Resolved: We have the right to be offended… but what to do about it?

[NOTE: No where in the debate the debators have to conform to the laws of United States of America it is my understanding that fauxlaw is a citizen of USA, I am a citizen of Republic of India, but I suppose I can fight this debate on Fauxlaw's terf since he is a friend but I will take the liberty of citing some global examples] 

CON has quoted his argument by quoting Mark Twain, I would begin by Quoting an abstract from Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore's poem orginally written in Bengali :

Rudyard Kipling termed him as "The man who save India" 

Now just with respect to the above knowledge, with the list of atrocities that were committed, PRO can consider his turf under legal binding in USA, what constitutes as offence, the right of a British person to be offended, or the right of an Indian to be vocal about the colonial atrocities? PRO is free to US legal procedure after all there are 3.8 million people of Indian descent living in USA. 

Where is the line of demarcation of what constitutes as an offence? 

In American context, it was the Black people's fault to take offense for being enslaved pre American Civil War? This statement confuses me beyond imagination. 

Walking a slaver or General Dyer's shoes is not needed to conclude they were wrong. 

If CON wishes to argue not to bring things of the past, Lets assume even in the present condition. Socio-cultural conduct and customs vary significantly in a pluralistic society even within a single nation. Where is the demarcation between exercising freedom of speech and a punishable offence. 

Argument 2: I am playing in PRO's turf here still, PRO must be aware of the recent trans-rights movement in USA and Canada. Many people of the community have been asking they/them pronouns to address them instead of a conventional his/her. What precedes more freedom of speech of an individual or a trans-person right to be offended. Jordan Peterson shot to fame in West just because of his stand on freedom of speech. 

Argument 3:

III.a)Considering the very argument made by PRO, who decides who got the bigger take? Here is a case of Australian rudby star dropped from team for apparently making homophobic comments, when he did not specifically mention anything specific against homosexuality, but quoted Bible. Same applies to USA, here in the First Amendment mentioned by PRO as well, How to decide? was the rudby player in the right in quoting his religion or the association that kicked him out of the team. 

III.a1) In a world where conflicting arguments have taken over workplaces, colleges and politics to ensure fundamental functioning of democracies it is essential for people to exercise their freedom of speech, this video proves my point, this video of Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman interview went viral, one the best videos that pictures the essence of freedom of speech. 

In a democracy there will be differing opinions and viewpoints , some viewpoints can be counted as offensive, it is best in the smooth functioning of the democracy that every individual has the right to speak his mind freely without having to think that some other person might take umbrage of what he or she has said. Limitation should only be put when the speech constitutes as acts of terror, sexual offenses, child exploitation, in which case the act is not an offence but a crime. In essence curtailment should only be put in place when a tractable legal procedure is viable.  Otherwise they don't have the right to be offended. 

Over to PRO! 

Counter Argument:" Where is the line of demarcation?"

PRO counters that the line is not actually a line but a scatter plot of individual points , where points can be considered as individuals who have taken offense to a certain degree based on their preconcieved notions of the world. I can agree, that yes individuals generally take offense based on their preconcieved notions, but the problem presents itself in its true form, where PRO assigns taking offense as a right for the common populace. Since PRO has made a mathematical reference,  i too will speak mathematically, nature normally presents itself in the form of a natural distribution or a bell shaped curve, now if we consider a political spectrum of general population most of the people because of the bell shape of the curve are slightly left or slightly right and only a minority of people, are what we can assign as far right and radical left. The problem with taking offense being assigned as a right is that now if offended at slightest notion of dissent the party who is feeling offended can file a petition in court, and when it becomes a matter of the court of law, while prosecuting a person a trend line cannot be taken into account. The laws have to  be definite as to what they cover and what could be their rammifications if broken. The line of demarcation that is needed for an offense to be constituted as a crime will cover both individuals and communities as a whole. A good example will be a person burns a bus, or 10 people burn a bus it does not matter both offenses will be counted as rioting and destruction of public property. Thus the argument made by CON is still relevant, even though PRO had made the initial statement with regard to individuals instead of communities. Free speech will also be used by the same far-right and radical left while discussing matters of past, present and future. Thus offense cannot be deemed as a right.  

CON can substantiate his case by citing China, people have been reported missing for critisizing the government of China in personal capacity and they are secretly prosecuted for portraying Chinese government in negative light, this is the conundrum that society faces when we term offense as in verbal offense as a right, here in this case state is exercising it's right to feel offended and thus curtailing free speech of individuals. Thus if individuals truely value the fortune of living in a democracy, contentious arguments and radical remarks should be judged on their merit rather than the case being whether or not their actions can be constituted as an offense. 

Counter argument : Label rights 

Exactly, we cannot assume that all transgenders are of like mind, but the problem shows it true face when they start demanding it be a matter of law that their indentity or believe be protected and anyone who questions their belief or ideology be prosecuted. That is tyranny, because there is a active attempt to sideline whole viewpoints by some members of such groups. There are 31 gender identities in New York and anyone who quetions this which in my view is practising his or her freedom of speech is liable to be prosecuted as to have uttered hate speech or hate crime which is prepostorous in my opinion. Therefore the civil discussion my friend is talking about cannot take place. 

