The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Public colleges and universities shouldn't be able to restrict free speech on campus.

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2017 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,077 times Debate No: 101956
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




First Round is Confirmation. We will be debating on weather or not public Colleges and Universities should not be able to ban free speech on campus.


Hi! I accept your debate :)

To clarify, I will argue that colleges should be able to restrict some free speech, and you will argue that they shouldn't, correct?

Thanks for a fun debate!
Debate Round No. 1


To start off, I would like to quote the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, ""Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." I will be arguing for the topic of the following: Public Colleges and Universities ought not restrict any free speech. I will now move on to my arguments.

All United States citizens have Civil Liberties, included under the protective umbrella of Civil Liberties falls Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Assembly just to name a few. As defined by Blacks Law Dictionary, Civil Liberties are the liberty of a member of society, being a man's natural liberty, so far as restrained by human laws and no further as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public. If you are silenced to the point where you can not speak your opinion without getting kicked out of school, that is beyond limiting your speech for the advantage of the public. The silencing of ones opinions such as political standings, abortion, gun control, and costumes of all things often occur because a small community of people get triggered or are just uncomfortable with the topic and this is not in the advantage of the General Public and favors a minority.

Schools are taking advantage of the lack of attention the government is giving them in terms of speech codes to shape them how they want. To limit discourse and debate is to limit the development of young minds and hinders their personal development on topics such as politics. Your college years are often times your first years away from home and on your own. During this period you are trying to make sense of the world around you, forming your own opinions on things that you never knew existed or were just foreign concepts to you. It is important for people in this stage to talk about their opinions with people that both agree and disagree. Often times these talks are the only time that people will learn more about their topic so it is even more important for people to talk about their stances. However, many of the topics that discourse may be helpful for are banned from campuses across the States. By doing this, schools are limiting the developing of young minds and harming their students.

If the United Nations believes that you have the right to express your opinion and talk about it without interference, then our school campuses should follow suit. But for some reason our schools ignore the cries of the many and continue to censer and throw up barriers to stop people from " receiving and imparting information and ideas" throughout the campus.

To summarize my statements, public Colleges and Universities should not be able to limit free speech because it goes against the Civil Liberties of all citizens, and many schools are abusing speech codes to limit discussions that would otherwise be helpful to the developing opinions of college students. And the United Nations agree that you should be able to communicate through any frontier.

For those reasons, public colleges and universities should not be able to limit free speech on campus.


I negate that public colleges and universities ought not restrict any free speech.

Observation: For con to win, they must only win that there is a single instance of free speech that should be restricted. Thus, regardless of how much offense pro extends, they cannot win unless they win every con argument.

Point One: Public colleges and universities should restrict hate speech. Hate speech is defined as speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, gender, disability, or other traits (ABA).

Hate speech is directly harmful. Bakircioglu "08: "[T]he immediate, short-term harms of hate speech include rapid breathing, headaches, raised blood pressure, dizziness, rapid pulse rate, drug-taking, risk-taking behavior, and even suicide."

Hate speech normalizes oppression. Fordham Law "99: "Those who call for regulation of hate speech further contend that in allowing such messages to be conveyed and spread, the government is arguably constructing and even perpetuating a damaging social reality about the affected groups "so that members of that group are always one down.' 69 All members are harmed, because "at some level, no matter how much both victims and well-meaning dominant-group members resist it, racial inferiority is planted in our minds as an idea that may hold some truth'. . .when one repeatedly hears that "those people" are lazy, dirty, sexualized, money-grubbing, dishonest, inscrutable... [w]e reject the idea, but the next time we sit next to one of 'those people' the dirt message, the sex message, is triggered. . .such ideas often become an internal reality for victims. Repeated messages of this sort eventually cause victims to believe that perhaps they do not deserve to be treated as everyone else."

