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

Resolved: PCUs ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 892 times Debate No: 99892
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




1. Acceptance
2. AC/NC-NR (Pro/Con Constructive and Con Rebuttal)
3. AR/NR (Rebuttals for Pro and Con)
4. AR/NR (Rebuttals for Pro and Con)
5. No new arguments, voters.

I negate Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.


I affirm :)
Good luck on this round, and thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Again, I negate.
I provide definitions for grounding the debate.

Ought is defined by Merriam-Webster as used to express obligation
Restrict is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as to limit something.
Any is defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary as used to indicate a maximum or whole.
Constitutionally Protected Free Speech as defined by Information Technology Law Wiki is all speech that doesn"t fall within severely limited exceptions.

Observation: The definition of the word "any" in the resolution forces the affirmative to defend a world without restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. This allows the negative the ability to provide just a single example of a speech that needs to remain restricted to gain offense in the debate and win.

Thus, I advocate a standard of truth testing. If the negative can disprove the truth of the resolution with a singular example, then we ought not do the resolution and instead allow restrictions that protect the educational climate of the university setting.

The duty of the government is to make possible justice; Therefore, I value Justice which provides fairness under the law
The broad allowance of speech creates structures harmful to groups of people therefore making my criterion resisting structural violence.

Prioritize resistance because
Contention 1: Toleration of evil in the name of survival destroys the value to life
Callahan 73
Without life, all else is in vain. The value of survival could not be so readily abused were it not for its evocative power. In the name of survival, all manner of social and political evils have been committed against the rights of individuals, including the right to life. The survival of the Aryan race was one of the official legitimations of Nazism. Under the banner of survival, South Africa imposes a ruthless apartheid, heedless of the most elementary human rights. It is possible to counterpoise over against the need for survival a "tyranny of survival." There seems to be no imaginable evil which some group is not willing to inflict on another for the sake of survival, no rights. liberties or dignities which it is not ready to suppress. The potential tyranny of survival as a value is that it is capable, if not treated sanely, of wiping out all other values. Survival can become an obsession and a disease, provoking a destructive singlemindedness that will stop at nothing.

Contention 2: Unfettered speech causes structural violence
A: Historically, hate speech precipitates violence
Tsesis 10
European 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, 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.

Subpoint B: Hate Speech ideology is too deeply rooted
Tsesis 10
The notion that counterspeech will adequately combat group hatred and promote civil liberties, has been roundly rejected by the international community. Racism, chauvinism, ethnocentrism, and xenophobia are too deeply embedded in culture to be changed overnight. Telling a university employee subject to coercion, degradation, or insults to simply respond to antagonists provides no legal redress but mere platitudes.

Subpoint C: Speech codes prevent structural violence and create equality
Mider 13
Structural violence is the result of inequalities existing in societies that are economic, political, or stem from unequal access to education. Galtung linked structural violence to oppression resulting from other social subsystems: Structural violence has been defined as any limitation of fundamental human needs that can possibly be avoided. This is a situation in which individuals and groups perform their spiritual and material opportunities below their potential.


Contention 3: Public Colleges and Universities should eliminate all restrictions on constitutionally protected speech except those that restrict hate speech, and more specifically, colleges and universities should be allowed to ban racist insults.

Subpoint A: All speech restrictions except those that restrict hate speech should be eliminated.
Fish 12
The expansive First Amendment allows the flourishing of harms a well-ordered society ought not permit. Harms to dignity involve undermining a public good, which [Fish] identifies as the "implicit assurance" extended to every citizen that while his beliefs and allegiance may be criticized and rejected by some of his fellow citizens, he will nevertheless be viewed as someone who has an equal right to membership in the society. Hate speech assaults that dignity by taking away that assurance. The speech is the damage: "[T]he harms emphasized are often harms constituted by speech rather than merely caused by speech."

Subpoint B: Universities should be allowed to ban racist insults
Byrne 91
This examines the constitutionality of university prohibitions of public expression that insults members of the academic community by directing hatred or contempt toward them on account of their race. The university has a fundamentally different relationship to the speech of its members than does the state to the speech of its citizens. The protection of academic values, which themselves enjoy constitutional protection, permits state universities lawfully to bar racially abusive speech, even if the state legislature could not constitutionally prohibit such speech throughout society at large.


Majority of students want restrictions to exist on their campus
Simon 16
Asked if colleges should have policies against slurs and other intentionally offensive language, 69 percent of students said yes.


Restricting free speech is beneficial for improving democracy.
Leiter 14
The real problem with false and pernicious speech is that it leads some individuals to vote for those who will carry forth harmful agendas- think Tea Party in the US. And if that were right, then that would put constraints on free speech, even allowing for the independent value of democracy with respect to the good.


Hate speech undermines the speech of targeted groups.
Brax 16
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.


Allowing hate speech is a greater threat to democracy than restrictions
Luban 16
Which poses the greater threat to democracy, hate speech laws or hate speech itself? Vigoroys 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.


The impacts of hate speech spans across entire communities
Garnett 02
Hate speech 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. Psychological responses to such stigmatization consists of feelings of humiliation, isolation, and self-hatred. Hate speech takes away human dignity and self-worth, and causes self-doubt.


For all those reasons, I urge a vote for the Co


I affirm; Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.