The clarification:  The player only pointed out biblical sins in general , as can be seen in the post , he did not spedifically target homosexuals, as seen in the Instagram post he calls out other sins like Idolatory, atheism, etc. Now being a Hindu, I too could take offense of such a post, but I dont since I dont believe offense being a right of a individual but my  views are not shared by certain homosexuals who cost the player his career and life. The civil discource that is essential for functioning of the democracy has been sub-dued by uncalled for aggressive actions. 

Taking offense is a sub-set, but the problem causes a whole new dilemma when the subset starts to threaten the entire set. Freedom of speech has been put under threat by many individuals who deem taking offense as a right.

I will happily site parellels in both our democracies, when the Declaration of Independence was signed in USA, all people who were signatories of the document were essentially commiting treason. Why? because there was no right to dissent. When India was struggling for Independence, people right to voice their concerns were subjugated. If a person starts making a scene on the street, I am quick to point out, "Hey do so see a white man here giving orders?". "This country is free, and everyone is free to voice their concerns and aspirations". If we start assigning hurting sentiments as liable in courts of law it will be end of democracies as we know it.

I Rebuttal: “The Line of demarcation”
 
I.a Con attempts to redirect the argument of individual rights to collective, or, to use a popular P.C.-speak: systemic rights, such as the subject of this debate: the right to be offended. Arguably, this right is unwritten, as I’ve argued in r1, I.a.1 and II, and r2, I.a.2. Let’s not lose sight that I have already argued these points clearly, and that it is Con who discounts the argument simply on the basis of an erroneous move of the goal post from an individual right, shared by many individuals, to a collective, systemic right having to do only with the crowd, but not an individual.
 
I.a.1 However, I rebutted in r2, I.a.3, that all constitutional fights of the people are enjoyed as individual citizens. Con presented in his r2 rebuttal for the systemic-only condition by trying to convince us that it matters not if one individual burns a bus, ort ten individuals burn a bus; the bus is burned and one person or ten persons are charged. I don’t know how things work in India, but, being a democracy, the which style of government recognizes individuals and their rights, the ten people who allegedly burn a bus are not charged on a collective charge; each individual is charged with destruction of public property, whether or not they are tried in court individually or collectively. There are ten indictments, one for each individual. Therefore, Con’s systemic argument does not hold. It is wrong.
 
I.b Con then argues conditions in China; that people are reported missing, and ties this issue to the debate by saying, “…this is the conundrum that society faces when we term offense as in verbal offense as a right…”  But giving offense is not the debate subject. Being offended, i.e., taking offense is what is the resolution is about. Con needs to stay on point. Therefore, this sideline is a non sequitur, and a failed argument.
 
 
II Rebuttal: Label rights
 
II.a  Con’s r2, referred to the player dropped from the rugby team for perceived homophobic commentary, but confused this argument in his r2 with the previous argument re label rights. His label rights argument from his r1 dealt with the pronoun controversy regarding proper pronoun use for trans-genders. As this latter issue is the true second argument of Con’s r12, let’s address it first, then get to his r1 argument of “the bigger take;” the rugby player.
 
II.a.1 Con argues my side of the individual v. collective/systemic level of rights in saying, “Exactly, we cannot assume that all trans-genders are of like mind, but the problem shows it true face when they start demanding it be a matter of law that their identity or belief be protected and anyone who questions their belief or ideology be prosecuted.”  By assuming they may not be arguing by like mind, we must conclude, therefore, as I have argued, that trans-genders be treated as individuals with rights and not as a collective facing a systemic problem. It’s the latter phrase of his argument that disagrees with his contending position. By sight, as I demonstrated in my r2, II.b, “But we do not see beliefs in others any more than we see their physical internal atrtibutes, such a the heart, or brain. We make assumptions. Well, the appearance of a person by dress generally expresses their personal basic identity. But a man with a beard, moustache, wearing a tank top with visibly hairy chest and arms, but also wearing a skirt may confuse another at first, but our first impression, and possible verbal expression is not ging to run to thinking that person is a trans-gender. It’s a man wearing a skirt. Fine. If I, seeing that person, say, “There’s a man wearing a skirt,” it may offend the man, for he believes he is a woman, but the appearance, just by a skirt, does not communicate that identity.”  Therefore, on the basis of sight, alone, because most people do not hang identity around their necks to make their beliefs known, how are we to know what pronoun is proper to use as they want the law to dictate? One cannot legislate how to react to unknown and unobvious beliefs. 
 