And, hate speech silences, preventing counterspeech.
Garrett: "Hate speech codes do not seek to limit constructive dialogue, which is necessary for gaining knowledge and reaching critical consciousness (Freire, 1970). They seek to protect individuals from harmful speech and allow such individuals to feel safe speaking out. By allowing only the most powerful individuals to speak, hate speech effectively silences the voices of minorities and maintains the status quo. Hate speech is not authentic dialogue (Freire, 1970) and therefore, does not deserve protection. According to Freire, dialogue is "an act of creation, it must not serve as a crafty instrument for the domination of one person by another" (p. 70)."

Restrictions are necessary and the only effective response. Johnson "99: restrictions are a "pragmatic response to the urgent needs of students of color and other victims of hate speech who are daily silenced, intimidated, and subjected to severe psychological and physical trauma by racist assailants who employ words and symbols as part of an arsenal of weapons of oppression and subordination.'"

Thus, I advocate for narrow speech codes. Johnson continues: "Implementing a narrowly drafted race-neutral code provision based on a hostile environment model, in addition to a penalty enhancement component for bias-inspired violations, is permissible, constitutional, and necessary to ensure that the university's mission is carried out. Such a code, along with forward-looking, long-term educational objectives, would work towards stopping hate on campus without stifling the speech of individual students." Clearly, codes are beneficial. Goshgarian citing Delgado "07: "[C]olleges [are not] barred from drafting narrow rules that hone in on the conduct they wish to control. And when they do, courts are very likely to find in their favor." Harvard is a great example of this: It solely regulates hate speech. This restriction has worked well. And from Harvard, "University regulations against hate speech are entirely necessary for maintaining respect and dignity among the student body."

Furthermore, hate speech restrictions stop a vicious cycle of hate speech. Research from Northwestern shows that when one group dehumanizes another the dehumanized group is likely to dehumanize others. Stopping hate speech stops this cycle of hate. Stopping even some hate speech has huge impact in stopping the cycle.

Point Two: Colleges should implement time place and manner restrictions. Time, place, and manner restrictions can, should, and already are being implemented on campus. Free Legal Dictionary explains: "The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that state and federal [the] governments may place reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of [speech] individual expression." Furthermore, time, place, and manner restrictions happen in the status quo with no problems. Refusal to implement them causes safety concerns and destroys human dignity by allowing constant harassment and disruption of education. Even the FIRE agrees: "Those [Time, place, and manner restrictions] are reasonable, content-neutral provisions that serve a significant governmental interest (i.e., keeping traffic flowing or allowing classes to continue) while still allowing speakers other means to spread their message."

For all these reasons, please negate.

On to my opponent's case.

They begin by citing a UN Declaration of Human Rights quote. However, the UN Declaration itself directly limits that right to protect society: "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." Since hate speech infringes on the rights of others, it is forbidden under the UN Declaration itself, so turn that argument.

My opponent mentions civil liberties and that silencing opinions is bad. That's exactly why you negate! Hate speech silences legitimate opinions without (as I cited in my Garret evidence) counting as authentic expression. Banning hate speech is the only way to ensure these civil liberties, so turn the argument to my side.

My opponent next argues schools are limiting discourse and debate about politics which is bad. I'm not advocating for limits on debate, and in fact I'm arguing for limits on the exact type of speech that stifles debate. My opponent says it's "important for people to talk about their stances." That's beneficial only when ALL people can talk about their stances. Hate speech silences minorities and stops them from engaging in the exact type of free expression my opponent claims is so important.

My opponent then claims "If the United Nations believes that you have the right to express your opinion and talk about it without interference, then our school campuses should follow suit." Thus, whatever the UN says is how colleges should act. The UN actually advocates for hate speech bans and reasonable limits on rights, as I mentioned earlier. Thus, yes, our school campuses should follow suit and ban hate speech.

For the record, I also think colleges should ban things like threats, incitement, and child pornography, but I assume (and correct me if I'm wrong) that when my opponent said "free speech" they meant "Constitutionally protected speech."