I accept my opponent's definitions.

I have two observations:
First, to win the round, the affirmative does not have to show that in every case the resolution is true, but rather that it should be true as in general. Nelson "08: "No question of values can be determined entirely true or false. This is why the resolution is desirable. Therefore neither debater should be held to a standard of absolute proof. No debater can realistically be expected to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle."
Second, we must look at public colleges and universities as government actors. Definitionally, they are. Calleros "95: "Administrators on state campuses are state actors and thus are subject to the negative directive of the First Amendment"

The value is consequentialism, which is defined as the theory that the morality of an action should be judged based on its consequences. Prefer consequentialism because it treats people equally. All consequences are weighed on the same scale. Professor William Haines explains that morality is caring about people equally. That means trying to benefit people, so consequentialism is preferable. And, university officials are required to make choices with uncertain outcomes, but cannot look at the personal ethics of 50,000 students especially given that those beliefs often contradict. The only effective response is to base decisions off generalities and aggregate data to create the best policies for the most people.

The criterion is achieving a goal, which is the best way to maximize good consequences.
First, if something does not achieve its goal it"s effectively useless. Since society is specialized, even if something achieves an extraneous goal it"s still useless because other things exist to meet those goals.
Second, useless things are drain resources and prevent us from using those resources to otherwise benefit society and achieve good consequences.
Therefore, if something does not achieve its goal it harms society. Conversely, things are created to achieve goals to benefit society and only by achieving those goals do we have good consequences.

Contention One: Colleges and universities
Speech codes expressly limit people"s rights to free speech, which harms the marketplace of ideas. They also implicitly limit speech them through the chilling effect. Speech is chilled because of uncertainty as to what speech is or is not allowed. Majeed "09 explains that speech codes are vague, and students and administrators must guess how far they extend. Students are so fearful of violating the code that they self-censor. This prevents crucial discussion from taking place and ideas from being shared.
Restricting speech confounds racism, precisely what those restrictions are trying to counter. Discretion in those who censor means that restrictions backfire.
Strossen: "One ironic, even tragic, result of this discretion is that members of minority groups themselves-the very people whom the law is intended to protect-are likely targets of punishment...Rather than curbing speech offensive to minorities, this has been regularly used to curb the speech of blacks, trade unionists, and anti-nuclear activists." A University of Michigan speech code demonstrates this: Students were only punished twice out of twenty speech code violations relevant to race, and both times the speech was by black students. Clearly, speech codes are counterproductive and do not achieve their goal.
Only counterspeech and education solve in the long term. Restrictions do not counter ideas, whereas according to ACLU "17, "when hate is out in the open, people can see the problem. Then they can organize effectively to counter bad attitudes, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance." Speech is not the problem; rather bigotry is. Restrictions only address the symptoms of an issue as opposed to the root cause. The way to address bigotry is through education. Raising awareness prevents it better than speech codes which are often ineffective and overly vague. Even if speech codes stop speech for a short period of time, the only long-term solution is to change ideas, not words, which can only be accomplished through counterspeech and education.

Contention Two: Government entities
The goal of the government is to protect constitutional rights. The Constitution is the highest law: "This Constitution...shall be the supreme law of the land." Thus, government entities must protect all rights derived from it. Restricting constitutionally protected speech definitionally violates the Constitution. If it is allowable within the Constitution to restrict speech, it is not protected speech. Supreme Court decisions affirm the rights of students: they don"t "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."--from Tinker v. Des Moine. Since the Supreme Court treats college students as normal citizens, government entities must protect students" rights to achieve their goals.

Contention Three: Courts
Because courts are part of the justice system, their goal is to achieve justice for as many people as possible.
Courts are overbooked with cases in the status quo: Wall Street Journal author Joe Palazzolo "15 explains that we have over 330,000 cases waiting now in court, and delays last over three years.
We have too many cases in our courts now. Blatantly unconstitutional speech codes go to court to be challenged, but if they weren"t implemented in the first place that would clear up room for more important cases, allowing the courts to achieve their goal by achieving justice for more people.

For all the reasons stated above, please affirm. Thank you.

On my opponent's case. . .
First on framework debate: My opponent values justice because it is the duty of the government to provide justice. However, colleges have a unique duty to promote education over justice, and that is achieved better through my framework. Resisting structural violence has no link to either framework so ignore it.

Their first contention suggests that tolerance of evil is bad. However, the way to counter it is with counterspeech, not speech codes.

Their second contention states that hate speech leads to violence, but if this is the case it is inciting violence and not protected speech. Then they say counterspeech is ineffective but even if just a few people can engage in it it is helpful to stop hate and then more people can engage in it. Regardless, restrictions are worse than doing nothing. In their subpoint C, they define structural violence as any limitation of human needs. People need rights to free speech to be educated, thus restricting speech confounds structural violence and violates their own framework.

On their counterplan/third contention: They mainly just cite harms to hate speech, but turn this: speech codes make hate speech worse--according to research from Northwestern restricting something makes people want to engage in it more. And turn: hate speech restrictions would be biased in implementation as I say in my Strossen card. They have no evidence that speech codes actually work. Stopping racist insults provides a ruse of solvency--we need to actually stop racism through counterspeech and education.
But if you don't buy this, perm do the neg--racist insults threaten according to my opponent and thus are not protected. This is a double bind--if my opponent claims they do not threaten then the harms of restrictions outweigh the benefits of restricting speech that isn't that harmful. Perm do aff then neg--eliminating all restrictions then putting specific ones in place just makes sense. Finally, reject perm--do the neg if we can't do the aff.

