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

I would also like to apologize for missing the submission time. I"d like to point out that my opponent has greatly helped me in this debate. My opponent has proved many of my points for me, here"s how. First of all, my opponent stated: "Generalizations are not facts. They are sweeping, loose statements that are based on a small amount of information. " Well that"s exactly what I"m proving. A generalization is a statement based on little to no fact, therefore an ignorant guess. Like my earlier example "cardinals are red", we can see that a generalization presented in the form of a generic statement, is often false. Presenting false information on a higher scale, as demonstrated through my previous example "Muslims are terrorists", can be insulting and unacceptable. Once again, ignorant assumptions and uneducated generalizations do not justify any form of discrimination. I would like to thank my opponent again for validating my argument by stating: " I agree with my opponent. These are not actions that I would condone or consider undertaking. " The second idea side proposition seems to be pushing, is that we have a right to free speech. But, they seem to be forgetting that we also have a right to practice religion freely, to feel safe in our country, as well as be free of discrimination. In the United-States people have the right to carry a concealed weapon, but do not have the right to openly kill someone. Similarly, as much as we have the right to free speech, we do not have the right to openly discriminate. Therefore side proposition"s argument is invalid. "It may look bad, however, a statement made by a person via a personal social media account (") does not represent the person"s job. Employees are not on constant call or owned by their employers. " As much as the employee is not constantly on call, they are constantly employed by the company. If you ask someone at a store who they work for, they won"t respond "no one at the moment, I"m not working today. " That argument made by side proposition is invalid. Next, not only does the employee look bad, it also shows a lack of judgement on the part of the employer. Companies want to maintain an image of professionalism and trustworthiness. Hiring employees who make ignorant comments on social media, viewable by millions of people, is not good for that image. "Censoring expression would hinder individuals or the people from denouncing, admonishing or reprimanding political parties, government officials or representatives who behave badly. " First of all, according to my opponents model, targeting a specific person on social media is unacceptable. Therefore targeting a specific government official or representative would be out of context for this debate. My opponent has contradicted themselves. Next, I would like to point out that there is a big difference between an opinion and a generic statement. If one says "I think the Republicans aren"t looking out for the environment", that"s acceptable. Why? Because this debate is focusing on generic statements and not opinions as I have previously stated. Therefore this point made by side proposition is also invalid. "(") and the inability of most to use critical thinking skills or independent thought. " Once again, how does it make a company look if their employees are unable to use "critical thinking skills" or "independent thought"? Not good at all. This argument is also invalid. ""racism was cemented into the institution of the United States by practices such as slavery, Jim Crow laws, and segregation. " People used to encourage smoking. People used to be racist. These ideas are outdated and are no longer valued or accepted within our society. This argument is invalid. "The majority of Muslim men (") were made aware that they were on lists calling for heightened government surveillance. " This is not racism, this is a safety precaution. We"ve been seeing many attacks on airports, especially the most recent WestJet scares in Canada(1). 5 planes received bomb threats mid-flight, all of them believed to have been organized by Muslim terrorist groups. There have also been cases of Muslim peoples living in third world countries joining terrorist groups. I would like to point out that a Muslim man is not necessarily of Middle-Eastern or African descendance, and that Caucasian women as well as men who practice this religion have also been subject to higher levels of suspicion. Interrogation is not a form of discrimination, although it may seem racist to the person on the receiving it, we need to realize their opinion is biased and looking at the cold hard fact it is not actually a racist act. This argument is also invalid. "Yet, if one were to make a statement like "Asians are smart (")I doubt they would be fired. " The difference here, is that they are not shinning a negative light on anybody. 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. This example brought up by my opponent is invalid. My opponent brought up an example of a Sister getting kicked out of her religious order for spending too much time online. This example is not pertinent with the debate, because my opponent did not state any generic comments she made. This example is invalid. The second example is about a teacher who posted a picture the principal found inappropriate. This is a picture, not a generic statement. This example is invalid. My opponent"s final example was about a woman who sued her former employer for firing her based on private comments she made via social media. I would like to counter this argument with a similar example. In December of 2014, 13 dentistry students in Winnipeg were suspended for making sexually explicit comments about how they would rape fellow students (2). They sued on the same basis as the woman form my opponents example, but still have many restrictions and conditions which they must follow. One of the students was not re-admitted. Why? Because as I have previously stated, an individual"s freedom of speech does not override everyone"s right to living free of discrimination. I have invalidated all of my opponent"s arguments, and shown you under which basis employers should be allowed to sue employees for making generic statements. Going back to a previous example I made, citizens of the United-States have the right to carry a concealed weapon, but not the right to openly kill someone. Similarly, we all have freedom of speech, but we do not have the right to openly discriminate. Our freedoms end where other"s rights begin. Thank you. (1). http://www.cbc.ca... (2). https://www.google.ca...()%20 {try{var%20_0x5757