The Instigator
What50
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
paintballvet18
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Everyone should be allowed to say racial slurs.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
paintballvet18
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 493 times Debate No: 101017
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

What50

Pro

This is a debate whether we should be allowed to say racial slurs. Note if you have more questions ask madness the ABM spokesperson if you want to join.

First round is acceptance.

I will arguing that racial slurs should be allowed for everyone around the world.
WHITE POWER
paintballvet18

Con

I accept.

Racial slurs should not be allowed.
Debate Round No. 1
What50

Pro

I want thank my opponent for accepting this debate. By racial slurs I mean Nigger,cracker,etc.

Lets look at this way,racial slurs are just words. Words can't hurt you. Why because words can't physically harm someone. You might say it might mentally harm someone. The thing is a person can ignore the words. Why should we pity someone who makes the word harm them?

Freedom of speech is very powerful in America. It allows people to say what they want with no repercussions from the government. Why should someone go to jail for saying a word someone took offense of? If we do that we are limiting speech. Less speech means less ideology,less new ideas,and less creativity.

Saying racial slurs is equivalent of a 9 year old kid saying f.a.g.g.o.t. Does it matter someone called me the N word? No it's your choice for reacting towards it. Why should someone go to jail for saying a insult based on someones race or ethnicity? Their just insults and both are at fault for reacting towards it.
paintballvet18

Con

I thank my opponent for his timely response. 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.

For the above reasons, please vote Con in today's debate.
Debate Round No. 2
What50

Pro

My opponent provided quotes from people without quoting them. As most of his arguments. I will than refute them.

" 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."

Racial slurs aren't hate crimes. Hate crimes is when "criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity." based on the FBI. If racial slurs again are words than why do you call it a hate crime? How does it harm people physically and mentally? The Nazi's genocide of Jews were based on Hitler using them as a scapegoat for the events of world war 1 and the economic crisis? The slaughter of the Tutsis in Rwanda again was not based on hate speech but ever since Belgium lost control of the area where they remained. Now I hope Con will be able to explain why they represent hate speech? All those terrible events now explain to me Con named one event in those that caused the even in the first placed by only hate speech.

"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."

Name a single event in the Civil War that sparked the two sides fighting based on hate speech? The civil war was primarily caused by state rights vs federal power. The war started when South Carolina bombarded Civil unions in Fort Sumter. I want my opponent to explain how does hate speech sparked the bombardment of the Civil unions.

"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."

Look I agree their will be exceptions to the limit. But again if we ban hate speech we are silencing people who has a different opinion on a person. If we bad hate speech than are you saying we should ban people who talks about a opinion you disagree with?

"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."
Having more ideology and ideas by allowing hate speech can be good. They are obliged to their own opinion of a person. Hearing someones side of the story with their hate speech of minority's or other people. 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.

"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."

What do you propose banning insults completely? "Mr. SMALL: Well, according to the European Union, there was a treaty passed in 2008 which specifies that hate speech would be sanctioned and punitive measures could be taken against individuals or groups engaged in hate speech." This quote says that the European Union made a law that sanctions hate speech. That basically means people are un-equal? How because people that the law protects only protects them and not other people basically means these people are worthy of being protected and not me. Bring me evidence other than a quote that proves to me that hate speech takes away human dignity,self worth and causes self-doubt. Cause all your arguments are just quotes of people.

"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."
This quote claims that these people are outrageous and won't present a rational argument. This is hatred. Now how do quench this hatred by using hate speech. We use hate speech to try to find the people who aren't tolerant and try to persuade them into the side of tolerance. if you don't like the persons claim call them out on it instead of ignoring the problem. This quote says if someone who has a controversial claim don't try to debate them or argue they are wrong and ignore it and let them spread their idea. To shut down ideas you got to prove them wrong.

"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."

If we ban hate speech we are still saying people are un-equal. This quote is saying to be more equal banning hate speech can help. But it will not banning hate speech will tell people that saying hate speech to a person based on their race and protecting them based on their race,ethnicity,sexual orientation,and even disability's? Does that sound were equal cause it sure is not for me. Banning hate speech will still be allowing for people to know that their are no equal rights.

All my opponent did on the last round was post quotes from people.

Source:
https://www.fbi.gov...
http://www.civilwar.org...
paintballvet18

Con

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)
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: imabench// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Con). Reasons for voting decision: Con provided several compelling reasons why hate speech should not be allowed based on how they can incite violence and other negative aspects of society, arguments that pro failed to adequately refute. Pro's inability to articulate any sensible argument was made painfully obvious by his attempt to explain that the Civil War was a conflict between states rights and federal power, which allowed Con's arguments to go almost unchallenged and unrefuted

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter specifically assesses arguments made by both debaters and factors those assessments into his decision. That is sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Thescarecrow066// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: This is a racist topic

[*Reason for removal*] This is not an RFD. The voter is not allowed to award points based on their perception of the topic.
************************************************************************
Posted by Thescarecrow066 10 months ago
Thescarecrow066
Racism is not okay.
Posted by Intolerant_Liberal 10 months ago
Intolerant_Liberal
Free speech. If you say something, who can stop you? Are you actually saying should we be allowed to say racist things without having seven sorts of sh*t knocked out of us? Should racism in general be acceptable? You are a racist, so therefore it is.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: FuzzyCatPotato// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Conduct, Sources), 3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument is plagiarized from www.premierdebate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Premier-Debate-Brief-JF17.docx but Pro did a spectacularly poor job of rebutting it.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn"t explain sources. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both debaters.
*******************************************
Posted by paintballvet18 10 months ago
paintballvet18
Before I attack the hilarity of an argument I just read, the "quotes" are excerpts from respect academics in the fields of speech both international and federal. So my sources are quite sound. I am a national circuit Lincoln-Douglas debater that used this evidence for January and February when arguing free speech on college campuses.

The problem with your counter arguments is that they are merely personal opinions versus my empirically proven facts. So so far, you are losing.

I'll probably end up losing the debate because of all the votes that'll come in from your fellow Black movement members, so it doesn't matter much.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 10 months ago
imabench
What50paintballvet18Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided several compelling reasons why hate speech should not be allowed based on how they can incite violence and other negative aspects of society, arguments that pro failed to adequately refute. Pro's inability to articulate any sensible argument was made painfully obvious by his attempt to explain that the Civil War was a conflict between states rights and federal power, which allowed Con's arguments to go almost unchallenged and unrefuted