For all these reasons, please vote con!
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent brings up a good point, hate speech is bad and harmful to the world and it needs to be stamped out. The reason why hate speech is so brutally effective is that in many cases, it's unexpected and you are open to such insults. However, shoving such speech under the rug on campus just to have it fly back out again in real life is not the way to protect people, the way to better protect people would be to bring it to attention, front and center, how silly and unnecessary hate speech is. Here"s how one community recently approached an incidence of hate speech by calling attention to it rather than attempting to suppress it"by encouraging speech that pointed out how out of place the hate speech was in a community that values the dignity of all.

Matt Hale, a notorious racist, was recently asked to speak at the University of Illinois at Springfield. Hale is the leader of the World of the Creator, a white supremacist group. His presence on campus was controversial. Several students, faculty, and community members thought that the university should cancel his appearance. Instead, he was allowed to speak. Hale"s audience was not impressed. He came across as having a confusing set of beliefs that were out of place in a democratic, multicultural society. Several faculty and students spoke out against his message of hatred. By allowing Hale to speak, the university recognized free speech rights but also provided a means for community members to respond(
This scenario is much more preferable to silencing hate speech and shoving it under the rug. By bringing this out into the open, you can show people just how out right stupid hate speech really is and how it brings about nothing good. This can not only better mentally prepare a future victim, but it may stop some people from using hate speech in the future. Because this method of eliminating hate speech works without breaking the First amendment(because hate speech is unfortunately protected), this negates my opponents first point.

My opponent next brings up Time, place, and manner restrictions. Time, place and manner restrictions normally functions to keep things running on schedule and are important. Speech limited by such codes are disruptive speech such as lewd and vulgar words, and words that may cause violence. However, in the Bethel vs Fraser case, the supreme court ruled that the First Amendment did not prohibit schools from prohibiting vulgar and lewd speech since such discourse was inconsistent with the "fundamental values of public school education."( What this means is that no longer being protected by the First Amendment, said words are not Constitutionally protected speech falling outside the topic of this debate. This nullifies my opponents point on time, place and manner restrictions.

My opponent then goes to bring up how the UN has banned hate speech, however, I believe I covered that with my response to their hate speech argument.

I will like to talk more about schools limiting discourse and discussion of sensitive topics. I am not saying that the NEG is directly for the limitation of such conversations, but it is what is happening as of now. Colleges and Universities throughout the States are limiting what policies and topics students can talk about. Topics such as abortions, sexes and genders, voting candidates and other big topics have been shunned and or outright banned on campus. Halloween isn't even safe any more. At Yale, students protested about an email sent out by the staff that said that they would not be banning costumes that had head dresses and other Native American attire. This was met with an uprising of fury as students protest this decision, asking the teacher be kicked out and silenced because his opinion was different than theirs. Yet he thought more of peoples feelings than most the students did, The reason he would not place the costume codes was because it would be unfair and cater only toward one group. What about the Christians who don't want skin showing? They had no voice. This moves on into my last point for this round.

The reason why silencing one group to give another voice is a slippery slope to everyone being muted. Human nature drives us to want that which others have but we have not. And if one group has been given special treatment, two more groups are going to want special treatment as well. If you are going to mute one voice, you have to mute them all or none at all.

That is why you should vote affirmative in this debate.

Side note: Threats(Fighting words), incitement and especially child porn are all illegal or could be easily banned without impeaching the First. Also, you have most definitely had this debate before. Debater or just read up on topics you like?


Road-map: My case, my opponent's case.

My case:

Point One: My opponent concedes hate speech is bad and should be eliminated. They say "shoving such speech under the rug" is ineffective. However, they don"t explain why banning it doesn"t eliminate it and why banning it shoves it "under the rug." So ignore this argument because it first doesn"t link and second is totally lacks a warrant. Then they say the best way to deal with hate speech is to bring it front and center so people can refute it. However, people"s refutations of hate speech, also known as counter-speech, fail massively and do not stop hate speech. According to Tseis in 2010, "counterspeech is an inadequate remedy for the direct, intimidating attack of hate speech.278 Racism, chauvinism, ethnocentrism, and xenophobia are too deeply embedded in culture to be changed overnight. While public attitudes are being changed, hate speech continues to menace out-groups. Telling a university employee subject to racial or sexual coercion, racial degradation, or ethnic insults to simply respond to antagonists provides victims no legal redress but mere platitudes. Just as responding to comments in a hostile environment does not solve the problem of workplace harassment, neither does counterspeech decrease the risk posed by advocacy groups committed to carrying out a campus campaign of group intimidation, exclusion, and discrimination."
And, not everyone feels safe engaging in counter-speech. According to Coustic-Deal in 2017, "So counterspeech is encouraged, but often only possible for those who have the freedom to exercise it without repercussions. It is available only to those who already have privilege, usually white men. They don"t feel the same kind of fear, or live with the constant threat of sexual violence directed at them. It is easy to advocate counter speech when you can engage in it freely and without repercussions."

