Holocaust Denial and Similar Acts Should Be Illegal

I concede to all the definitions my opponent has offered. The only correction I otherwise have is to define similar acts as acts the expressed hatred for Jews or denial of facts. Also, for the purpose of this debate, I concede that the Holocaust did occur and is a historical fact. I will first go over my own case before refuting my opponent's contentions. I value justice as it is the ultimate means of finding the intrinsic worth of any action or choice. We can achieve the universally sought after value of justice by fulfilling humanitarian values. Humanitarian values are directly related to justice as they value human life, discovery, and respect for humanity in general. My opponent has not offered any value of justice or means of achieving it so I interject mine. I believe that denying the holocaust denial and similar acts should be illegal. I believe that Holocaust denial and similar acts should be illegal for the reasons that they are fighting words, hurt society, and disrespect the lives lost during the Holocaust. 1) As any educated person will know, not all types of speech are protected by the freedom of speech. There's always a balancing act that will occur between one's right to speak and everyone else's right to safety and general welfare. For example, it is clear that laws ought to prohibit a person from yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded, dim lighted theatre. The conflict between rights is clear. Denying the Holocaust is somewhat alike. Denying the Holocaust recalls a type of hatred for an entire religion and is normally associated with violence such as with the Ku Klux Klan. To deny the Holocaust is considered a fighting word as they incite violence. On a side note, fighting words should not be covered by freedom of speech. Inciting violence is a direct violation of humanitarian values because violence can lead to the loss of life. Thus, holocaust denying is immoral and should be punished. 2) Second of all, the pure disrespect for those who lost their lives in the Holocaust is deeply disrespected. To ignore an entire mass genocide is an atrocious action. Once again, freedom of speech does not apply here as these are fighting words being dealt with. To blatantly disrespect the loss of 6 million lives is intolerant. We must be intolerant of the intolerant or intolerance will grow. If we want to pursue humanitarian values such as the high regard to human life and follow its path to justice, we ought make Holocaust denial illegal. 3) Denial of facts is bad for a society as it puts facts into a a more subjective spot. Even if these fighting words were protected under freedom of speech, this speech would still put society at harm. If a school's test were to be made and a question should be about the Holocaust, a test maker would question whether or not the question should be included in the first place. This is, of course, assuming Holocaust denial is not illegal. If Holocaust denial were illegal, facts would flourish and tests would be more efficient. Denial of facts harms general welfare as poor tests affect general welfare. Therefore, denial of facts does not achieve humanitarian values nor justice and should not be tolerated. Neg 1) My opponent's first contention was that actions rather than speech should be illegal. However, he does not give any reasons as to why or even how this claim even proves his case. It's a silly argument that quite frankly proves nothing and even if it did, would not have any relevance to the argument at hand. I strongly urge the voters to ignore this argument as it has no value. Neg 2) My opponent's second argument regarding martyrs from these laws is also fallacious. We've made burglary illegal and now people hesitate before robbing someone else. This is the power of laws. Besides, my opponent does even give a statistic as to how many Holocaust deniers became deniers because of these laws. Once again, my opponent's argument is fallacious. Neg 3) My opponent's third contention is that making it illegal makes the idea more likely to spread. I negate for a simple reason. Not allowing a person to publish material makes more difficult for an idea to spread. What would've happened had Darwin not written down his findings but rather posted it on his blog or just told his friends? His idea would not have spread. Neg overall) My opponent seemed to hint the entire case that freedom of speech was just. He has yet to prove it or even define it. After assuming we believe in freedom of speech (which has yet to be proved just) ought to be an undeniable right, my opponent presses that we should allow these people to continue with their unintelligible hate speech. Because Holocaust denial is protected under freedom of speech, harms society, and disrespects key humanitarian values, I affirm the resolution that "Holocaust denial and similar acts should be illegal."