The Instigator
atheistman
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
Cody_Franklin
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Censorship Should be Abolished

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 14,801 times Debate No: 9220
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (10)

 

atheistman

Pro

The censorship of works of art, movies, video games, books, and words on radio, television, and internet should be abolished, as it violated the first amendment's guaranteed right of freedom of speech. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" Abolishing censorship would also mean abolishing indecency laws and age limits on movies, pornography, and video games. No one should be punished for saying a word in a school, other building, or public unless it is bullying, inciting a riot, inciting violence, causing panic, (yelling BOMB or FIRE) or threatening someone.
Cody_Franklin

Con

Well, this should be a most interesting topic; I'll do the best I can with what my opponent has given me; in the interests of fairness, allow me to provide a couple of small definitions before I begin, though the definitions themselves are probably self-evident.

censorship - the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient.

abolish - to put an end to

Now, as opposed to presenting a CON case as to why censorship is a good thing, I believe that, during the course of refutation on my opponent's arguments, the necessity for censorship will become quite apparent.

1. The Freedom of Speech

a. Clearly, the freedom of speech is not unlimited; this right generally pertains to the opinions expressed by an individual, or the information dispersed by an individual; however, hate speech being an example, free speech must often be limited in order to protect the public at large from distasteful, even offensive material; therefore, we can see that censorship is often necessary for the sake of safety, while still maintaining a reasonable level of free expression.

b. This idea is further reinforced by my opponent near the end of his paragraph, in which he states that people ought not be punished for their speech unless it is "bullying, inciting a riot, inciting violence, causing panic... or threatening someone." The problem for my opponent is this: punishing someone for using this kind of harmful speech is censorship, something that my opponent claims to be looking to abolish; we can easily see the contradiction here.

c. Ironically enough, I'd just like to point out that the only way to eradicate censorship is, in fact, to censor it. So, in the end, by affirming the resolution, my opponent has inadvertently given me the round.

2. The abolition of indecency laws, age limits, etc.

a. What my opponent is advocating here is that, under the law, children ought to have access to violent and sexually explicit materials (as he makes the argument that age limits on violent movies, pornography, etc. ought to be abolished); anyone should be able to understand that a child should not be exposed to these kinds of materials, especially at such early ages; the psychological effects of being exposed to pornography and violence will tend to remain with a child through adolescence and puberty; my opponent is advocating that we allow our youth to be so easily corrupted by a culture that is addicted to sex and violence, even as a means of profit, and doesn't care about casualties along the way [http://www.zenit.org...] [http://www.forerunner.com...]. My opponent may try to come back and say that parents need to watch over the content accessed by their kids, not the government; but remember one thing: parental censorship is STILL censorship.

b. My opponent advocates abolishing indecency laws as well; let me clear up what these laws cover: my opponent is asking us to abolish laws which ban things like public urination, indecent exposure, or sex/masturbation in public, to name a few things; so, if you agree with my opponent that lewd, uncivil, offensive behavior ought to be allowed in full view of the public (again, including easily-harmed children), then yes, vote Pro.

This concludes my opening set of arguments. There's far more to be said on the subject, but I wanted to keep the arguments very basic, and very simple; after all, I might as well save the 'A' material for later rounds.

I look forward to my opponent's next arguments, which I'm sure will be most... interesting.
Debate Round No. 1
atheistman

Pro

First off, I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. You mentioned 'Clearly, the freedom of speech is not unlimited,' but that is not true. There have been laws limiting freedom of speech, but they have violated the first amendment. The first amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." This means that the Founding Fathers intended for freedom of speech to be unlimited.

'however, hate speech being an example, free speech must often be limited in order to protect the public at large from distasteful, even offensive material'

Even if you think hate speech is distasteful, someone rambling on about why they hate something isn't worthy of being punishable by law. Hate speech should not be punishable unless is incites law-breaking (rioting/violence/bullying)

'This idea is further reinforced by my opponent near the end of his paragraph, in which he states that people ought not be punished for their speech unless it is "bullying, inciting a riot, inciting violence, causing panic... or threatening someone." The problem for my opponent is this: punishing someone for using this kind of harmful speech is censorship, something that my opponent claims to be looking to abolish; we can easily see the contradiction here.'

The title of this debate doesn't cover my whole argument, I wasn't going to make the tile: Censorship except for bullying, inciting a riot, inciting violence, causing panic, or threatening someone should be abolished. I chose my title because it covers most of my argument, that most censorship should be abolished. The reason I believe those examples should be censored is because they can incite law-breaking.