The example they cited of bringing a speaker to campus is not relevant to my argument. I"m not advocating for stopping controversial speakers for speaking, rather I"m advocating for stopping direct and intimidating hate from student to student, because as I showed in my case hate speech has terrible impacts.
They completely dropped my solvency--restricting hate speech eliminates it and their entire response to this point assumes hate speech would still occur. However, my Johnson evidence suggests it would stop hate speech and my Northwestern evidence points out that a restriction stops the cycle of hate. They didn"t refute either of those points.
Even if you don"t buy that, we can restrict hate speech and still allow controversial speakers. There"s not competition.

On my second point about time/place/manner restrictions, they mention that these restrictions are constitutionally allowable and thus not protected speech. Two responses:
Even if they are allowable, they still restrict constitutionally protected speech.
This debate is about restricting FREE speech, not constitutionally protected speech. That"s what my opponent said they were defending in round one. If they only want to defend constitutionally protected speech that"s fine with me though.

My opponent"s case:

"My opponent then goes to bring up how the UN has banned hate speech, however, I believe I covered that with my response to their hate speech argument." What? My opponent said that we should follow the UN. Then they said we should not ban hate speech even though the UN advocates for it. I"m really confused as to what they"re actually advocating, so ignore this argument in the round as it"s unclear.

On their point about schools limiting discourse, that"s not what I"m advocating. I"m only saying we should ban hate speech and implement time place and manner restrictions. They say those restrictions are happening in the status quo but I never claimed to be advocating the status quo. And the fact that we want to educate people about important issues is exactly why we ban hate speech: Perry "15 explains that "Campus racial climate has been linked to academic success. And research has long shown that academic preparedness is only one of many factors that determine why students do or don"t graduate. The psychological attitudes between and among groups, as well as intergroup relations on campuses, influence how well students of color perform and whether they stay on track toward graduation. Graduation rates lag when schools don"t provide an environment that fosters the scholastic pursuits of minority students, particularly black men. Researcher Sylvia Hurtado explains that "Just as a campus that embraces diversity provides substantial positive benefits, a hostile or discriminatory climate has substantial negative consequences." Clearly, to get the benefits my opponent discusses, we should ban hate speech.

They next mention that restricting speech is a slippery slope. But that doesn"t make sense: First, there is a huge difference between political speech (which should be protected) and hate speech (which absolutely shouldn"t be). Second, the Supreme Court"s interpretation of the First Amendment already restricts some speech, but not all speech is restricted in the status quo. So clearly a slippery slope wouldn"t exist.

Since negating would help minority groups have a voice, allow colleges to function with reasonable speech restrictions, and stop speech that has no educational value from being a detriment to the college community, and since affirming has zero benefit and does a lot of harm, I strongly urge you to negate. Thank you.

