Everyone should be allowed to say racial slurs.

Look. As I said in the comments, the "quotes" are a hilarious attempt to disparage respected academic sources. I will provide you detailed information on where to find these books if requested. When looking towards my opponent's attacks on my case. When do I ever mention hate crimes in my first case? I clearly say "HATE SPEECH", which is a form of racist insults. These directly correlate to violence as shown in my first two points, and they are UNREFUTED by my opponent. Therefore, this is one of the reasons to vote Con in the debate. My opponent seems to misunderstand the root causes of the civil war. Sure, federal vs. state powers played a factor, but it was the underlying notions of race and race inequality that would decide the war, something that the perpetual usage of racist insults by Southern white folk directly played a part in. As I said further down in Round 2, there are some opinions that LITERALLY do not matter and should not be debated because they are far too extreme. This shows that my opponent fails to refute the KEY part of the case showing that free speech ISN'T free. Therefore, another point to vote Con on. "We can talk to them,communicate with them and learn more about their ideology,their ideas,and thus we can improve our creativity by making a original idea of the person based on their hate speech. By hearing hate speech we can allow for more people with different ideology's more freedom." First, the Luban 16 evidence proves this wrong, and second, multiple other pieces of evidence show that hate speech in fact SILENCES the targeted groups, working in fact AGAINST what my opponent just said. Therefore, his refutation is proved entirely FALSE and is another reason to vote Con in the debate. On the contrary. Banning hate speech ensures equality. It means that whites can't be hateful, but also means other groups can't be hateful back. The fact that the Pro misinterprets the Con proposal shows how flawed the Pro is in his thinking. I am not saying that we should ban White speech. I am saying that we should ban HATE SPEECH. Therefore, Vote Con. No sir, you don't use hate speech to, " try to find the people who aren't tolerant and try to persuade them into the side of tolerance." No sir you do not. You are part of DDO's Anti Black Movement and I am to believe you that you use hate speech to persuade people???? HILARIOUS. You use hate speech to hurt. You use hate speech to make smaller. You use hate speech for everything but the good. And you know it. Hate speech literally has NO positive impacts, and is best restricted, therefore Vote Con. Actually, there is an equal right. All people can do it. That's why this debate is actually flawed. When you examine the wording of the title of the debate, "should" means that everyone can. They can physically do it. BUT, the Con says they CAN'T LEGALLY do it. I completely agree that demeaning epithets are bad, therefore we must BAN them. Hate speech banning is equal, as show above. "All my opponent did on the last round was post quotes from people." Well, you didn't provide any empirical evidence for any of your sources, so compared to my empirical evidence from Round 2, I win. HOW TO VOTE: 1. Arguments (Con 3-0) 2. Sources (Con 5-0)