Thus, please vote pro!
Debate Round No. 2


AC/NC for Round 3

First, her Calleros 95 card essentially shows that the admins in schools must default to gov. So actor in resolution is government.

Value: Sure. Consequentialism. Is it moral to allow hate speech to go unrestricted? I'll explain further down why restrictions do work...

Criterion: What is the goal in the aff world?

Contention 1:
Marketplace of ideas- TURN: Allowing bigoted speech doesn't contribute to our enlightenment in a marketplace of ideas, Hanlon 16: wearing blackface Halloween costumes to parties or vandalizing campus facilities with swastikas scrawled in feces or arguing that women would be better off if financially dependent on men are on the cusp of social enlightenment? Should colleges give their resources and platforms to low-value speakers even though students and their families pay us tens of thousands a year to guide them rigorously through the highest quality material on offer?
No, of course they shouldn't. The Pro's misdiagnosis of the Con world shows that speech restricted by the Con doesn't actually benefit the Pro's "marketplace of ideas" world and means that the Pro's 1st contention is turned.

Looking at the Strossen evidence that she seems so adamant about throughout Round 2, again, look towards the fact that the Pro misdiagnoses the Con world. I do not defend status quo restrictions like the Pro seems to show, rather defending a CP that goes relatively untouched (more explanation further). We can therefore disregard her entire attack through Contention 1.

Looking to the counterspeech arg, TURN: more speech, but that means more hate speech and racism, Weberman 10. "More speech" is not a sufficient remedy to "pernicious" speech. Hate speech in fact runs counter to that goal of more speech, denying others on campus the chance of hearing the target's ideas.
So, if the aff is so adamant about more speech and allowing the marketplace of ideas, then she runs into a double bind. Does she want the marketplace or the solvency for violence? Which will be chosen?

Looking at Contention 2, she makes the argument that "Restricting constitutionally protected speech definitionally violates the Constitution." TURN: Hate speech is Constitutionally protected speech, Carroll 15. It would be unconstitutional to ban someone from putting racial words on a picket sign at a protest, and with that caveat, the overwhelming understanding is that "hate speech" is constitutionally protected in the United States. Furthermore, TURN: Brown v Board of Education makes the case to regulate racist speech, Lawrence 90. The landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education is not a case we normally think of as a case about speech. As read most narrowly, the case is about the rights of black children to equal educational opportunity. But Brown can also be read more broadly to articulate a principle central to any substantive understanding of the equal protection clause, the foundation on which all anti-discrimination law rests. This is the principle of equal citizenship. Under that principle "every individual is presumptively entitled to be treated by the organized socirespected, responsible, and participating member." Furthermore, it requires the affirmative disestablishment of societal practices that treat people as members of an inferior or dependent caste, as unworthy to participate in the larger community. The holding in Brown- that racially segregated schools violate the equal protection clause-reflects the fact that segregation amounts to a demeaning, caste creating practice.
This evidence turns the Pro's claims that restrictions are unconstitutional.

The 3rd Contention can be completely DROPPED because it is NON-UNIQUE. Court Clog happens for a litany of different reasons, not just because of speech violations. Just look towards claims against police officers on the matter of their Qualified Immunity. That on its own is enough to drop the Pro's entire 3rd contention.


Moving on to the NC.


Framework: She says that education outweighs justice. Two things: 1. It's just to give education, so justice outweighs, and 2. TURN: Hate speech obstructs ability of group members to benefit from equal
educational opportunities, Kaplin 92. Pervasive patterns of hate speech, left unchecked, create a denial of equal educational opportunity. This denial provides the university with a compelling interest in intervening to re-establish conditions of equality. In fact, in Healy v. James, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that universities need not tolerate First Amendment activities that "substantially interfere with the opportunity of other students to obtain an education."
So, Con wins framework at this point in the debate because Pro can't even give education to its students.

Furtermore, structural violence has everything to do with the debate. If the Pro can't solve for structural violence, then I'm afraid the Pro isn't solving for anything and doesn't give the judge a reason to vote Pro. At the very least, a vote for the Con is a vote for change.

AT First Contention. Drop the argument. I've proved multiple times why counter speech or even more speech in general will only make the matter worse.

AT Second Contention. She has no evidence supporting any of her claims, no for "more people engaging in it" or for "restrictions are worse than doing nothing".
Again, she misdiagnoses the Con world. At no point to I take away 1st ammendment rights. I attempt to solve for violence better than she ever will, and that at least means you must VOTE CON. Furthermore, she says that 1st ammendment rights are absolutely necessary for education, and that restricting speech confounds structural violence. Absolutely not. She can't solve for structural violence while restrictions can. Again, VOTE CON.

AT Third Contention. Her Northwestern evidence need statistics to actually be debated, so we can drop it. Again, the counterspeech argument can continue to be dropped, its been thoroughly refuted in both NC and NR.