Side note: I"m unclear: are we debating the resolution you proposed (Public Colleges and Universities ought not restrict any free speech) or the resolution you seem to be referring back to (the NSDA resolution, Public colleges and universities ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech)? Thanks for clarification! And, yes, I"ve debated this before in competition :)
Debate Round No. 3


First I shall cover why showing people why hate speech is stupid and how exposing them to it can be better for their future. The banning of hate speech on campuses is one of the few ways schools have tried to eliminate hate speech, however, this way of limiting hate speech can only go so far. People can still post hat speech online and say it if, as my opponent stated previously, "hate speech effectively silences the voices of minorities" so it may never be reported. By showing people how ludicrous hate speech is, it can prevent people from using it the future, and prepare minorities for comments they might get outside if campus. The world is not a nice place all the time, and if you don't know what to expect, you are going fail. We can't shield them forever. Another point on hate speech is that recently, hate speech for many has become a phrase for anything that offends them. A problem with speech codes is that there are no codes for them. If someone considers it hate speech, it can be banned. Colleges and Universities throughout the states are talking advantage of the loose rules around speech codes and making their schools a 'trigger free' zone. One of my opponents quotes, "Hate speech codes do not seek to limit constructive dialogue..." brings this to attention even more. speech codes do not seek to limit conversations, but many debates are getting caught in the web of speech codes.

Now I am going to go away from hate speech and talk about some of the things colleges and universities have and are getting away with. Hating pumpkin-spice lattes was declared sexist and the normal punishment for sexism was handed out, despite girls never having been mentioned. In October, Kansas University"s student senate voted to totally ban gender-specific pronouns such as "his/her" from its Rules and Regulations document because they"re "microaggressions" against the students who don"t use them. In September, North Carolina State University defended a lecturer"s right to dock students" grades for using "he" or "him" to refer to both men and women " as well as for using the word "mankind" instead of "humankind." The same month, Scripps College declared that using the wrong pronoun to refer to someone was "institutionalized violence," and even gave students the option to request that teachers use no pronouns at all to refer to them " because apparently that part of speech in general can be a microaggression. Oh, and the University of Pittsburgh made sure to warn its faculty and professors to be super extra careful about which pronouns they use even after a student has already told them which ones he or she prefers . . . because some students might change genders over time. By the way " as that "mankind" ban might suggest, this was a bad year not only for pronouns but also for gender-specific language in general. For example: A University of Washington professor tried to create a policy that would punish her students for using the words "male" and "female.(
In December 2014, the president of Smith College, Kathleen McCartney, sent an email to the student body in the wake of the outcry over two different grand juries failing to indict police officers who killed African-American men. The subject heading read "All Lives Matter" and the email opened with, "As members of the Smith community we are struggling, and we are hurting." She wrote, "We raise our voices in protest." She outlined campus actions that would be taken to "heal those in pain" and to "teach, learn and share what we know" and to "work for equity and justice."
Shortly thereafter, McCartney sent another email. This one was to apologize for the first. What had she done? She explained she had been informed by students "the phrase/hashtag "all lives matter" has been used by some to draw attention away from the focus on institutional violence against black people." She quoted two students, one of whom said, "The black students at this school deserve to have their specific struggles and pain recognized, not dissolved into the larger student body." The Daily Hampshire Gazette reported that a Smith sophomore complained that by writing "All Lives Matter," "It felt like [McCartney] was invalidating the experience of black lives." Another Smith sophomore told the Gazette, "A lot of my news feed was negative remarks about her as a person." In her apology email McCartney closed by affirming her commitment to "working as a white ally."(Kristen Powers 2015). These are just few of the examples why we can no longer trust our schools to place speech codes only on things that harm everybody and cater to to populous, not just minorities. Our rights as the people of the United States, not just the whites, not just the minorities, but everyone, is being threatened by over sensitive people who need to learn to deal with their problems because the real life is completely, uncensored.

The Court case Tinker vs Des Moines case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision in favor of the students. The high court agreed that students' free rights should be protected and said, "Students don't shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates." And from earlier examples, students are now having to shed their right of free speech. This along with the wording of the First amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging[to reduce the effect of a law, privilege or power.] the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." shows that both the Courts and the Constitution of The United States are on my side when I support the resolution of public Colleges and universities should not be able to limit free speech.

My opponent claims that minorities will gain a voice from banning hate speech... but I'd say that communities such as blacks and LBGT have had a voice and are plenty clear. Look at the news, the Internet, you can't go anywhere without seeing a black lives matter post or something along those lines. And the pronouns piece shows that the LBGT community has more than a voice but a hand and foot in the workings of our schools.

