Tournament: Texas City | Round: 2 | Opponent: | Judge:
I negate.
My value is morality which tells us what is right and wrong to do. Morality is the ultimate motivation for any action.
The standard of this round will be utilitarianism which states that the greatest good for the greatest amount of people is the best way to achieve morality. Utilitarianism prioritizes the pleasure of as many people as possible. I will provide 2 justifications:
Justification 1: Util protects life first which is a prerequisite to any other value or standard.
Rasmussen 81:
Douglas Den Uyl and Douglas Rasmussen, Professors of Philosophy, Bellarmine College and St. John's University, READING NOZICK, Jeffrey Paul, ed., 1981, p245. (PDNSS1794)
In so far as one chooses, regardless of the choice, one must choose (value) man's person’s
AND
value something without also (implicitly at least) valuing that which makes valuation possible.
Justification 2: Util is the standard used in real world policymaking.
Goodin 90:
The Utilitarian Response. pg. 141-2. Robert Goodin is a fellow in philosophy at the Australian National Defense University.
My larger argument turns on the proposition that there is something special about the situation
AND
they want to use it at all – to choose general rules or conduct.
Now, I will present my contentions.
C1: Hate speech causes hate crime.
Singh 12:
The Rise of Hate Crimes Can Be Tied Directly to Hateful Speech. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/06/the-rise-of-hate-crimes-can-be-tied-directly-to-hateful-speech.html Hansdeep Singh is the Co-Founder and Director of Legal Programs for the International Center for Advocates Against Discrimination (ICAAD). His experiences at Human Rights Watch and the Criminal Tribunals of Rwanda and Yugoslavia have made him a forceful advocate in identifying and addressing structural discrimination globally as a means of preventing violence against minority or vulnerable communities. He holds a L.L.M. in International Law and Justice from Fordham University School of Law and a Juris Doctor from California Western School of Law.
We are deluding ourselves if we do not see the parallel between intolerant or hateful
AND
illness plaguing this great nation—the discrimination and “othering” of minority communities.
C2: Hate speech causes minorities to commit suicide.
News Medical 4:
Correlation between hate speech and suicide rates remains constant. http://www.news-medical.net/news/2004/08/13/4050.aspx
The more negative a nickname or slur used to refer to an immigrant group, the
AND
operates as a stressor and can have a variety of deleterious consequences.”
C3: Hate speech is a precursor to genocide.
World Policy Institute 10:
Hate Speech Leads to Genocide. http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2010/11/11/hate-speech-leads-genocide
While hate speech can often be dismissed as bigoted ranting or merely painful words, it
AND
radio host for broadcasts preceding the post-election violence of 2007-2008 in Kenya.
A hate speech ban is key to deter perpetrators of hatred from giving hate speech, thus avoiding all these impacts mentioned above. A hate speech ban would show bigots that their views are unwelcome.
Jensen 93. Ejner J. Jensen, Senate Assembly Chair, 2-8-1993, "The pros and cons of a policy covering hate speech," The University Record, http:ur.umich.edu/9293/Feb08'93/8.htm AD
Universities have a right and duty to provide an educational environment, a climate of civility
AND
dealing with reported incidents and resolving misunderstandings that may be interpreted as harassment.
C4: International law
Banning hate speech is key to prove that the US is taking steps to become more and more compliant with I-Law. Doing the Aff will make the world stage know that the US is taking a step backward and doesn’t really care about following I-law, thus making other countries withdraw from their own commitments.
As a world superpower and global leader, US policies are likely analyzed closely.
Adelman 13:
Why The U.S. Remains The World's Unchallenged Superpower. Forbes contributor. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/11/24/why-the-u-s-remains-the-worlds-unchallenged-superpower/#bc137af1fd8f
Yet, the United States is the world leader and likely to remain there for decades.
AND
profile (massive exports of consumer and technology goods and imports of natural resources).
Link: ILaw banned hate speech.
Matsuda 89
Mari J. 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.
The international community has chosen to outlaw racist hate propaganda. Article 4 of the International Convention
AND
Universal Declaration gained momentum as member states sought effective means of eliminating discrimination.
US adherence to international law concerning hate speech is key to credibility in international human rights.
Cohen 15
Tanya Cohen, "It’s Time To Bring The Hammer Down On Hate Speech In The U.S." Thought Catalog, 5/1/2015
Recent scandals involving right-wing hatemongers like Phil Robertson, Donald Sterling, Bill Maher, and the Sigma
AND
to follow international human rights law as the rest of the world is.
Impact: ILaw solves multiple scenarios for extinction—US compliance with ILaw shapes global ILaw compliance
IEER 2
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy. Rule of Power or Rule of Law? An Assessment of U.S. Policies and Actions Regarding Security-Related Treaties. May 2002. http://www.ieer.org/reports/treaties/execsumm.pdf
The evolution of international law since World War II is largely a response to the
AND
that the state has followed the U.S. example and opted out of compliance.
Turns case—the Constitution says we have to follow ILaw
Roberts 7
The American Value of Fear and the Indefinite Detention of Terrorist Suspects Author(s): Rodney C. Roberts Reviewed work(s): Source: Public Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Oct., 2007), pp. 405-419 Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of North American Philosophical Publications Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40441497
This being the case, the U.S. has a clear legal obligation as well. Article VI
AND
own conduct, at least if we have raised those expectations knowingly and voluntarily.
Don’t buy any unwarranted arguments- my opponent is just trying to avoid having to debate this important impact without going to the trouble of bringing up evidence.
Also, don’t buy an argument that states this is far-fetched; it is clearly not. Things such as accidental nuclear war could happen at any time and trigger global extinction, US compliance with I-law helps gives it the credibility to tell other countries to follow certain international laws that help prevent these extinction scenarios.
If I can prove that I am decreasing the probability of extinction even a tiny bit, I automatically win the debate because extinction is the biggest impact in the round, especially under util framework. Magnitude outweighs probability because we need to consider large-scale impacts first- if we don’t we may be truly unprepared when such an impact actually happens.
Please vote Neg.