Racist insults are protected, looked towards my card above from Carroll 15 that confirms the constitutional protection of hate speech and insults.

And I really appreciate the fact that the Pro opens the door with "perm do the neg". Yes. Yes we should. We should do the neg and Vote CON in today's debate. If not, drop the perm and just do the neg altogether.

-- 1 OFF --

More speech isn"t a solution " prejudices are still too deep rooted. The notion that we can just "talk things out" ignores the effectiveness of racist ideology
Tsesis 10
Just as responding 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. Expecting students at public universities to simply talk things out and convince those who intimidate them of the fallacy of their threatening words and behaviors fails to provide a procedurally cognizable way of seeking legal redress. The world community discounted after it understood the effectiveness of antisemitic Nazi propaganda, it also elevates harassment and intimidation to an equal plane with dialogue.


Hate Speech silences important conversations
Goshgarian 16
Anonymous vandals scrawl hate-filled graffiti outside a Jewish student center. Black students at a law school find unsigned fliers stuffed inside their lockers screaming that they do not belong there. The usual and preferred response""more speech""is unavailable to the victim. And talking back to aggressors is rarely an option. Hate speech is rarely an invitation to a conversation. More like a slap in the face, it reviles and silences.

Point blank, if the Pro world continues to think that more speech will solve, the problems of violence will only get worse.

If you want change, VOTE CON IN THE DEBATE.


First, on the Calleros card. My opponent claims it says that we should default to government. However, it just says the the college should follow the Constitution. It in no way disregards the unique job of colleges to educate, nor does it make the actor anything but (as it says in the resolution) public colleges and universities.

My observation that aff doesn"t have to defend every single instance of speech was completely dropped, so it extends.

Value: My opponent conceded this, which means that we look only to my framework (consequentialism and achieving goals). Thus, all impacts back to minimizing structural violence are entirely irrelevant in this round.

Criterion: The goal of colleges is to educate. The goal of colleges as government is to follow the Constitution. The goal of courts is to achieve justice for more people.

Contention One: Con says that the speech they restrict does not contribute to the marketplace of ideas. First, the Majeed card says that restrictions chill speech which DOES contribute to the marketplace. Second, even if you buy that their restrictions don"t stop the marketplace, that"s not a turn, so they don"t get offense off that. Third, most any ideas need to be permitted or we get a slippery slope where any restrictions are tolerated. Fourth, if the ideas bring no value to the marketplace they will be destroyed in the marketplace through counterspeech and education, and if they won"t be they do have value--that"s a doublebind.

The Strossen evidence says ANY restrictions would be implemented with bias, not just status quo restrictions. I don"t imply the con defends status quo restrictions but that they defend ANY restrictions, which they do or they"re not negating. So extend this argument.

The counterspeech arg says that restrictions cover up the root cause in a ruse of solvency. They claim more speech means more hate speech, but as my ACLU evidence says, more speech leads to more speech countering that hate speech. And, as I said in my Northwestern evidence, speech codes are counterproductive. The marketplace of ideas is crucial to education which links back to the framework. My opponent claims I have a doublebind: More speech leads to structural violence. First, restrictions actually cause this structural violence by causing more hate speech and more biased implementation. Second, we"re not even looking to a framework of minimizing structural violence but of good consequences and meeting goals (in this case, education).

Contention two: My opponent claims the fact that hate speech is protected turns my contention. This doesn"t even make sense. Then they cite the Brown v. Board case that restrictions are constitutional, but the Brown case only discusses rights to be in schools and the requirement of the institution not to discriminate. It DOES NOT discuss hate speech restrictions in any way. And prefer my evidence because free speech is more relevant to the First Amendment without any "broad interpretations." The con says restrictions are constitutionally required but this goes directly against the First Amendment. Prefer the actual text of the Constitution and the most relevant court cases, and extend that restrictions violate the Constitution.

Contention three: My opponent misconstrues this. Of course this happens for other reasons as well as speech. However, stopping the cases relevant to speech at least solves something. They solve nothing so at least pro does SOMETHING involving courts and achieving justice, which is THEIR VALUE.

To the NC.

Framework: They conceded the framework earlier in the rebuttal; this is irrelevant. Equal education is less important than actual good education. So I promote education way better than con by allowing a marketplace of ideas for education to take place.

Again, structural violence is irrelevant because they conceded it, and they claim if I don"t solve structural violence completely I don"t solve anything. That"s a ridiculous claim; you can"t 100% solve anything. Con doesn"t achieve the goals of institutions nearly as well as pro, so a vote for pro better meets the framework and is thus more moral. A vote for con is a vote for censorship and disallowance of education.

First contention: They claim counterspeech specifically is bad. That doesn"t make sense; counterspeech is good for stopping bad speech. Also, education is helpful, and they didn"t refute that.

Second contention: I do have evidence that restrictions are worse than nothing: both the Strossen evidence and the Northwestern evidence show this. They claim they solve for violence. First, they keep impacting back to a framework they conceded, so none of this is relevant. I achieve better consequences; vote pro. Second, restrictions don"t stop violence but rather cover up the problem and increase hate speech. Only counterspeech and education actually stop bigotry which is the root cause of violence, so vote pro to solve for that.