And to explain the slippery slope argument, it works a little bit like this. Groups 1,2,3,4 and 5 all go to a school. 3 is often hated on by 4 and 5 because they are bigger groups, so the school makes some rules that ban this. 3, now invulnerable start abusing their power and make fun of 4 and 5 as well as 2. 1 being the smallest sees that 3 got all this special treatment for being a minority so 1 wants some as well and complains that the school is "racist" for only giving 3 special rules. So then the school, not wanting to be socially labeled as racists, gives 1 some special privileges as well. 2 then does the some thing and 4, still being smaller than 5 gets some as well. In the end, you have the largest group being shamed on and picked on for no other reason than being big. And now we are back where we started. One group getting picked on for one uncontrollable reason. That is a rough explanation of what will happen if we cater to strongly to all the minorities.

As a quick summery, public colleges and universities should not be able to ban any free speech because despite hate speech being a problem, the schools are taking away peoples right to voice opinions like, "I don't like this latte". Schools are not focusing on their classes anymore but instead intent on keeping all their students their by catering to their picky little needs. Also with the Constitution and the Supreme Court saying the same thing about free speech everywhere.

Side note: Yeah, my friend told me about this and it's been a while since I debated do I picked of the interesting LD topics and went with that. And yeah, we will just go with free speech and not the NSDA topic since that's what we've already been doing.


My case, their case.

My case:
On my point about hate speech, my opponent claims limiting hate speech would fail and the only way to eliminate it is to show people why it"s bad. They completely drop my Johnson evidence showing efficacy of speech codes and my both Coustic-Deal and Tseis evidence showing why counter-speech doesn"t actually eliminate it. Then my opponent says people need to learn to deal with hate speech because that"s the real world. First, that"s ridiculous. College is for education, and we can"t educate with hate speech. We especially can"t educate with the silencing effects of hate speech. You"re not going to prepare for the "real world" if you can"t speak up in college. Second, many workplaces--even government workplaces--do restrict hate speech, so there is no "real world" to prepare for where blatant oppression of minority voices is okay. Finally, my opponent says speech codes are overbroad and would stop free dialogue. But my Johnson evidence suggests a specific code that would work, and Harvard has used a code like this that works well, so clearly it works in practice. They then claim minorities already have a voice and aren"t silenced by hate speech, because you see advocacy posts on the internet. However, what you"re seeing is the people who aren"t silenced, and you miss the thousands who are. Regardless, I have specific evidence minorities are silenced and an example about the internet does not outweigh actual evidence.

My opponent completely dropped my point about time/place/manner restrictions, so extend that. Since the next rebuttal is the last one, it"s too late to refute this further. Given my observation that I only need to prove one instance of speech should be restricted, I should win on this alone.

Their case:
They mention any speech codes lead to uncontrollable bullying. That doesn"t even make sense. As I said again in my Johnson evidence, we wouldn"t make speech codes that protect any one group over others. A good speech code doesn"t say "don"t say racist insults against blacks," it says "don"t say racist insults." A speech code doesn"t cater only to minorities, but to everyone in making the campus a more pleasant place.
They also mention schools focusing more on speech codes than classes. A speech code is designed to make class easier. They say codes are taking away rights to opinion, but that"s not what I"m arguing. Yes, the Constitution says free speech is good. The Constitution is not inherently moral.

Since I promote a friendly environment for ALL, stop a vicious cycle of hate, and implement time/place/manner restrictions that are necessary for the functioning of college, and since my opponent doesn"t do anything to make life better, please negate! Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4


As this is the last round, I will be bringing up no new evidence. I will open by clarifying my hate speech argument.

The example shown of in earlier arguments shows a group of students being exposed to hate speech from a known racist. Afterwards, a few of the students spoke up against his sayings and a survey was taken showing that many of the students thought his points were confusing and out of place in todays society. And now that those students realize how stupid and wrong hate speech is, do you really think they are going to go on and use it? This method, instead of shutting people up, makes them shut themselves up by realizing just how pointless hate speech is. As I have given an ample solution to hate speech without the impediment of the first amendment, this point should go to the AFF.

