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

For most of the arguments, my opponent is going on the perspective of the people who are getting hate speech, when I am talking about the people who are doing hate speech. BurdensThe debate is about whenether hate speech should be permitted. Not, "hate speech should always be permitted. ", or "hate speech should be permitted the majority of time. ", or "hate speech will be permitted. " My opponent seems to make his arguments around "always", but it is not, it is "should", meaning not always, sometimes, and at least once. RebuttalsArticle 2: My opponent gives lot of quotes about the 2nd article of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. The article says, "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. "My opponent shows/says that Hate speech is a kind of speech related to the race, religion, gender, etc. My opponent says that this is violating the second rule. It is also bothering not doing hate speech, as it says, "Everyone is entitled to have freedoms. .. ", and not having free speech is not having freedom. And also, my opponent is just saying some sort of hate speech, not all hate speech has gender, or the things listed above. I am not talking about all kinds of hate speech, only "should", meaning some, and I can be meaning the other some, not the one listed above. So, yeah, this isn't actually a good rebuttal because of the resolution. If it was "always", it would have been a good argument, but it is "should". Not having hate speech still violates the freedom part, and "the other opinion" part, and violates this article, so vote for Pro. Article 3:My opponent gives a long list of premises, and I will quote them below:"P1) Hate speech incites violenceP2) Violence threatens the life of a personP3) When someone's life is threatened, they are no longer secure. P4) When someone is not secure, one is not freeP5) When one is not free, their liberty is gone. C1) Thus Hate speech threatens a person's right to life, liberty, and security. "For P1, not always, only some hate speech causes violence, and the resolution isn't always. And, violence may threaten the life of a person, but not always. Saying, "go kill yourself" is violence, but it doesn't threaten a life. Yeah, I agree with P3, but P4, it is not always. P5, yes, but because I refuted some premises, and I refuted the first one, which made all fall, so it can't be. My opponent does not mention that hate speech can hurt liberty, as we can't actually speak what we want to do. Therefore, it doesn't always harm Article 3, as the debate is a "should", not "always". And, in every single time, banning hate speech will harm liberty, so banning hate speech will violated Article 3. The point is refuted, and goes to my side. Vote Pro for Article 3. Article 7:The weird thing is that in this argument, only the first paragraph are the arguments, and the others seem to be the rebuttals of the arguments. I will rebut my opponent's arguments, and defend my arguments in this one. My opponent says that all are equal. .. , from the 7th article. All have equal protection. I agree with the second one, but then not everyone is equal. Is the president of the United States and a hobo equal? Is Trump and Hilary equal? There are many people who are not equal, so therefore not everyone can be equal, and that part of Article 7 is WRONG. We can't always actually believe everything said in these "articles". The next paragraph, I will rebut what my opponent says. My opponent says that hate speech encourages discrimination of a group, or people, and lose their rights. This doesn't do anything with Article 7, but I will rebut it anyways. I already showed, not always, and they don't lose their liberty, as my opponent didn't show that, as his premise failed, and he couldn't show anything from it. My opponent just gives a link about the South African thingys, but he doesn't actually put it in the text. If he assumes that he will make me read the source, he is wrong. It is not my burden, or my job to read his source, he has to present it in his argument, which he doesn't. I can post 500 pages for my opponent to read, and say it is my argument. My opponent says that it is about international law, not U. S. law. Most debates are about the U. S. , and I thought that it would be too. Unless the Instignator says, "The whole world", or a specfic country, debate. org mostly does U. S. , as it is an company in U. S. I will still assume, and make it the U. S. and, my opponent gives many statistics and most of them are the U. S. , so I don't see a problem. We can do international things but the debate is mostly centered around the U. S. It doesn't matter really, just that it's hard to find other's constitiutions, as they are all in other languages, and I don't have the time to translate all of them. My opponent does not explain how international law is better, and more superior. My opponent concedes that slavery is wrong. My opponent says that slaves were getting wrecked by hate speech. That isn't any reason why slavery was banned. It was banned because of no freedom of choice, not because of hate speech. So because of hate speech, it can't be morally wrong, as that wasn't the reason why it was banned. And, my opponent concedes this point, so basically my slavery point is dropped. Now my opponent says I bunch of things that because of hate speech Hitler was a bad leader. Hitler was a good leader, it was just that he was leading for the wrong side, and the wrong purpose, but he acutally led well. So hate speech can be good. My opponent shows dangerous hate speech, and it should be banned. Yeah it can be banned, but my opponent's burden if to ban all hate speech, and why they are all bad. My opponent doesn't show how swears are bad, etc. So, yeah, and the resolution is a should, so anyways rebutted. My opponent then says that it is hate speech when it is not violent. Yes, and hate speech doesn't always mean violent. My opponent doesn't rebut the causes of if it is not violent, and my opponent needs to do that for his/her burden. As my opponent failed to do that, vote for Pro. ConclusionMy opponent seems to not understand the resolution. He makes arguments on, "all hate speech", but it is actually, "should", not meaning all, but some. As my opponent made arguments which are not following the resolution, and my opponent fails to try to rebut any other of my arguments, Vote for Pro. My opponent fails to refute the First Amendment, and drops all the other arguments of mine. He can post other rebuttals in Round 3, and I have more time to defend my arguments. Thanks for the debate, and vote for Pro. (I am extremely sorry that I was REALLY late on posting this, and even might have forfeited. I thank User for being kind and saying it can be a tie, but thanks. Now it is your turn User, good luck. ) I thank Bsh for making the "Unique Topic's Tournament", and thank User for being my opponent, it's being a good debate so far. Good luck in the rest of the debate, User. Now it is your turn. Don't follow my opponent's not related to the resolution arguments, and resume to vote for Pro. Thanks.