| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,38 @@ |
|
1 |
+I value morality since the word ‘ought’ in the resolution implies moral obligation. Morality is defined as the degree to which something is right or good. |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+My value criterion is consistency with international law. International law is defined as the body of law that governs the legal relations among nations. Prefer this for several reasons. |
|
4 |
+ |
|
5 |
+1. Consistency with international law is the only way to escape moral disagreement and allows people to have universal morals. Don Loeb, a professor of philosophy, writes. |
|
6 |
+Leob, D, “Moral Realism and the Argument From Disagreement” (June 1998), Springer, Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/4320853.pdf?acceptTC=true |
|
7 |
+The argument from...fundamental moral principles. |
|
8 |
+ |
|
9 |
+Analytics |
|
10 |
+ |
|
11 |
+3. Unless we have international law to govern our morals, people just value themselves and their desires the most, instead of valuing the right and moral action. Rick Parrish explains. |
|
12 |
+Parrish, Rick. “Derrida’s Economy of Violence in Hobbes’ Social Contract”. Theory and Event. Volume 7, Issue 4. 2005. |
|
13 |
+"For Hobbes truth...affects everybody equally. |
|
14 |
+ |
|
15 |
+Thus, I contend that public colleges and universities in the United States ought to restrict any constitutionally protected speech in order to be consistent with international law. |
|
16 |
+ |
|
17 |
+Contention 1: Hate Speech |
|
18 |
+ |
|
19 |
+Hate speech is protected by the Constitution, despite misunderstandings of exceptions of the First Amendment. Eugene Volokh, of the Washington Post, explains. |
|
20 |
+Eugene Volokh, Washington Post, 5-7-2015, "No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment," https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.fe32733b13d3 |
|
21 |
+I keep hearing...of “hate speech.” |
|
22 |
+ |
|
23 |
+International law banned hate propoganda. Mari Matsuda, an associate professor of law, says. |
|
24 |
+Mari Matsuda (Associate Professor of Law, University of Hawaii, the William S. Richardson School of Law), "Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim's Story," Michigan Law Review, 1989 http://www.jstor.org.shs-13.scarsdaleschools.k12.ny.us:2048/stable/pdf/1289306.pdf |
|
25 |
+The international community...doomed to failure. |
|
26 |
+ |
|
27 |
+Analytics |
|
28 |
+ |
|
29 |
+Contention 2: Democracy |
|
30 |
+Hate speech violates the fundamental principals of democracy by violation rights of equality, freedom, and religion. Cherian George writes. |
|
31 |
+Cherian, Geroge, 11-1-2016, "Rescuing democracy from the harms of hate speech," openDemocracy, https://www.opendemocracy.net/cherian-george/rescuing-democracy-from-harms-of-hate-speech |
|
32 |
+These groups’ hate...right to expect. |
|
33 |
+ |
|
34 |
+And, international law is in approval of democracy. Steven Wheatley, a writer for the European Journal of International Law, explains. |
|
35 |
+Steven Wheatley, 5-1-2011, "Democratic Rule of International Law," No Publication, https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/22/2/525/540655/A-Democratic-Rule-of-International-Law |
|
36 |
+Democratic legitimacy for...governance through law. |
|
37 |
+ |
|
38 |
+Analytics |