts of the syllogism, and instead focused only on a part of one of the premises. For all these reasons, I urge an affirmative ballot. Remember: Punishing freedom of speech and thought is unjust. Hate Crime Enhancements punish freedom of speech and thought. Therefore, Hate Crime Enhancements are unjust. btw vi_veri ur hot lets go out sumtime k?