II.a.2 Con complicates the unseen trans-gender identity issue by introducing that in New York City, 31 total genders have been recognized.[1] We’ll ignore that the source article doubles up on some id’s by both spelling them out and using abbreviation, which, in principle, does not mean they are separate genders, but merely separate identifiers, something like saying I am an American citizen, and a U.S. citizen. I am not a citizen of two separate countries. Regardless, since I’ll wager [ I looked, but do not have a source] that clarifies that people do not, in fact, wear identity signs around their necks, the lack of visual identity makes all the usual means of general identity, such as the typical old-school of recognizing male and female [on that specific indenty, I’ll note that while of the 31 identified genders, “male” and “female” are not identified, where as “man” and “woman,” are identified, as well as “male-to-femaile” and “female-to-male.” I guess 33 identities are just too many to maintain. Not mentioned, as well, are the proper pronouns to use in each of the 31 identities, so, we’re still in the dark as to proper reference to these people. By sight, we’re completely blinded. How, then, to properly identify? By legisaltion? On the basis of what pronoun designation. The language is too simplified to comply with such a plethora of terms. And since culture drives language, and not the other way around, it behooves culture to be specific. However, instead, we find, "A common research strategy has been to compare the gender associations for non-animate entities as a function of their grammatical gender between two languages spoken in different cultural groups. In the study reported here, we try to disentangle linguistic and cultural effects on such gender associations, by focusing on members of one cultural group speaking two language variants that differ in whether or not they distinguish masculine and feminine gender."[2] Con has no suggestion, which is part of his obligation to BoP. Therefore, his argument on label identity fails. Con has no suggestion, which is part of his obligation to BoP. Therefore, his argument on label identity fails.
 
III Rebuttal: The Bigger Take
 
III.a Regarding the rugby player, now in proper order, Con rebutted in r2, by clarification[3] that the player only pointed out biblical sins in general, not by quotation. However, as a clarified explanation, it still fails because the player still violated his contractual agreement to avoid making homophobic commentary, period [regardless of it being by Bible quotation, or by his own interpreation]. Con did not entertain the contract at all in his argument, nor in his rebuttal. As it is key to understanding why he was dropped from the team, it belongs in the disucssion. Con’s argument thus fails. 
 
III.b MY point above, concluding rebuttal III.a, is heightened due to Con’s next comment, “Taking offense is a sub-set.”  I respectfullydisagree; as noted above, and in the resolution, taking offense, i.e. “being offended,” is the point; it is the set; it is the match. Please re-read the resolution. It is clear. No need to juggle balls about it. One either clears the net on serve, and in volley, or the point is lost. But Con follows by delcaring in r2: “Freedom of speech has been put under threat by many individuals who deem taking offense as a right.”
 
III.b.1 May I note that the Con declarative statement I’ve quoted above is a specific opinion, for it is not universally accepted as fact, is not sourced, though the instructions in Description/Debate Protocol close on that point of order. I therefore demand that, to have claim on the argument points, and source points, the statement be cited. The point I maintain, and back it by the U.S. Constitution, specifically the 1A, is that freedom of speech is not endangered, but, in fact, is risked by not allowing that taking offense is a right of the individual, among all individuals, but must be handled with decorum, and not revenge, by seeking to understand, by civil discourse, and not by censure and retaliation.
 
IV Conclusion: We have the right to be offended, and must have a proper reaction
 
IV.a I have argued that without the freedom of speech, the consequences of some speech would not be offensive, because the government would have already bridled speech to the degree that no offense could or should be taken, because such government restriction would so limit our speech by legal obligation, it could hardly be called free. See my r1, I.a, I.a.1., II, r2, I.a.1, .2, and .3, and r3, I, II.
 
IV.b I have argued that the responsibility of our reaction to the free speech of others must be as tolerant of, and not controlled by the speech of others, and that the rights of both free speech and taking offense are individual, not collective, or systemic rights. See my r1, III, all paragraphs, r2, I.a and all sub-paragraphs, r3, III.
 
IV.c I have argued that our response to taking offense must be civil and peaceful, not in anger and revenge. See my r1, III, r2, IV, and r3, III.
 
IV.d I have defended these arguments by demonstration all of Con’s rebuttals as ineffective and diversionary as attempts to discredit my arguments by claim in his r1 of poetry unrelated to the topic of taking offense, a story of a man offended by his loss of knighthood, and its restoration, but then drops that story for the rest of his rounds, and then asks what “line of demarcation” constitutes offense. I rebutted that taking offense is not a line sufficient for all, but are separate points of offense, for the right is an individual matter, not a collective. Con has not successfully defended his argument in the two previous rounds that taking offense is collective, or systemic, and not an individual right. He then argued in r2 that the subject is not taking offense, but giving offense. Clearly, the resolution regards the former, not the latter, and that our response to taking offense, and not giving offense must, itself, be controlled by civility. It cannot be by giving offense, because we may be unaware by the act that we have even given offense at all.
IV.e I therefore declare to have met my burden of proof that we individually have the right of taking offense, and that our response must be civil; in the pursuit of peaceful understanding. I rest my case, and ask for your vote.