Third contention: They claim I need statistics to make the Northwestern evidence debatable, but this makes no sense. You can"t attach statistics to every card but they evidence is still relevant. I"ll ask how many people exactly they plan to solve structural violence for? Or how many exactly are harmed by hate speech? A precise number just doesn"t make sense. The fact that research shows people have psychological motivation to do something if it is restricted shows that it at least happens sometimes so this contention is turned. Don"t drop the evidence just because they can"t refute it.

They dropped that they have no solvency with speech codes. They can"t prove that con does anything, so vote pro just off of solvency.

They claim insults are protected but extend the doublebind which they dropped: If words incite violence then they are incitement and not protected; if they don"t then harms of restricting outweigh harms of that speech. Thus, doing the neg is either a REALLY BAD IDEA because it is outweighed and has no solvency, or doing the neg affirms the resolution. It"s a pro vote either way.

They also dropped the perm do aff then neg, and the perm do neg if not aff, so extend both of those and affirm just off the perms.

The "one-off" isn"t even an off, just more evidence that hate speech silences. But here"s what they don"t get: it doesn"t matter. First, even if one person can engage in counterspeech and education than that"s still good, stops hate, then hate speech can"t silence as much, so it no longer silences and more speech is good. Second, restrictions ONLY SILENCE FURTHER. As shown in the Strossen card, restrictions only serve to further marginalize minorities. And as shown in the Northwestern evidence, restrictions only cause more hate speech. Third, restrictions hide the problem and let hate fester beneath the surface. The only way to really stop hate, which they claim silences, is to educate and for those who can to engage in counterspeech. Fourth, TURN. Hate speech doesn"t silence but is catalyst to groups that fight hate (such as Black Lives Matter or the Civil Rights Movement). This happens in college: recently at University of Central Michigan, a very anti-semitic Valentine"s card was given to a Jew. Instead of being silenced, the "victim" started a rally supporting freedom and equality and fighting hate. Fifth, if hate speech silences it silences because it threatens victims, and as soon as it threatens (and so silences) it is no longer protected speech but an exception to the First Amendment.

More speech will solve. The con seems to think they solve for any harms, but they only confound them. They claim change will occur but have ZERO solvency evidence.

In fact, pro is the only one in this round who actually achieves consequentialism, but also the only one who stops bigotry instead of making it worse. Even if con wins that pro doesn't solve, at least I don't make it worse.

For true education, a working justice system, and a way to stop bigotry, vote pro.
Debate Round No. 3



First looking at the Calleros Card. Extend the claim that education is hurt by hate speech, thereby restricting the educational opportunities for minorities or oppressed peoples. Only my opponent allows this, therefore vote con.

Value: On the contrary, I didn't drop this. My opponent drops the question on the moral value for allowing hate speech go unrestricted. This drop means you as a judge can only look towards the Con's framework to uphold justice.

Criterion: Perfect. She concedes education. Please now show how education is allowed where hate speech is allowed to go rampant.

Contention 1: The attack on the Majeed card is again misinterpreted by the Pro. What I am claiming is that hate speech does not contribute to the marketplace of ideas and therefore should be restricted. The Pro literally cannot refute this. If they claim that hate speech contributes to the marketplace of ideas, then they are furthering a world of violence, and therefore automatically lose this debate. So, contrary to what my opponent says, I do garner offense by reducing violence proposed in the Pro world.

AT: Slippery Slope, TURN: Restrictions do not create a slippery slope toward censorship; they are narrowly tailored, Hemmer 2K. Any potentially acceptable regulation would narrowly define "hate speech" as "unwanted, demeaning, and injurious hate epithets directed at a specific individual." The code would apply only to this narrow category of expression. According to Henry Saad, "this speech does not advance ideas" (1991,1352).
Therefore, no slippery slope is created and the Pro's argument fails to stand.

She continues to propose counterspeech in the marketplace will solve, but I have provided MOUNTAINS of counter evidence that has gone relatively unrefuted showing that more speech or counterspeech will not solve anything. Only restrictions will help.

The ACLU evidence will not have bearing because hate speech will always outweigh relatively "good" speech as show in the multiple Round 2 and Round 3 cards provided by the neg. Disregard this attack by the Pro. Again, we're actually looking at a framework of justice as the Pro drops the line of questioning from Round 2, therefore the Con wins because justice is best upheld in the Con world.

Contention three: My opponent provides no solvency evidence for more speech conquering the bad, so extend all the Con's Disads through the round, another voter on the fact that at least the Con tries for solvency when the Pro solves nothing. Vote Con simply off that as well.

To the NC

No concession of framework was made other than by the Pro who doesn't answer the question provided in Round 2. Equal education is the forefront of universities and is only achieved through justice. Vote Con on framework.

I never make the claim of 100% solvency for structural violence, rather pointing out that the Pro leaves structural violence untouched to make matters worse in her world. Vote Con for solvency,

First Contention: I never make the claim that counterspeech is bad. I make the claim (REPEATEDLY) that counterspeech DOES NOT SOLVE ANYTHING. Period. That's why we must restrict hate speech, so vote Con. Education is also helpful, sure, but the Pro doesn't allow for education of oppressed peoples. Vote Con again on that point.

