That we should restrict free speech to combat the rise of right wing populism

What side opposition has failed to prove in this debate is that the harms caused by right-wing populists are not great enough for us to enact a policy to protect people from these individuals/parties. A "correlation not causation" argument is all side opposition gives to three examples of right-wing populists encouraging crime and crime rising - to reiterate one, Duterte encouraging his army to rape women, and then rapes increasing. The opposition has no care for the harms caused to minorities in this debate. Considering the scale on which these harms happen, some sort of response was necessary for me to even consider side opposition as an engaging opponent. Because they did not respond at all, they lost this debate. The main flaw within this opposition's case is that aside from a shallowly analysed argument about the integral right to free speech, there is no evidence from opposition that right-wing populism provides no harms to people. They did not engage with my point on language and my model. Instead of actual substantive arguments, they have simply refuted everything I have said. Again opposition, not good enough for this debate. In place of any structured factual analysis from the opposition as to why free speech must exist in democracies, they have cited another article. This shows their own lack of structured analysis as to why free speech needs to exist in democracies, probably because it's been a right to them since birth and they've never given any legitimate thought as to why it is so fundamental. Instead, they have relied on other sources to explain why it is necessary to have freedom of speech as if their opinions hold authority. Even worse, opposition had the audacity in their second argument to place the burden on my case to prove to you that free speech was not necessary. Free speech in all democratic countries is not the status quo, therefore it is not my burden. I don't need to prove to you that free speech isn't required in democracy because not only did I principally deal with that in my first argument about minority groups, but not every democratic country has free speech. Therefore, opposition has been grossly misinformed this entire debate. In fact, if the opposition thought so strongly that free speech was a fundamental right in democracy, it was their burden to prove this in a counter model as it deviates from the status quo. Unfortunately, at this point in the debate I would say it is too late for them to convince you and I win on this issue. The failure of the opposition to engage with any material regarding the poisonous nature of right-wing populism not only highlights their inability to engage with the specifics of the topic, but also means that to an extent they concede. They have attempted to shift the topic of this debate to banning free speech by failing to address the five distinct reasons as to why individuals and parties are likely to fall into identifiable categories of being populist. But ultimately, opposition only wanted to engage with the extreme end of our scale (i.e. banning individuals from running on the ballot box, or individuals from speaking entirely). Remember all the other minor policies that I support, like not giving them platforms at universities or stopping their social media pages from operating. These are ways are which we can try and decrease the influence these populists are able to have before we ban them from running in election. Ok so I saw three clashes in this debate: the legitimacy of the principle, the provision of solutions and harms to minorities, and the stability of democracy. Onto the first of which: is this legitimate? They committed themselves to a principle that basically went: free speech is valuable and these individuals should be able to engage. This does not directly engage with the principle that I gave you about the balance of rights for individuals to be safe from fear. If you create an atmosphere of fear and are ignorant of the truth, you're ultimately far more likely to persecute vulnerable minorities. The response that they gave was racism is inherent and it is violence. Ladies and gentlemen, no - violence is violence. And given that they've done nothing to contend the fact that we've seen increased rates of attacks on minorities in the aftermath of the US election or the Law and Justice party's rise to power in Poland, or that of Brexit. Given that individuals no longer feel safe in their homes, streets or communities because they fear being attacked for who they are, they have no original argument as to why the status quo should not be changed. Secondly, they say people need to have a political choice, but I question how meaningful that choice is if politics is skewed from key issues. My case told you populist parties overwhelmingly cannot have specific policies because they have to please a broad coalition of voters. It's very hard to provide a policy that both says they provide welfare for people (i.e. Obamacare) but that also appeals those very acts. This means there are no tangible policies from these parties that protect people. And finally, opposition said we've got to give the people what they want from their political parties. Well, ultimately that is not the obligation of a democracy - a government still exists to regulate policy otherwise you have an anarchist society. We should have parameters within which the discussion occurs, that we do not allow anti-Semitism just because it's what some people want. That, dear opposition, is called a tyranny of the majority, that overwhelmingly harms the most vulnerable members of our society. So secondly, let's look at the provisions of solutions and the effects on minorities. I gave you concrete reasons as to why these populist politicians are reliant on harms to minorities to get into power. Firstly, that they overwhelmingly scapegoat these people to hold a coalition as minorities are simple answers for complex questions. Side opposition gave absolutely no response to this, saying it wasn't relevant to the debate. By the "right-wing populists" in the title, it clearly is. Because we need to understand the harms these individuals begin to have on minorities before they get into power. Side opposition has given no reason as to why we shouldn't ban right-wing populists from campaigning and instead decided to focus on free speech. I argued that a permission mechanism with regards to harms to minorities is created by populists and thgere was no response to this analysis. If the orange man at the front of the room can stand up and say "well, it's okay for me to grab women by whatever" or "it's okay for me to decide that Mexicans are rapists" then people who are not predisposed to violence under the status quo are far more likely to engage in those very acts of violence. That's why we see what were tempered Americans now punching Black Lives Matter protesters in the face. That is a fundamental harm that arises from populism itself. Finally, they disregarded the idea that right-wing individuals (not populists) will step in to fill the void that is created under my side of the house. Because populists muddy political discussions and often simply attack their opponents, that individuals are less informed about actual political policy. The opposition is damaging the value of the vote of the people they claim to protect. And finally, the stability of democracy. Opposition did not respond to my argument regarding elite institutions like the media and the courts being bullied by populist parties and individuals when they get into power. Not only that, their only response to my structured analysis on why democracy is truth led was...there is no truth? Ladies and gentlemen, I know that not all Mexicans are rapists. That is a truth. The opposition structures their analysis in a in a way that suggests they think Mexicans are rapists is as factual as the year is 2018. Because I am the side that protects democracy I propose.