The Instigator
Delinquent
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
danny123
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Absolute Freedom of Speech should not be aspired to by society.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 565 times Debate No: 52293
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Delinquent

Pro

Hi there,

It's very simple. Society would benefit from the regulation of citizens' speech. That much is plain to see. Only an idealist would suggest that society could flourish in an environment whereby any person could say whatever they wanted to, regardless of the truth, sensitivity, or confidentiality of what is being said.

I will be arguing that absolute freedom of speech conflicts overwhelmingly with core Liberal values, and in support of this argument I will refer to the work of John Stuart Mill. I will also draw upon modern-day examples of how regulation of speech has been calculated and introduced, so as to aid social development and safety.

I welcome your response.
danny123

Con

Can you speak clear because i don't understand your point . Maybe you should repeat what you said im have technical difficulties understanding you. So try again my ear is kind not picking that up.
Debate Round No. 1
Delinquent

Pro

Okay, I will speak simply for the sake of my opponent:

1. Society is better off if we can't say whatever we want.

2. We should therefore regulate what people say.

3. Society should never aim to allow total freedom of speech.

Please rebuttle these points.
danny123

Con

For a second there i thought you were speaking another language.
1. you saying i cant talk whatever i want to. Men so what you want a guy to stalk us telling us what to say.
2. regulate what you want to live in dictatorship yo that bonkers.
3. society should and why we cant talk freely . what do you even want us to be controlled robot.
Debate Round No. 2
Delinquent

Pro

Okay you've committed the straw man logical fallacy.

"so what you want a guy to stalk us telling us what to say."

"what so you even want us to be controlled robot[s]"

No, obviously I don't want that. Just because we don't have 'absolute' freedom of speech, it doesn't mean that we have to be told what to say. That would be ridiculous, and it isn't something I said. You've created a fiction. Your attempt to misrepresent what I said actually neatly leads onto an argument that will feature below.

"Regulate what you want to live in a dictatorship yo that bonkers"

Apart from being almost indigestible, this point is clearly not thought through. Just because a society regulates speech, it does not make it a dictatorship. Take America, for example: in America it is illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded place when there is no fire at all. This is known as "Reckless Endangerment, as you are trying to cause deliberate harm to others by scaring them.

To pick up the point of you giving false impressions regarding what I said, I would also like to refer to two other types of law" libel and slander. It is illegal in many (non-dictatorial) countries for you to circulate spurious and malicious lies about another person. If you write it in a newspaper, for example, then it's called 'libel', and if you say it, it's called 'slander'. These rules mean that I can't make untrue things up about you, and the same with you to me. These pieces of regulation are so critical to the functioning of a society. Imagine if you pick up a newspaper and on the front page you've been accused of being a paedophile, yet that simply isn't the case" you're gonna be pretty angry, right, and you're going to want to have your name cleared, aren't you? Well in a society where everyone can say what they want, there aren't going to be any laws to protect you from that. Anyone can say anything about anyone, and there would be no consequences.

We would be much better off adopting John Stuart Mill's 'Harm Principle', which "holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals."

Sources:

Yes it's Wikipedia, but it's obviously a well-established concept in philosophy, and it was the easiest and fastest definition I could find. http://en.wikipedia.org...
danny123

Con

wow speak English start speaking slow and calm. wow you been drinking cool aid because your hyper. simmer down boy.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by danny123 3 years ago
danny123
I wonder why you named your self delinquent hmm i wonder? Any way i am a part time comedian you douche bag. keep running your mouth i will roast you in front of everyone . Then everyone will laugh. I doubt you can take me on in real life. funny isn't it.
Posted by Delinquent 3 years ago
Delinquent
You criticise me for not speaking English, but I think you'll find that you are the one who cant speak it. On the topic of pretending to be something, "I'm a part-time comedian", "My insults are funny". My only response can be with your famously stupid words: "have you been drinking cool aid bro?"
Posted by danny123 3 years ago
danny123
you clearly a fake smart guy who try to act lawyer.
Posted by Delinquent 3 years ago
Delinquent
Apologies to everyone who had to read this debate. I couldn't be selective with who my opponent is, and he's clearly a moron. You just have to look at his profile to see that.
Posted by ax123man 3 years ago
ax123man
So Mill's primary argument was the "harm principle" which provides a somewhat structured and well defined point of argument, although even that has some looseness to it that would make for an interesting debate. But your resolution seems headed in a direction even Mill wouldn't support.

So what is it your saying exactly? If I attack your "aid social development" and win on that point, it's unclear to me that I've won the debate. You simply fall back to the "harm principle".
Posted by Gordontrek 3 years ago
Gordontrek
This is kind of the way the Founders wanted it. You should have freedom of speech, but you can't say anything that would endanger the security of the country or its citizens.
No votes have been placed for this debate.