Law against Racism

Let me start off by noting the gross injustice my opponent is trying to commit in his second paragraph: change the resolution. He notes that the law would " serve to defend the entire population not just the minority" and yet, before his actual argument in the first section begins (and I will assume his argument begins where he writes "My opening argument:") he writes that "I'd also like to point out that by "racism" I'm more specifically referring to Caucasian towards black. I am fully aware that black people can also be racists and that there are other ethnicity's that are discriminated but I'd like to only talk about black." As this is what he wrote BEFORE he started his actual argument, and the examples he gave concern white on black racism (African slavery and Ferguson) we can only have assumed that he meant such a law to only apply to white on black racism. Trying to change such a resolution halfway through a debate is an amazing display of unsportsmanlike conduct. Therefore, let us safely ignore his second paragraph and extend through my arguments concerning a violation of the 14th amendment and thus a violation of American ethics.Now let me note a few unwarranted claims made by my opponent, the first of which being that he believes racist organizations "might become militant and cause violence." Now, let us apply this logic to a host of situations; that X might make someone do something illegal and see if it follows. Drinking alcohol might make people violent due to them getting drunk, therefore, we shout outlaw alcohol (which has been done before to disastrous effect I might add). Violent video games and movies might make people violent, therefore, we should ban violent video games and movies. Religion might make people violent, therefore, we should outlaw religion. These previous three statements simply do not follow from my opponent's given premise. He is in a sense proving too much with his argument.The second unwarranted claim my opponent makes is that a law prohibiting racism would have protected people against violence from racist organizations who (after my opponent does indeed jump off the slippery slope) might become militant. My question is simple. How? The act of murder is already illegal in every single state and has been since the country was founded. Now if these organizations were so intent on killing someone that they would actually go ahead and to it, what would possibly defer them if not the threat of charging them with murder? Does my opponent really believe that because there is an additional unnecessary law preventing murder, that a criminal would somehow think twice about actually committing the act? The act of charging someone twice with the same crime does not make any sense whatsoever and my opponent's appeal to pity does nothing to explain how such a thing would have even been enforced in the first place. There are plenty pictures available of lynchings where entire towns gather around the corpse of the victim, smiling and cheering at the act. Now, with so many people condoning the crime of murder at the time, who would bat an eyelash at the mere act of racism? Furthermore, how does such a crime protect people today? My opponent offers many idealistic hopes and statements without a smidgen of proof to back up his argument.My opponent's concession of the fact that emotion is not enough to pass such a law only highlights the holes in his argument. Many other laws already make illegal the specific cases that he is mentioning. Murder, bullying, hate speech, discrimination in schooling or in the workplace are ALL illegal. What point is there to create "A Law that made prejudice illegal, meaning that people could no longer use racial slurs or express themselves in a way that could be harmful to a black person" when the previous topics are illegal in their own right? Creating such a law would only put limits on free speech and expression as I noted earlier to such an extent where not even white comedians -satirists such as the late George Carlin in particular- cannot use the word "nigger" not even in the context of discussing such a word. Are we also to assume that white teachers or students are to skip over that word when reading aloud from a book such as Huckleberry Finn while anyone else is freely allowed to say it?I must also mention that my opponent failed to make mention of groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church which regularly spreads messages such as "Thank god for dead f*gs" and "Pray for more dead soldiers". This organization has made a multitude of comments of the sort, and through my opponent's destruction of the First Amendment should also face jail time. Are we to assume organized religion too should be banned by the United States government?Let me remind everyone of the burden of proof my opponent bears. He must prove that such a law outlawing white on black racism in any form, be it through expression, racial slurs, etc. As of yet, my opponent has failed to do this, and has not offered up any evidence whatsoever supporting his claim. I look forward to my opponent's next argument.