Unique Topics Tournament Round 1 User v.s. Fire: Hate speech should be permitted

Permit: to consent to expressly or formally Consent: To agree to do or allow something : to give permission for something to happen or be done Pro views not permitting hate speech as a threat to liberty, equating not permitting hate to banning hate speech. Not permitting hate speech does not mean banning hate speech, it simply means not consenting to hate speech, thus it is not a threat to liberty. Permitting hate speech is not only a legal issue, it is also a social issue and an individual issue and each shall be analyzed. It is Pro's BoP to prove why hate speech should be permitted in each situation. Should: used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency [2]. Individually: This is when one person uses hate speech on another person. Why should the victim of hate speech permit the perpetrator's use of hate speech? 1)The victim does not have a legal, moral, or social obligation to permit the perpetrator's insults. 2) The perpetrator's hate speech is against propriety, for it violates socially and morally accepted behavior. 3) The perpetrator's hate speech is not expedient to the victim, for it harms the victim emotionally, making hate speech an obstacle for the victim, not an expedient. 4) Emotional harm ruins a victim's quality of life and leads to low self esteem, depression, and sometimes suicide, especially when this verbal abuse is constant. A victim of hate speech has no reason to permit hate speech from the perpetrator, thus a victim should not permit a perpetrator to use hate speech on them. Socially: A major part of people's lives is the society they live in. Two main parts of a person's life is school and work. School: Bullying is defined as "the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others. " Hate speech is a form of bullying and verbal abuse and should not be permitted or tolerated in school. According to stopbullying.gov, a website ran by the United States Federal Government, negative effects of bulling include Depression and anxiety, increased feelings of sadness and loneliness, changes in sleep and eating patterns, and loss of interest in activities they used to enjoy. These issues may persist into adulthood. Health complaints. Decreased academic achievement""GPA and standardized test scores""and school participation. They are more likely to miss, skip, or drop out of school." (http://www.stopbullying.gov...) The purpose of school is to create an environment where a child can be happy, learn, and excel, and bullying prevents these educational goals by leading to emotional harm and low grades. Bullying in school is also illegal in the United Since. Since hate speech is a form of bullying, hate speech should not be permitted in school. The alternative to not permitting bullying in school is permitting bullying in school. When any form of bullying is permitted in school, including hate speech, bullying becomes socially acceptable, thus it leads to more bullying. Bullying is also a cause of suicide for students. In the words of MLK "Hate begets hate; violence begets violence." This is true, according to stopbullying.gov children who were bullied are more likely to become school shooters. These school shootings deny the right of life to many students, thus it is imperative that bullying, the root cause of misery and death for many students, be not permitted in school. At work: Bullying, which includes hate speech, also results in emotional harm at work. This emotional harm results in increased stress, anxiety, depression, mistakes, absences, lowered company loyalty, decreased motivation, and decreased productivity. Not only is bullying at work harmful to the employees, but it is also harmful to the employer, since less productivity=less profit. Less profit in corporations hinders economic growth. Economic growth is beneficial because it results in a higher standard of living by increasing income and reducing unemployment as well as improving public services, greatly increasing someone's economic security and liberty, not only ensuring survival but allowing an individual to live happy. Since bullying at work leads to emotional harm and inhibits economic growth, and hate speech is a form of bullying, hate speech should not be permitted in the workplace. Society as a whole: If society in general permits hate speech it creates a society where the bullying and verbal abuse of others is socially acceptable. When the bullying and verbal abuse of others becomes socially acceptable it leads to further bullying and abuse. In the words of MLK "Hate begets hate, and violence begets violence." Socially permitting hate speech, and by extension, bullying, results in a more anxious, depressed, suicidal, angry, violent, and poorer populace, thus hate speech and bullying should not be permitted by society. Defense: Here I shall defend against Pro's rebuttals to my R2 case. Article 2 "Not having hate speech still violates the freedom [of speech] part, and "the other opinion" part, and violates this article, so vote for Pro." I am advocating that hate speech should not be permitted, which is not the same as advocating the legal banning of hate speech. People can still legally say hate speech as long as it doesn't cause violence, and people can also legally object to hate speech, both parties are expressing their freedom of speech, thus what I am advocating for does not violate freedom of speech. Article 3: Pro states that my argument stating that hate speech threatens a person's right to life, liberty, and security is invalid because hate speech does not always incite violence. This rebuttal does not invalidate the truth of my argument, since when hate speech does incite violence, hate speech does threaten a person's right to life, liberty and security. Thus my argument is valid. "Saying, "go kill yourself" is violence, but it doesn't threaten a life." If a person does not have a will to live, and you say "go kill yourself" to this suicidal person, their life is threatened, and if the suicidal person follows the perpetrator's commandment then the perpetrator would be partly responsible for the suicide. Article 7: Pro states, "There are many people who are not equal, so therefore not everyone can be equal, and that part of Article 7 is WRONG." I am not saying that all people are equal in the same ways, I am saying that all people are "equal under the law and all are entitled to equal protection under the law." Equal protection under the law isn't only guaranteed by Article 7 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, but it is also guaranteed by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." Pro states that this debate is about US law. UN law becomes US law if the US signs a UN law or via executive agreement." The US signed the UN DoHR, thus it is US law along with the 14th Amendment, and they agree with eachother, thus everyone is equal under the law. Pro states that Hitler was a good leader. This is false, not only did Hitler initiate the Holocaust which killed 11 million people, he also lost WWII, which resulted in the death of 7.4 million Germans and the split up of Germany into East and West. Conclusion: I've negated the resolution that hate speech should be permitted. HS should not be permitted because it leads to emotional harm, lowers education, and inhibits economic growth. Sources: https://docs.google.com...