Second Contention: The Strossen evidence does not show this, and the Northwestern evidence is unsourced and therefore can be dropped (please post the full evidence/card/citation in the comments so I can look at it...). I keep impacting to a framework that I never dropped, so extend all my second contention evidence across the flow. Vote Con again for impacts. Counterspeech and education again do not solve for the reasons impacted above. Vote Con again and again and again.

Third Contention: Same point I made above, I'll need to see the card please in the comments. Thank you. I'll refute your evidence word for word as soon as I see it. Just because you make a far reaching claim and attach a university to it doesn't mean you can claim it as a reputable source. I'll debate it once I see it. Thanks. Extend all Con evidence across the flow, and vote Con.

I have more than enough solvency, so continue voting Con.

The double bind makes no sense and is definetely refuted, so again, vote Con. The neg doesn't even come close to affirming, because the aff doesn't have restrictions in their world. The Con does and it is the only one that tries for solvency, so vote Con.

Perms don't solve, so extend all of Con framework across the flow. Her perm means more education and counterspeech which has roundly been rejected, vote Con.

AT Off:
1. Looking towards my 2nd contention. Simply getting someone who is oppressed to talk back will only make the problem worse, so completely disregard first off point.
2. Her misdiagnosis of the Con world continues. Restrictions silence hateful violent speech that is protected by the constitution to solve for violence. Vote Con off that. The POSSIBLE marginalization of minorities is severely outweighed by the multiplication of violence in the Pro world. Vote Con again off that.
3. Education again does not solve. Disregard this point, extend Con and vote Con again.
4. So she's allowed to generalize one instance at one college to say that it'll work all across the country? No she isn't. Drop the arg, extend the Con.
5. LOOK TOWARDS THE CULLEN EVIDENCE IN ROUND 2. HATE SPEECH IS PROTECTED AND WILL REMAIN SO. THE PRO WILL ONLY CONTINUE THE VIOLENCE CAUSED BY IT, AND AT LEAST THE CON SOLVES. Excuse the caps, but my opponent needs to stop abusing my words and twisting them to fit her story. Vote Con off that.

She says "she doesn't make it worse". Ha. I think I've proved more than enough how hate speech will make things worse and how she won't solve for it, therefore making matters entirely worse.


Hate speech has no value to dialogue or the marketplace of ideas " it"s just dangerous
Tsesis 10

Allowing students or faculty members to intimidate others through hate symbols or expressions favors the bigots' desire to advocate discrimination and violence while denying the victims' reasonable expectation of security while on campus. The constitutional importance of the First Amendment to democratic governance and self-assertion does not extend to menacing messages that tend to diminish the targeted group's sense of security and its ability to enjoy college commons areas and to attend university sponsored events. Students and faculty members are more likely to think twice before going to hear the college orchestra or heading to the student union if it requires walking through an area where a cross has recently been burned, a swastika has been displayed, or a supremacist rally has taken place. Hate speakers are neither inviting intellectual debate and rejoinder nor seeking political dialogue. Theirs is a campaign of silencing through intimidation-something that threatens the university's "marketplace of ideas" and is no benefit to educational interactions. Academic freedom is not a license for harassment. Neither does hate speech further the pursuit for' truth: calling Jews vermin, blacks apes, women whores, Native Americans savages, Tutsis cockroaches, or Mexicans lazy has nothing to do with truth. These derogatory statements are meant to exclude and stamp certain groups with the label of outsider to the university community. Derisive speech becomes academically punishable when it is meant to defame, intimidate, threaten, terrify, or instigate violence.


Vote Con for all the above reasons.



My opponent claims that education is hurt by hate speech. However, my evidence shows that actually speech codes are what chill education, not hate.

Value: They claim they don"t drop it but they literally said in their last round, "Sure. Consequentialism. Is it moral to allow hate speech to go unrestricted?" This means that they agree consequentialism is the value. They also claim I ignore the question of whether it is moral for hate speech to go unrestricted, but I address this throughout my rebuttal, and will continue to address it.

Criterion: I do agree that education is important to colleges but they still drop how chilling is bad for education, and how hate speech allows for counterspeech, truly educating instead of just stopping speech.

Contention One: They claim hate speech doesn"t help the marketplace of ideas and that is grounds to restrict it. Not helping doesn"t mean hurting and is not grounds for restriction. And, if the ideas bring no value to the marketplace they will be destroyed in the marketplace through counterspeech and education, and if they won"t be they do have value--that"s an unrefuted doublebind.
My opponent claims allowing hate speech brings a world of violence, but actually restricting it and allowing it to fester instead of solving for bigotry through counterspeech is what causes violence, so vote pro on that. Not helping doesn"t mean hurting and is not grounds for restriction.
They say restrictions don"t cause a slippery slope because they are narrow but this is untrue: even narrow restrictions show that it is okay to restrict speech that is protected, causing more restrictions.
They claim they have provided evidence against counterspeech but are unable to bring it up in their rebuttals. Futhermore, I have demonstrated the harms of restriction time and time again in my Majeed card and my ACLU evidence.
On the ACLU evidence: They claim that hate speech outweighs "good" speech but neglect the fact that counterspeech is the only way to solve for the underlying cause of that hate speech. Thus, affirm because I actually stop the root cause while they just hide the problem.

Contention Two: Completely dropped, so vote pro off the fact that violating the constitution is harmful.