'Ironically enough, I'd just like to point out that the only way to eradicate censorship is, in fact, to censor it. So, in the end, by affirming the resolution, my opponent has inadvertently given me the round.'

If I was giving you the round, I would have said that censorship should remain tomorrow
as present as it was yesterday. By 'censoring' censorship you save a lot more things from being censored than you lose (censorship itself)

'What my opponent is advocating here is that, under the law, children ought to have access to violent and sexually explicit materials (as he makes the argument that age limits on violent movies, pornography, etc. ought to be abolished); anyone should be able to understand that a child should not be exposed to these kinds of materials, especially at such early ages; the psychological effects of being exposed to pornography and violence will tend to remain with a child through adolescence and puberty; my opponent is advocating that we allow our youth to be so easily corrupted by a culture that is addicted to sex and violence, even as a means of profit, and doesn't care about casualties along the way [http://www.zenit.org......] [http://www.forerunner.com......]. My opponent may try to come back and say that parents need to watch over the content accessed by their kids, not the government; but remember one thing: parental censorship is STILL censorship.'

Do you honestly think only adults look at pornography? Do you honestly think only teenagers watch PG-13 and only adults watch R on their own? Prohibition doesn't work, we should know that from the 20s and 30s. It also causes the 'forbidden fruit' effect. If a parent wants to prevent a kid from watching something, then it's their job, not the government's, and there wouldn't be a way to stop parental censorship because the government has no control over that. Another thing I'd like to add is that a lot more money would be made in movies if age limits weren't enforced in movie theaters. You might argue that it would make more money if they were enforced because another person would have to go into the theater with them, but that isn't true. A lot of kids will either choose not to see a movie because they're not old enough, sneak in, watch it for free online, or watch it somewhere else. More money would be made if everyone had access to all movies.

'My opponent advocates abolishing indecency laws as well; let me clear up what these laws cover: my opponent is asking us to abolish laws which ban things like public urination, indecent exposure, or sex/masturbation in public, to name a few things; so, if you agree with my opponent that lewd, uncivil, offensive behavior ought to be allowed in full view of the public (again, including easily-harmed children), then yes, vote Pro.'

I don't advocate making public urination legal because it would be vandalizing property. Making something legal does not mean everyone will start doing it, most people would be embarrassed to masturbate or have sex in public. Just because you think something should be legalized doesn't mean you encourage it, I just see no reason for it to be illegal. It would not be 'harming' children, masturbation and sex are completely normal, natural things, children will encounter them whether you censor them or not. And thank you for encouraging the voters to vote Pro, I also encourage to vote Pro if you believe in the freedom intended by the Constitution.
Cody_Franklin

Con

I'm quite glad to get round 2 underway, and I hope that you all are enjoying the round so far.

1. The Freedom of Speech

a. My opponent again presents us with a clear-cut contradiction; he claims that free speech ought to be unlimited because the Founding Fathers intended it to be so, but later states that "Hate speech should not be punishable unless i[t] incites law-breaking"; what my opponent fails to understand is that, by definition, hate speech IS the kind of bullying that my opponent seeks to eliminate; but the real contradiction, as I stated, is quite clear. He claims that freedom of speech ought to be entirely unlimited, yet later admits that some speech ought to be legally punishable.

b. Another problem in my opponent's argument is that he's now trying to twist the resolution to fit his arguments; he is affirming the resolution as-is, that's the burden of the person presenting the claim; the resolution does not say "Most censorship should be abolished", merely that "Censorship should be abolished"; my opponent is, at this point, only affirming the resolution conditionally, if at all; he's trying to defend some sorts of censorship while condemning others, which is something that the resolution does not allow him to do; therefore, even if you believe all of my opponent's arguments, you'll still vote Con just because his arguments only cover one piece of the resolution.

c. Just a bonus refutation I thought I'd add in here: While the Founding Fathers have the law disallowing abridgment of the freedom of speech, they also allowed constitutional amendments to be made to adapt the Constitution to future social conditions; therefore, the Founding Fathers also realized that the Constitution was something that would grow, change, and adapt as time passed so that it could meet the needs of society; today, we have a need for censorship of certain materials, and thus, social conditions must change accordingly.

2. Censoring censorship

a. My opponent is missing the problem with his argument; he's admitting that we would essentially have to censor censorship in order to eliminate it; whether he agrees with it or not, this admission further fortifies that he has unintentionally given the round to Con.

