The Instigator
ishita007
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Roukezian
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Article 124A, Sedition Law of India should not be abolished

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 1 vote the winner is...
Roukezian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/6/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 502 times Debate No: 90805
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

ishita007

Pro

Sedition Law Should NOT be abolished. By sedition we mean to say anyone, who by words, written or verbal, by signs or by anything tries to bring hatred for the country and promote violence against one's own country. It is often argued that sedition violates the fundamental right of freedom of speech, but even freedom of speech has certain restrictions. In the words of Dr. BR Ambedkar, Freedom of speech has certain reasonable restrictions which include sovereignty, integrity and public order of the country. Sedition promotes violence, hatred and war against one's own country and government. A person brings hatred for his/her own country and when charged with sedition, claims to exercise his freedom of speech is absolutely wrong. Freedom of speech implies the right to express one's beliefs but not at the cost of disintegrating the unity of the country. Vandalism is condemnable while sedition is free speech?
Roukezian

Con

PREFACE

I thank Pro for starting this interesting debate. I will take the Con position and argue that Article 124A should be abolished. I take it from Pro that the burden of proof is shared.

REFUTATIONS

Pro has misrepresented what Article 124A actually says. I will quote it directly:

“124A. Sedition. — Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.[1]"

In summary, the sedition law is merely a political tool used to silence criticism or hatred towards the ruling Government (the country itself is not even mentioned in the article itself).

Pro argues, "By sedition we mean to say anyone, who by words, written or verbal, by signs or by anything tries to bring hatred for the country and promote violence against one's own country. "

Refutation: This doesn't match Article 124A itself and how it defines sedition. If you want to argue whether an article should be abolished or not, you should follow what that article itself says.

Pro argues, "In the words of Dr. BR Ambedkar, Freedom of speech has certain reasonable restrictions which include sovereignty, integrity and public order of the country."

Refutation: Based on this definition, there should be no freedom that leads to revolutions or revolutionary changes because the order of the country might be affected. If this was to be taken seriously, there would have been no progress in human history and civilization but a total silence toward backwardness to preserve sovereignty. It is nothing more than democracy to have people who are either anti-government or pro-government. This was only considered illegal by British colonialists who reintroduced the aforementioned article to serve their own political and economical interests.

Pro argues, "Freedom of speech implies the right to express one's beliefs but not at the cost of disintegrating the unity of the country. Vandalism is condemnable while sedition is free speech?"

Refutation: To think that an act of sedition, that is challenging the government, would make a massive country collapse is an unrealistic assumption that the country is a house of cards. India is a massive political landscape with a high diversity of opinions and attitudes. Trying to make anti-government attitudes illegal and punishable will not unify but extend the fracture.

SUMMARY

In conclusion, Pro misrepresented Article 124A and argued against a strawman. I have shown the misrepresentation and argued that Article 124A should be abolished as it is meant to prohibit challenging the government at the expense of human progress and civilization.

REFERENCES

[1] Textbook on the Indian Penal Code. K.D. Gaur. Fourth Edition. Universal Law Publishing, 2009. Page 226.
Debate Round No. 1
ishita007

Pro

ishita007 forfeited this round.
Roukezian

Con

I extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
ishita007

Pro

ishita007 forfeited this round.
Roukezian

Con

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Roukezian 1 year ago
Roukezian
Woah. It's incredible someone would report this vote on an inactive, forfeit debate.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Danielle// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Votes on full forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter awards more points to the forfeiting side.
************************************************************************
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Not sure what qualifies as "sedition" as per the law, so I'll pass on this, but are you interested in debating hate speech laws, in general?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Danielle 1 year ago
Danielle
ishita007RoukezianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.