Speech Codes in Place at Universities Should be Banned

Definitions: weak-minded: Having or showing a lack of good sense or judgment. - Merriam-Webster DictionaryMillennial: Aa person reaching young adulthood around the year 2000. - OxfordDictionariesMy debate will flow as follows: (Note that 5 and 6 are out of order in the pros argument, this is to save on redundancy.1. No restrictions of speech code outside of workplace.2. They will live their life in ignorance.3. College students entitled to first amendment on campus.4. Protection will harm.5. Students being trained to believe that any form of teasing is harmful.6. Unreasonable for student to file example complaint.1. This is true, excepting schools, that the workplace is the main area where speech codes are found and enforced with legal support. However, the con would like to note the significance of the workplace. The Beareu of Labor reported that there was approximately 8.7 million unemployed Americans, of course this is in reference to the labor force and not actual population. This means that 94.4 percent of Americans were employed. With such a large portion of our citizens in the workplace, this is not as irrelevant as the pro suggests. In fact, it reinforces that future workers need to be trained to understand the dynamics of their place of work.2. The pro claims that they will live their life in ignorance due to these speech codes. However, the con would like to observe that the pro has so far not given anything other than subjective reasoning for this. As the con has not found evidence pointing to the likelihood of this claim, the point is difficult to debate in a logical manner.3. The con will make this point clear once again as it is very much a key point. The students signed an agreement to follow the speech codes. There is no evidence that the pro can bring up pointing to anything other than a mutual agreement to the codes. Therefore it does not violate the first amendment as the student is exercising their right to liberty by signing this contract.4/5. The con will make a recommendation for the pro to read the source material published by the Santa Clara University in California. For convenience it will be linked in the sources. To summarize, the reading is explaining the purpose of their speech code, which is very similar to most university speech codes in the USA. The students are not being harmed but benefited by having it ingrained in to them to not resort to derogatory comments. As these are universities, the environment is educational which is difficult to do when bigotry is allowed to run rampant.6. The pro appears to agree that the report fell within the definition of micro-aggressions and yet was unreasonable. This creates a logical fallacy as the report meeting the definition of a Micro-Aggression is required to make a reasonable complaint to the Face book page that is meant for them. It is equivalent to claiming that a man stealing money is robbery but it's unreasonable to report because it was only one dollar. To some, they will see the scale of the act, others will only see the act. Understanding this, laws, rules and therefore this debate is focused on the act itself rather than the scale.The final point of the pro about the Millennials is off-topic unless the pro can prove otherwise, it would not further the debate to continue discussion on this unless the pro had established some kind of supported connection between this statement and the rest of their argument.To summarize, the pro brought forth no significant arguments that were not previously made and has still failed to provide evidence from a listed source, risking the credibility of their points.Sources:http://www.scu.edu...http://www.bls.gov...