The affirmative argues that governments should not decide which opinions are legal to express, because censorship powers can expand. Statistic / Evidence: According to surveys by the Pew Research Center, many people in democratic countries report concern about governments restricting speech online and in public debate. The United States — which has among the strongest speech protections — generally protects offensive speech unless it directly incites imminent violence. Debate claim: If hate speech laws are broad, governments may later use them against activists, minorities, journalists, or political opponents. Point 2: Banning speech does not necessarily eliminate hateful ideas The affirmative argues that prohibition often pushes extremists underground instead of changing beliefs. Evidence / Statistics: Research on extremist online communities has found that when banned from mainstream platforms, some groups migrate to smaller or encrypted platforms rather than disappear. Studies of deplatforming show mixed results: visibility may decline, but ideology can persist in alternative spaces. Debate claim: Open expression allows harmful ideas to be identified, tracked, and challenged publicly. Point 3: Counter-speech can be more effective than censorship Instead of bans, societies can answer harmful speech with education, debate, and public condemnation. Evidence: Some prejudice-reduction and dialogue programs have shown measurable improvements in attitudes through exposure, education, and direct engagement. Civil liberties advocates argue that bad ideas are weakened when openly confronted with evidence. Debate line: “Sunlight is the best disinfectant” — expose hateful views so they can be disproven publicly. Point 4: Subjective definitions create enforcement problems “Hate speech” can be difficult to define consistently. Statistic / Evidence: International democracies differ significantly in what they classify as hate speech; legal standards vary widely between countries. Final claim If people cannot clearly know what speech is illegal, enforcement becomes uneven and vulnerable to political bias.

What happened to you was wrong. Nobody should be targeted or harassed because of race. But personal harm alone doesn’t automatically justify government bans on speech — otherwise almost any deeply offensive idea could be prohibited. You argue hate speech should be restricted because it causes harm and can contribute to violence. Using that same logic, we should ask: do hate-speech laws measurably reduce violence or prejudice? The evidence is mixed. For example, several European countries with strong hate-speech laws still report significant levels of antisemitic, anti-Muslim, and anti-immigrant incidents. Laws banning speech haven’t eliminated hateful attitudes. In some cases, extremist groups adapt by moving to encrypted spaces, where ideas become harder to challenge publicly. Also, “free speech doesn’t include threats or harassment” is already true in many legal systems. Threats, stalking, direct harassment, and incitement to imminent violence are already punishable. The real debate is about offensive expression that stops short of direct threats. Using your own principle — preventing harm — we should consider harms from censorship too. Surveys from democracies show many people worry about self-censorship and unclear speech boundaries. When governments gain power to decide what counts as “hate,” marginalized activists, dissidents, comedians, religious minorities, or political critics can end up targeted too. Historically, censorship powers have not always protected minorities; sometimes they’ve been used against them. So the question isn’t “Do hateful words hurt people?” They can. The question is: Does banning speech reduce overall harm more effectively than protecting expression while punishing actual threats, harassment, and violence? That’s a much harder case to prove.

I agree targeted abuse can cause real psychological harm. But using your own logic, the question isn't “Does hate speech hurt people?” The question is “What policy reduces total harm most effectively?” You argue hate speech should be banned because it contributes to anxiety, depression, and sometimes violence. Fair enough. But if harm prevention is the standard, we have to compare all harms — including harms from giving institutions broad power over speech. You say hate speech “isn’t an idea, it’s an attack.” But legally and practically, where's the line? Direct threats, stalking, harassment, and incitement are already illegal in many countries. The harder question is speech that's offensive, prejudiced, or hostile without being a direct threat. Once governments or platforms expand that category, mistakes and political bias become part of the equation. Using your own argument about measurable outcomes: show that broad hate-speech restrictions outperform narrower laws against threats and violence. The evidence isn't clear-cut. Countries with strong hate-speech laws still face serious hate incidents. For example, parts of Europe with stricter speech regulation continue to report substantial antisemitic, anti-Muslim, and anti-immigrant crimes. If bans were the decisive solution, we'd expect clearer reductions. Your “less visibility = less radicalization” claim also needs evidence, not intuition. Some studies on extremist movements suggest deplatforming can reduce mainstream reach, but others warn it can intensify closed-group radicalization and make networks harder to monitor. So even by your standard, the outcome is mixed — not an automatic win for bans. And the “fire in a crowded theater” analogy doesn’t quite fit. That phrase is about immediate, concrete danger — panic causing imminent harm. Calling someone hateful or expressing prejudice, while harmful or offensive, is not automatically equivalent to creating instant physical danger. That’s why many legal systems distinguish incitement to imminent violence from protected offensive speech. If your principle is minimizing harm, you need to prove two things: Broad hate-speech restrictions reduce violence, discrimination, and mental-health harms more than existing laws against threats/harassment. They do so without creating comparable harms — overreach, political misuse, chilled speech, or suppression of unpopular minorities. Otherwise, you're not just saying “harm exists.” You're assuming one particular solution works best — and that's a different claim. Now the burden of proof is back on you