3. Pornography and such

a. My opponent is operating under a mindset similar to "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"; he's claiming that, because teenagers and children will be exposed to that material anyway, it ought to be made legal. The problem is, that legalizing these kinds of things sends the message that exposing young children and teenagers to this kind of material is acceptable, whereas I have shown that it is not; this is why we have 18, the age of majority, and 21, the drinking age; obviously, children don't share the same rights as legal adults, and this includes pornography, tobacco, etc.

b. My opponent has ignored one of the key arguments I made last round, and has made a bit of a blunder; he claims that parents ought to watch the content being accessed by their children, but I stated last round that parental censorship is STILL censorship; my opponent is under the idea that the government is the only agent of censorship, but this is also done by parents, and even private organizations like the MPAA and ESRB (which have rights to censor material that they find to be harmful or inappropriate to minors, like Grand Theft Auto, for example); thus, my opponent is trying to infringe on the rights of not only parents, but private, self-regulating organizations. While Pro claims that I'm violating constitutional rights, my opponent is the one that clearly isn't in the 'right' here (pun intended).

c. As far as making money off of these things is concerned, I still don't think that we ought to be allowing the exposure of children and adolescents to excessively violent, sexually explicit material for the sake of profit; maybe I'm crazy for wanting to protect our youth from these kinds of things, but perhaps that's just me.

4. Indecency laws

a. "I don't advocated making public urination legal..." <--- Yes he does. He advocated in Round 1 that we ought to abolish indecency laws; now that I've explained what these laws cover, my opponent is trying to shift his position once again to fit his new argument, moving him farther and farther down the road of conditionality.

b. While making something legal doesn't force people to do something, it's the fact that society is declaring this behavior to be acceptable that is the problem; to argue that legalization forces these things to happen is a bit of a misinterpretation of the point I was making in Round 1.

c. It might not harm children physically (except for maybe accidents occurring with that whole public urination bit), but I'm referring more to the psychological harm; in the same way that a child is going to be upset if he/she walks in on the parents, seeing this behavior multiplied in public is only going to cause more psychological distress for a child; and, honestly, no one in society is going to want to see this take place; it's not necessarily a legal issue, but societies in general have rules of conduct, decency, and etiquette; in a way, prohibiting indecency is a sort of public censorship, and is, as I've said, to maintain the safety and civility of society for adults and children alike.

d. I'd just like to point out my opponent's blatant appeal to nature: "masturbation and sex are completely normal, natural things," he says. The fallacy is clear here, but let me simply say, just because something is natural does not make it right or good, nor does it make it something that we ought to force society to accept by abolishing their right AS a society to regulate the kind of behavior that is acceptable in the public eye.

This concludes Round 2, and I do hope that I've given my opponent plenty to chew on for the final round of this debate. So, it comes down to this so far: If you believe my opponent that the freedoms in the original Constitution are unlimited in all cases whatsoever (except for when Pro shifts his argument to dodge my refutations), then yes, vote Pro as I suggested in Round 1; however, if you believe in the necessity of protecting children and adolescents from inappropriate, explicit, harmful content, if you believe in the adaptability of the Constitution to serve public need, and if you believe in the censorship rights that belong to parents, private organizations, and society as a whole, then you know that you need to vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
atheistman

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for his quick response. Since I'm a libertarian, I'd like to explain what a libertarian society would be. A libertarian society is where the laws that apply are that you can't assault or kill someone, damage their property, or steal.

'My opponent again presents us with a clear-cut contradiction; he claims that free speech ought to be unlimited because the Founding Fathers intended it to be so, but later states that "Hate speech should not be punishable unless i[t] incites law-breaking"; what my opponent fails to understand is that, by definition, hate speech IS the kind of bullying that my opponent seeks to eliminate; but the real contradiction, as I stated, is quite clear. He claims that freedom of speech ought to be entirely unlimited, yet later admits that some speech ought to be legally punishable.'

Once again, my opponent is ignoring my argument, and making his points off of the title instead. The title of a debate doesn't cover the whole argument, what you should be focusing on are the actual arguments themselves. Hate speech is not always bullying, someone could stand on a street corners and ramble on about how much they hate Islam, but that wouldn't be bullying. What would be bullying is saying it to someone's face repeatedly. The reason I believe inciting violence, riots, or bullying should be illegal is because they go against one of the laws of Libertarianism. In a libertarian society, there are laws against violence, so if something violates a Libertarian law, then it shouldn't be legal.