Contention Three: ? They ignore this contention to go on talking about counterspeech. This is about court clog. I do have some solvency for court clog so affirm on that. They claim they try to solve for something but counterspeech doesn"t work. Attempts at solvency don"t matter under our framework of consequentialism. Actual solvency does, and it"s only achieved in the pro world.

To the NC.

They claim they don"t completely solve but then ask for a vote on solvency. This makes no sense. I actually solve through counterspeech and at least don"t make it worse by chilling speech. Thus, you affirm.

Contention One: They claim counterspeech doesn"t work but I have shown in my ACLU card it works much better than restrictions. They also concede education is helpful. Thus, we need to educate so vote pro so we can do that!

Contention Two: The Strossen evidence, again, shows that any implementation would be biased because the harm is in the people implementing not the wording of the restriction. Here is the evidence my opponent asked for: "Research suggests that restrictions perceived to threaten or possibly eliminate behavioral freedoms may trigger "psychological reactance", and increase one"s desire to engage in the restricted behavior. For instance, Worchel and colleagues (1975) assessed desire to hear censored material among students at the University of North Carolina...Consistent with reactance theory, participants who were informed they could not hear the content of the speech, reported a stronger desire to do so." (Sorry, I mistyped and claimed it was from Northwestern when it was actually from North Carolina!) They impact back to a framework they very clearly dropped and have NO impact to the framework we are looking toward. Counterspeech and education do solve, and they still can"t bring up evidence for why they don"t. Vote pro for actual solvency.

Contention Three: They extend claims that have been clearly refuted, and now my opponent can see the evidence so it is still relevant. They claim they have "more than enough" solvency but have not responded to my request to see a single piece of solvency evidence, so assume they don"t. Speech restrictions are actively harmful and they dropped that implementation is bad. Affirm on solvency because if I don"t solve I at least don"t make it worse.
They claim perms don"t solve but by saying this they have conceded their own solvency. If a perm is a mix of pro and con, you should get solvency from both places. If a perm doesn"t solve, there must not be solvency from either place, so they must not have it either. That said, I do solve so extend the perms and affirm on that.

On the off:
1. They say earlier in their rebuttal counterspeech isn"t bad. Now they say getting someone to talk back makes it worse. Pick a position!
2. They misconstrued my argument. They claim I"m discussing possible marginalization of minorities while I"m actually discussing education of everyone, existance of a working government bound by the Constitution, and courts that do their jobs.
3. Education does solve, as shown in the ACLU evidence. They agree it can help.
4. It"s not a single isolated restriction but shown time and time again through the Black Lives Matter movement, the Women"s Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, etc. Extend the turn and vote pro.
5. They drop the doublebind and just say hate speech is protected. However, once it is threatening it is no longer protected. Extend the doublebind and affirm.

They claim I make the problem worse. I have no clue how education, stopping bigotry, allowing an effective government, and stopping court clog makes anything worse.

The off is just more evidence saying hate speech has no value. I"ve already refuted that argument.

Affirm because
1) I'm the only one to stop the chilling effect and allow for true education to take place
2) I'm the only one to solve for the cause of hate speech
3) I'm the only one to allow the government to function effectively. This was dropped completely. Without a working Constitution, we have anarchy which is bad even under a structural violence framework. The magnitude of this outweighs any other argument.
4) I help solve court clog, they don't do anything about it
5) Logical arguments should be prioritized over a barrage of cards
6) Restrictions make things WORSE and if you don't buy that,
7) I have made three refuted perms to the con

Thus, please vote pro. Thank you!
Debate Round No. 4


Please note my complete exasperation at my opponent by this last round.

First, your evidence was thoroughly refuted, so hate does indeed cause like of education for oppressed groups.

"Sure. Consequentialism." doesn't mean I agree with it. You dropping the question without a direct answer means that you lose the value debate right of the bat, which means that there is literally no way you can win the framework debate, which means that I win. Vote Con.

The speech that is stopped is the speech that chills education, as I've said MULTIPLE times. You also lose the criterion debate.

Contention 1: COUNTERSPEECH DOES NOT SOLVE. Did you not read any of the evidence presented at any point in this debate? This literally means you can provide for no education for the oppressed that are subjects of hate. I do this, and therefore win this impact.

Contention 2: Not dropped, rather pretty well refuted, followed by a Pro's drop of the refutations. Vote Con again.

Contention 3: As presented in Round 3, Court Clog is a non-unique argument and can therefore be easily ignored as a judge. Drop this from the debate.

To the NC.

When did I ever claim to completely solve? That's hilarious. I actually attempt solvency when yours absolutely fails 100% of the time. Negate simply off that.

Counterspeech doesn't solve. Look towards my entire 2nd contention in the NC followed by EVERY piece of evidence introduced following that.

Contention 2: Thank you for the evidence. However, this is exactly like your third contention and is non-unique. And even if you don't buy that, the system can be built with sever enough consequences to stop this psychological reaction. Problem solved, and negate off that.

Her refutations on the third contention can be looked back at Rounds 3 and 4 when they were just as easily parried away by the Con.

Vote Con for the following reasons:

1. Framework debate won by the Con since Round 3
2. Value debate immediately dropped by Pro in Round 3
3. Impact debate down the flow carried by the Con
4. Solvency debate won by the Con because Con world outweighs Aff's.

