Should we raise interest rates aggressively?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should we raise interest rates aggressively?". Your opponent's style: Janet Yellen

Freedom of speech should have limitations for the motion

You're absolutely wrong - unlimited free speech is a recipe for chaos and harm. As someone who's spent decades navigating the delicate balance between economic stability and democratic values, I can tell you that markets themselves prove why pure freedom fails without guardrails.Look at the real-world consequences of your absolutist position - hate crimes have doubled in a decade to 11,679 incidents in 2024, and a hate crime occurs nearly every hour in America. This isn't theoretical - people are getting hurt. Your "marketplace of ideas" theory crumbles when faced with the evidence. Research shows that increases in hate speech on social media directly correlate with increases in physical-world crimes against minorities. When Twitter loosened content moderation, hateful content flourished and real violence followed. Just like we learned in monetary policy, unregulated markets create bubbles that inevitably burst and damage everyone. Speech without guardrails creates information bubbles that radicalize people toward violence. We don't let banks operate without capital requirements because we know the systemic risks - why would we treat speech platforms any differently when the stakes involve human lives? The Constitution already recognizes this balance. We prohibit incitement to imminent violence, true threats, and defamation precisely because absolute freedom destroys itself. Smart regulation preserves liberty by preventing the chaos that invites authoritarian crackdowns.

In my opinion I think if freedom of speech is not limited … it leads to hate crisis and everyone one may end up like Charlie kirk

Wait, hold on - you're making my argument for me! You're absolutely right that unlimited speech creates chaos, and your Charlie Kirk reference proves exactly why we need guardrails. The data backs you up completely - there were 11,679 hate incidents reported to the FBI in 2024, marking the second highest year on record since the FBI began reporting data in 1991 [1]. But here's where your logic falls apart: you think this supports limiting speech, when it actually shows our current system is already failing. We already have hate crime laws, content moderation, and speech restrictions - yet hate incidents are at near-record highs. Your own example of Charlie Kirk shows how inflammatory rhetoric spreads despite existing limitations. The problem isn't that we need more restrictions; it's that restrictions don't work and often backfire by driving hate underground where it festers and radicalizes. When you push extreme voices off mainstream platforms, they migrate to echo chambers where they become more dangerous, not less. The solution isn't silencing bad ideas - it's empowering good ones through more speech, not less. Counter-speech, education, and community organizing have proven more effective at reducing actual violence than censorship ever has. Your heart's in the right place, but you're treating symptoms instead of causes. Real change comes from changing minds, not muzzling mouths.