| ... |
... |
@@ -1,38
+1,0 @@ |
| 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 |