'Another problem in my opponent's argument is that he's now trying to twist the resolution to fit his arguments; he is affirming the resolution as-is, that's the burden of the person presenting the claim; the resolution does not say "Most censorship should be abolished", merely that "Censorship should be abolished"; my opponent is, at this point, only affirming the resolution conditionally, if at all; he's trying to defend some sorts of censorship while condemning others'

I never twisted my argument, it seems like to only thing you're basing your arguments on is four words, 'Censorship Should be Abolished' instead of focusing on my actual arguments. It is true that I defend some censorship but condemn most, I think speech that violates laws should be censored, while speech that doesn't shouldn't be censored. I'm sorry that I have to use censorship in this quote, but if I don't then I could be kicked out of debate.org: "I'm tired of hearing about bad words and bad language. Bullshi*t. Words are completely neutral. It's the context that counts, it's the intention behind the words that makes them good or bad." - George Carlin. That quote explains it, saying 'That was f*ckin' awesome' shouldn't be censored as it doesn't hurt anyone, but saying 'F*ck this town, let's start a riot and kill everyone,' should be censored as it incites a riot and violence. My opponent claims that an amendment can be changed. Amendments to the Constitution can not be changed, only added or cancelled, such as the 18th amendment being cancelled after prohibition. The first amendment covers every type of speech except speech that violates laws such as inciting violence.

'My opponent is missing the problem with his argument; he's admitting that we would essentially have to censor censorship in order to eliminate it; whether he agrees with it or not, this admission further fortifies that he has unintentionally given the round to Con.'

Again, my opponent tries to use the argument of censoring censorship. Sometimes you can fight fire with fire.

'My opponent is operating under a mindset similar to "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"; he's claiming that, because teenagers and children will be exposed to that material anyway, it ought to be made legal. The problem is, that legalizing these kinds of things sends the message that exposing young children and teenagers to this kind of material is acceptable, whereas I have shown that it is not; this is why we have 18, the age of majority, and 21, the drinking age; obviously, children don't share the same rights as legal adults, and this includes pornography, tobacco, etc.'

I never made the argument "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em," I just pointed out that prohibition doesn't work and there is no reason to make age limits legal. Why isn't is acceptable? I see nothing wrong with not sheltering your children from reality. Just because children can't drink, smoke, or watch pornography does not mean they don't. Making something illegal does not get rid of it, and sometimes even encourages people to try it, 'the forbidden fruit effect,' which you completely ignored.

'My opponent has ignored one of the key arguments I made last round, and has made a bit of a blunder; he claims that parents ought to watch the content being accessed by their children, but I stated last round that parental censorship is STILL censorship; my opponent is under the idea that the government is the only agent of censorship, but this is also done by parents, and even private organizations like the MPAA and ESRB (which have rights to censor material that they find to be harmful or inappropriate to minors, like Grand Theft Auto, for example);'

I never ignored that argument, I clearly said that parental censorship wouldn't be possible to monitor by the government. But organizations such as ESRB are possible to monitor, so censorship should be abolished from products those companies make.

'As far as making money off of these things is concerned, I still don't think that we ought to be allowing the exposure of children and adolescents to excessively violent, sexually explicit material for the sake of profit; maybe I'm crazy for wanting to protect our youth from these kinds of things, but perhaps that's just me.'

You keep saying 'protect' our children like it's something out to get them and warp their little minds. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how keeping children in a bubble sheltered from the real world does any good.

'"I don't advocated making public urination legal..." <--- Yes he does.'

No I don't if something violates a law (vandalizing property) then it should be illegal. I was referring to indecency laws that don't violate Libertarian laws.

'While making something legal doesn't force people to do something, it's the fact that society is declaring this behavior to be acceptable'

Making something legal in a Libertarian society means that it doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't mean it's encouraged. And people have different opinions on what's acceptable, making things illegal just because some people find them distasteful might as well be fascism.

'It might not harm children physically (except for maybe accidents occurring with that whole public urination bit), but I'm referring more to the psychological harm; in the same way that a child is going to be upset if he/she walks in on the parents, seeing this behavior multiplied in public is only going to cause more psychological distress for a child; and, honestly, no one in society is going to want to see this take place'

Part of why someone might get upset when walking in on their parents is because of all the demonizing society and religion has done to normal things like sex. If no one wanted to see that behavior, then no one would watch pornography, and no one would listen to explicit music. If you don't want to see something in public, look away. If you don't want to see something on TV, change the channel.

'just because something is natural does not make it right or good, nor does it make it something that we ought to force society to accept '

Just because something is legal doesn't mean everyone is forced to accept it. Many people don't accept abortion to be acceptable, many people don't accept war to be acceptable, among many other things.