Thank you for the debate, and please vote Con for a better world.



Value: My opponent literally stated, "Sure. Consequentialism." Sure means yes. They conceded this. They claimed I dropped a question, but first, I answered it throughout the debate, and second, even if I did drop it they conceded the value anyway.

Criterion: Their only rebuttal is that speech stopped chills education. This has no link to the criterion debate over whether achieving a goal meets consequentialism. Thus, we assume it does because a dropped argument is a true argument.

Contention 1: Counterspeech does solve; the fact that they can"t bring up a single piece of evidence extended to this point in the round is significant in showing that I am right. My ACLU evidence extends. They claim I don"t educate the victims of hate, but I actually stop bigotry and end up educating the bigots to stop bigotry and then the subjects of hate can learn. Even if you don"t buy this, speech codes chill speech so by implementing them you are stopping education of EVERYONE, not just victims of hate speech. Even if I do stop education of hate victims (which I don"t), you still affirm because I outweigh on magnitude and still education somebody.

Contention 2: They can"t extend any refutation, and in the previous round they didn"t refute this at all. Again, a dropped argument is a true argument, extend this contention and vote pro simply on this.

Contention 3: They still misunderstand this. I"m not claiming court clog is caused by restricting speech, rather I"m saying that preventing speech restrictions help the already-existing problem of court clog.

On to the NC:

They concede they don"t completely solve. That"s completely correct: they hide the problem whereas I actually try to solve it.

Contention 1: Rebuttal dropped, my rebuttal holds, this argument doesn"t extend.

Contention 2: They claim that a system with severe enough consequences stops this reaction. My evidence shows that this is false: any restriction is bad and stops this. They also completely dropped my Strossen evidence that speech codes would be biased and confound structural violence and lead to bad consequences.

Contention 3: Again, they can"t extend any defense of this contention. I refuted it in the past round by explaining that implementation is biased and speech codes promote hate speech, and with perms. They dropped these rebuttals which generate offense for the pro, so I am actually winning this contention.

Vote pro for the following reasons:
1) Solvency: They still have not provided a single piece of solvency evidence. THIS MEANS THEY DON"T SOLVE. I have shown that I solve for bigotry with my ACLU evidence, so affirm on this point.
2) They make it worse. Even if you don"t buy my solvency, at least I don"t make hate speech worse. Speech codes chill preventing counterspeech, implementation of speech codes is bad, and speech codes promote hate speech. If nothing else, I don"t cause more bigotry.
3) Perms: I win perm do the con, perm do pro then the con, and perm to the con in all cases but the pro. They refuted none of this, so I should win on this alone.
4) Constitutionality: I don"t violate the Constitution, they must OR their speech isn"t protected. Not violating the Constitution is good because if it is violated it is effectively useless and our government falls apart, throwing the country into anarchy. This outweighs any other impact in the round on magnitude.
5) Court clog: I help fix the problem, they leave it as it is.

These voters work under either framework, so even if you somehow buy the con framework of stopping structural violence you still vote pro.

Thanks to my opponent for a good round, judges for voting, and please vote pro!
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
>Reported vote: madness// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Reasons for voting decision: It took me an hour to read this debate, but I came to a close conclusion. In short: Pro gave strong ACLU evidence, which Con never refuted. Pro made a point based on how the constitution backed her side, she was correct in saying this and her logic back such a claim. Con was unable to disprove this and thus Pro win this argument. Cons made a point "Speech codes prevent structural violence and create equality" Pro countered this claim by saying how speech codes cause inequality, not speech codes, Con never addressed this. . Con misspelled "Govement" I was sure he meant "Glove-meant" for a while.

[*Reason for removal*] S&G is insufficiently explained. The voter is required to provide reasoning for awarding this that shows that it was difficult to understand the arguments as written. Merely stating that there was a misspelling doesn"t showcase this.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
>Reported vote: madness// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: It took me an hour to read this debate, but I came to a close conclusion. In short: Pro gave strong ACLU evidence, which Con never refuted. Pro made a point based on how the constitution backed her side, she was correct in saying this and her logic back such a claim. Con was unable to disprove this and thus Pro win this argument from a moral and logical standpoint. Con misspelled "Govement" I was sure he meant "Glove-meant" for a while.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn"t explain conduct. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess specific arguments made by both debaters. The voter only assesses Pro"s arguments, though chiefly based on what was dropped rather than the strength of those points. The voter never assesses Con"s arguments, merely stating what Con didn"t do.
Posted by paintballvet18 3 years ago
As I have I on the national circuit.
Posted by LD_and_Congress_Debater 3 years ago
I've done this topic at tournaments before
Posted by paintballvet18 3 years ago
Sure doesn't mean yes and I hope the judges can see it as the sarcasm it was.
Posted by paintballvet18 3 years ago
The Con's negation has been updated. Apologies.
Posted by paintballvet18 3 years ago
The pro has to defend all constitutionally protected speech in universities without restrictions such as "free speech zones". The con can therefore provide one example of something that should be restricted to win the debate.
Posted by Mharman 3 years ago
You say that, yet you chose con.

Are you arguing for colleges restricting free speech or against it?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.