On the topic of the first amendment, I shall again bring to attention the phrasing of the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law... ...prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...". As said previously, the word abridge means, to reduce the effect of a law, and as we can see in the many examples of how schools are abusing speech codes in my round 4 argument, the first amendment is very much being abridged. Not to mention the Tinker vs Des Moines court case which states, "Students don't shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates.". And seeing as though my opponent made no response to these arguments which where made last round, the point of Law goes to the AFF.

Due to the massive mistreatment of speech codes in public colleges and universities, it is imperative that we stop these mistreatment from happening by taking away the schools power to do so. When stating your opinion on a drink is punishable as an equal to sexism, we must not allow these codes to remain in place. And the only way to do so is to take away the power to have speech codes because the people who make these codes will not let that power go easily.

For the reason that there are other ways to counter hate speech than silence and the Law is on my side, I ask for a vote for in affirmation. Thank you.


Their first voting issue says counter-speech is a good idea. I have two responses: first, they have no evidence supporting it so don't trust this possibly-true argument. Second, I have shown in my Tseis evidence that minorities can't engage in counter-speech without first having speech codes, so turn this argument: we need to negate and stop minority oppression before we can have the aff's benefit of counter-speech.
Their second voting issue is about the First Amendment. Not only did they not bring up the Constitution in their original case, they claim I dropped the argument but I directly refuted it last round: "Yes, the Constitution says free speech is good. The Constitution is not inherently moral." I'll elaborate: The Constitution once said slavery was good. Does that make slavery good? Absolutely not! The Constitution is nothing more than some people's thoughts written on paper, that doesn't make it inherently moral or even what we should follow. Also the Constitution argument is not impacted so even if they win that they follow the Constitution we still don't know why following the Constitution is something we ought to do--this argument has no impact in the round.

My case:
1) Time/place/manner restrictions: I have clearly won that time/place/manner restrictions are necessary. My opponent did not refute this AT ALL. Since they dropped it, that means they agree with it, so this argument clearly flows to the con. Since my (also unrefuted) observation extends, this single argument is enough for you to negate on it alone.
2) Hate speech: As I've said throughout this round, counter-speech fails massively. Since we're all in agreement that hate speech should be stopped, the sole logical course of action is to negate.

Remember, I only need to win one of the above points to win the round.

Even if they win that following the Constitution is good, I still outweigh on magnitude because helping people is more important than following an old document.

For these reasons--and for a better tomorrow--please negate! Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Tom-The-Hypocrit 1 year ago
Alister_Illustratum, lemme guess, Ben Shapiro fan? Hope you win :)
Posted by Voltaic 1 year ago
I think both pro and con have very valid points. It is popular to think that free speech is good, but 100 percent non regulated free speech is not good in reality. Hate speech should be restricted, this includes speech with the purpose of causing harm to others in general, and more importantly on race, gender, religion and lots more. Unregulated freedom of speech creates groups like Westbrook baptist church and others along that line that harm society.
Posted by RR-MKIV 1 year ago
'Point One: Public colleges and universities should restrict hate speech. Hate speech is defined as speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, gender, disability, or other traits (ABA).'

Unfortunately liberal campuses get offended by just about anything the do not agree with. Once you cut out the part on 'offends', perhaps I would agree. Racial slurs, conditional insults, and existential hatred for particular groups most certainly should not be allowed.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by passwordstipulationssuck 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: First off, con stated that she need only provide one unrefuted piece of evidence that free speech should be limited. This is not true. That would only be true if the resolution was of a biconditional nature which it is not. However, Con was able to better defend her position and attack pro's points. Pro brought up Bethel V. Fraser. Bethel V. Fraser stated that students rights are not inherently coextensive with the rights of adults; but stated this in reference to Tinker des Moines which stated that free speech can be limited if it disrupts school activities. This point, in particular, was unrelated to the resolution as you only debated free speech not constitutionally protected speech. I would continue to analyze the debate, but I'm out of characters.