Employees should not be fired from their jobs for making generic blanket statements on social media

This debate round has come down to two main questions; -On which grounds can a company fire an employee based on comments made via social media? And most importantly; -Can freedom of speech override discrimination? Throughout this debate, my most honourable opponent has not only failed to answer either of these questions properly, but has also confirmed many of my points for me through their irrelevant examples, and lack of logic. Now onto the first question, on which grounds can a company fire an employee based on comments made via social media? "It depends on who's asked and whos doing the asking. If a stranger walks up and asks who someone works for, they may or may not answer. The important thing is it's up to them. This point os invalid. " My opponent decided to take my hypothetical statement technically. Therefore he did not invalidate my argument, he simply attempted to discredit my argument, which he unfortunately was unable to do. "The people interpreting or misinterpreting the generic statement would be displaying the inability to use critical thinking skills or independent thought. This is a false claim of invalidation. " No matter how incompetent or absurd someone"s interpretation of a comment may seem to my opponent, discrimination is still unacceptable. I do realize not all cases may be real cases of discrimination, but some are and need to be delt with accordingly. "My opponent seems to be under the assumption that statements have to be vocal. This is incorrect. One can even make a fashion statement. " Once again, we are talking about generic statements, not fashion statements or artistic statements. A picture cannot convey a generic statement unless the picture contains a quote. Therefore, as I previously stated, my opponent"s argument about a teacher being fired over a picture is completely irrelevant. My answer to this question is simple. If someone makes an obviously discriminatory online, this is sufficient grounds for them to be fired. Companies do not want rude or close-minded employees who project that image of their business. These people need to assume responsibility for their actions, and as much as they have a right to their opinion, they do not have a right to share it with the public spark racial, sexist, or ageist hate. If people want to make a generalization, it"s their responsibility to ensure the information they"re giving out is correct, and not up to the employer to accept that negative image and protect their employee. Companies offer their employees pay for commitment and their skills. If the employee cannot respect that agreement and decides to make hurtful comments for anyone to see, the company has a right to penalize them and make them assume responsibility for their actions. So, onto the second question, can free speech override discrimination? My opponent seems to think that their clash against my claim that "ignorant assumptions and uneducated generalizations do not justify any form of discrimination" invalidated my argument. However this is false. My opponent answered "My opponent is failin to acknowledge that all generic statements are not discriminatory. This makes the point invalid. " Now, let"s look back to a previous statement I made; "Saying all people of a certain group are smart, is not a negative generalization. If, however, one were to say "Asians are stupid", this comment is shinning a negative light on a certain race, therefore the comment becomes racist. " I clearly state that not all generalizations are negative, and have not once said that all generic statements are discriminatory. Therefore my opponent"s argument is not only invalid, but also false. The next argument my opponent made stated; "I don't like squash - it stinks, broccoli is better", for example, that is discriminating. That makes this point invalid. " However, my opponent then moved onto saying; "discrimnate - verb : to unfairly treat a person or group of people differently from other people or groups. " My opponent has contradicted themselves, therefore this claim is not only invalid, but once again it is false. "The recent case involving the police assaulting the melaninated girl at the swimming pool i an example. " This is not an example of racism through a generic statement made via social media. "While my opponent has chosen to focus on generic statements, my assertion clearly includes opinions as it states, "Employees should be able to express their opinions without the threat of termination. " My opponent has not considered the full scope of the argument. Also, her claim of invalidation, as those made previously, is inaccurate. " "Again, this debate is not only about generic statements. The debate also includes free speech. The example given dealt with free speech. " My opponent seems to forget the resolution of this debate: "Employees should not be fired from their jobs for making generic blanket statements on social media. " With this in mind, any arguments concerning the freedom of expression as a whole are not relevant to this resolution. We are not talking about free speech, and it is never mentioned in the resolution or in my opponent"s model. I"d like to correct my opponent by once again proving that this argument is, in fact, invalid. "There are still people who are racist. Sadly, racism is still alive and there are still people who value racism. My opponent is illustrating a post-racial harmonious society that does not yet exist. " Let"s go back to my previous example, where I compared smoking to racism. Of course there are still people who smoke, but the social stigma and government imposed tax have greatly diminished the amount of smokers. Same goes for racism. There will always be an exception to the rules, but there are laws in place protecting people against discrimination, and a very low acceptance level for intolerant people. Side proposition was obviously unable to grasp the reasoning behind my claim. "As stated, governmental policy and propaganda often sets the trend for ignorant stereotypes, bias and public paranoia. It should be noted that "Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks on U. S. Soil"" My opponent seems to be forgetting a crucial element of racism. If a Muslim man is interrogated, it can be perceived as racism. However, if a Caucasian man is interrogated by Caucasian people, it will not receive attention for racism. Therefore, no matter how many people are interrogated, only about 10% of them will receive attention on the basis of racism and those cases are usually the only ones we end up hearing about in the media. Therefore, my opponent"s point is false as well extremely biased. Finally, I will counter my opponents final clash. My opponent stated that I didn"t answer their example "Overweight people always over eat. " This example is not discriminatory, it is a passing of negative judgement. It is not an example of racism ageism, or sexism, and therefore not relevant in this debate. Now, I will move onto answering the first question, can freedom of speech override discrimination? No, it can"t. Ladies and gentlemen, what gives one human more value than another? Is it wealth? Success? Happiness? These are all easily debatable and subjective answers. However, my opponent"s answer is morally flawed. My opponent believes that exploiting one"s freedom, gives them superiority over another. My opponent believes, that it is morally acceptable for one to put down others based on physical characteristics. Well I"m here to tell you that that is not okay. Race, age, gender, and any other physical attributes over which we do not have control, do not define us. And letting other people use these minor differences as a basis for spreading hate is profoundly wrong. Putting out somebody"s candle doesn"t make yours shine any brighter. Our freedoms end where other"s rights begin. Exploitation does not give superiority. Discrimination does not give superiority. Where are we going to draw the line? Side proposition doesn"t seem to have one.