Everyone should be allowed to say racial slurs.

To prelude, I will encompassing racial slurs into a broader category of "hate speech". First looking towards my opponent's case. Contrary to what he says, historically, hate speech precipitates violence Tsesis 10 Norms recognize that history provides ample cases of hate speech instigating violence. History overflows with examples making it clear that propaganda was essential to the Nazis' eventual genocide of Jews, the Hutu slaughter of Tutsis in Rwanda,30s the Islamist Arab Janjaweed continued mass murder and enslavement of Darfurians, the ethnic slaughter during the 2007 Kenya election, and the Turkish exterminationism perpetrated against Armenians. Despite indisputable centrality of hate propaganda in mass murder and hate crimes, the libertarian strain of American First Amendment law denies the potential harm resulting from speech, increasing the vulnerability of groups on campus. This literally correlates with the beginnings of the American Civil war that was largely based around the issue of slavery. The usage of hate speech, words that are protected under the Constitution, caused unspeakable violence, directly refuting my opponent's first point. Looking at the second point. My opponent misunderstands the notion of Freedom of Speech in America. Speech is not "Free" as my opponent perpetuates, nor is speech completely protected. There are some parts of speech, i. e. mainly fighting words, established in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 1942, that are unprotected and liable to prosecution. I would also like my opponent in the third round to provide a DIRECT example of how hate speech allows for more ideology, more ideas and ESPECIALLY MORE CREATIVITY. Please answer this directly, if not, your point literally cannot stand. To counter these factless points, I provide two pieces of evidence: The impacts of hate speech spans across entire communities"outweighs the aff Deena Garnett 2002 Hate speech is not defined by "isolated incidents" or "merely jokes""it is specifically intended to degrade and cause harm to individuals. In the context of historical oppression and discrimination, hate speech has larger implications for all members of the targeted group, not just the individual. Victims of hate speech suffer both emotionally and physically. "Psychological responses to such stigmatization consists of feelings of humiliation, isolation, and self-hatred" (Delgado, 1993, p. 91). Hate speech takes away human dignity and self-worth, and causes self-doubt. AND We should dismiss extremist views and disengage when debate is hopeless Kennan Malik 2012 There are certainly claims that are so outrageous that one would not wish to waste one"s time refuting them. If someone were to suggest that all Muslims should be tortured because they are potential terrorists, or that rape is acceptable, then clearly no rational argument will ever change their mind, or that of anyone who accepts such claims. Much of what we call hate speech consists, however, of claims that may be contemptible but yet are accepted by many as morally defensible. Hence I am wary of the argument that some sentiments are so immoral they can simply be condemned without being contested. First, such blanket condemnations are often a cover for the inability or unwillingness politically to challenge obnoxious sentiments. Second, in challenging obnoxious sentiments, we are not simply challenging those who spout such views; we are also challenging the potential audience for such views. Dismissing obnoxious or hateful views as not worthy of response may not be the best way of engaging with such an audience. Whether or not an obnoxious claim requires a reply depends, therefore, not simply on the nature of the claim itself, but also on the potential audience for that claim. These two pieces of evidence show that hate speech is not only NOT beneficial, but should be disregarded and not allowed. To answer my opponents questions at the bottom of his round 2: 1. Yes, it matters. See above evidence. 2. Yes, it's against the law. See above evidence. Now to show more evidence against hate speech/racial slurs. Hate speech undermines the speech of targeted groups. Brax 2016 Hate speech does harm by undermining the speech of targeted groups, which means that the utility that free speech exists to serve is diminished. The distribution of costs and benefits for allowing hate speech is unlikely to be fair or equal. The harm caused by hate speech primarily befalls people that are already among the worst off in our society. This, I argue, is a reason in favor of hate speech regulations. AND Allowing hate speech is a greater threat to democracy than restrictions Luban 2016 Which poses the greater threat to democracy, hate speech laws or hate speech itself? Vigorous democracies have judged that unfettered hate speech poses the greater threat to self-government. By making minorities fearful about participating in civic life. It does so as well by mainstreaming hate, in a vicious spiral that breeds more hate and empowers antidemocratic race radicals. AND Free speech is not neutral; it favors the powerful and its great equality is an illusion when deployed to harm racial minorities Williams 05 the traditional defense of free speech ignores the fact that it favors those who already hold power in a society. Liberties are not wielded equally by those who do not enjoy equally; it is an empty formalism to claim that all have equal freedom to speak. Instead, hate speech, and the tolerance of it, is used to perpetuate social hierarchies. It further marginalizes the disenfranchised. There is no "equal right" to engage in hate speech, supporters point out-after all, what is the white equivalent of calling someone a "nigger"? There is no such word that demeans whites in the way this epithet demeans African-Americans. They argue all students, especially the disadvantaged, must feel safe and accepted on a university campus if they are to experience equal access to education. Hate speech denies minorities this equal chance to learn, say the supporters of restrictive codes. AND Hate speech promotes dominate power relations Deena Garnett, University of Vermont ethics board assistant director, July 2002, "Silenced Voices: Hate Speech Codes on Campus," The University of Vermont, . http://www.uvm.edu... (Accessed 6/26/16) Before institutions can regulate hate speech, they must first define it. Colleges and universities have outlined what constitutes hate speech in both broad and narrow terms. "Hate speech is an imprecise term that generally includes verbal and written words and symbolic acts that convey a grossly negative assessment of particular persons or groups based on their race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or disability" (Kaplin & Lee, 1996, p. 509). Matsuda (1993) offers three characteristics of racist speech: the message suggests racial inferiority; it is directed against a historically oppressed group; and the message is hateful, degrading, and persecutory in nature. Though Matsuda refers directly to racist speech, her criteria may include any form of hate speech. Most importantly, speech directed against an historically oppressed group or person demonstrates the relationship between hate speech, power, and dominance (Matsuda). All this evidence must be addressed by the Pro side in Round 3. If not, they lose argument points simply on offense coming out of the Con.