Cody_Franklin, thank you for this debate, and voters, if you believe in freedom, vote
Cody_Franklin

Con

Before I begin my final round of argumentation, allow me to say one thing: though my opponent is a libertarian, that doesn't mean that we have to look at this resolution through a libertarian standpoint: thus, disregard any argument that he makes about how things would be 'in a libertarian society', because that's not what we're discussing.

1. The 'Title' of the debate

a. I'd like to point out that this is more than a 'title', as my opponent claims; that is the topic of the debate, and if my opponent wants to justify taking steps away from that topic, he's welcome to do so, but he has to accept that this won't win the round for him. I just thought I ought to make that clear.

2. Hate speech and Libertarian Law

a. As I pointed out earlier, and as my opponent so kindly dropped, the only way to get rid of censorship is, in fact, to censor it; he never really responds to the fact that merely by taking the Pro side of this topic, he has lost; after all, my opponent even advocates censoring harmful speech.

b. As far as I'm aware, the resolution doesn't specify "Resolved: We ought to create a Libertarian society"; to my knowledge, we are debating "Resolved: Censorship should be abolished". If my opponent wants to debate Libertarianism, he can feel free to challenge me; however, in this round, abolishing censorship "because Libertarianism says so", otherwise known as circular logic, won't cut it in today's debate.

c. Just one statement I had to point out of my opponent's that made me laugh: "if something violates a Libertarian law, then it shouldn't be legal." - Reworded, "If something is against the law, then it shouldn't be legal." This really isn't an argument, past my opponent's concept of "Libertarianism says we should abolish censorship, therefore we should abolish censorship."

3. The basis of arguments

a. My opponent claims I'm basing my arguments on the four words, "Censorship should be abolished". I fail to understand why my opponent has an issue with me arguing the topic; honestly, his arguments should be based on the resolution, also; but, I guess he's alright with taking a few steps away from the topic that he set up for us.

b. "It is true that I defend some censorship..." <-- Look at this statement, and then look at the topic. Vote con.

4. The Constitution

a. While I understand that Amendments can't themselves be amended, I was referring to the fashion in which the 18th Amendment was essentially 'changed' by the 21st; the argument that I'm making here is that our Founders intended for our Constitution, and American Law as a whole to be malleable and adaptable to future social conditions; in this case, as my opponent himself points out, speech inciting violence, rioting, bullying, etc. needs to be limited, and while my opponent claims that these laws hurt the 1st Amendment, he supports them anyway.

5. Censoring censorship

a. Though I've already covered this argument, I just wanted to point something out: my opponent claims that we ought to fight fire with fire; if censorship is as bad as my opponent suggests, then I can't understand why he advocates the hypocrisy of censoring censorship; as I've shown, this is a clear contradiction in his position which was created merely by taking the Pro side of this debate.

b. However, if my opponent wants to take back that statement, and say that we don't need to go through the hypocrisy of censoring censorship, he's admitting that censorship need not be abolished; either way, he has to compromise on his position; ergo, you vote Con no matter which side he chooses.

6. If you can't beat 'em, smack 'em with "reality".

a. There we go. My opponent tries to hide the truth of the argument under 'not shielding them from reality', but what this argument really means is this: he's already tried to prove that parents ought to watch their children, and I disproved that, so now he's shifting his position and and basically condoning the exposure of young children and adolescents to excessively violent, sexually explicit material, and he's tagging this as acceptable social behavior. Now that you see the meat of the argument, clearly vote con.

b. My opponent is committing what we call the is/ought fallacy: "This is how it is, therefore this is how it ought to be." My opponent claims that we ought to legalize these kinds of materials because kids will participate in these activities regardless; however, people also steal, and rape, and murder, but we don't legalize these activities just because they will "happen anyway"; just because a teenager's drinking and viewing of pornographic material may not be as steep an offense as committing murder does not make the teenager's activities permissible. This is true for the 'forbidden fruit' effect; just because people will willingly disobey the law doesn't mean that we should abolish the law altogether.

7. Private censorship

a. My opponent claims to have not ignored the argument, but in truth, he has: he never addresses that, while his job as Pro is to defend that censorship ought to be abolished, parental censorship is STILL censorship; this topic is not only discussing censorship performed by the government.

b. As far as organizations like the MPAA and ESRB, he himself has advocated infringing upon the rights of autonomous private entities to self-regulate and censor materials that are found to be harmful; he is advocating the infringement of rights. I had to say that one twice to make sure it sinks in.

7. Protection of children

a. Of course, I myself am only 17, so I don't have experience, but you can probably ask any parent (who takes responsibility for their child/ren), and I can guarantee that these parents would be censoring the impressionable, easily influenced minds from viewing sex, drugs, alcohol and violence; just because many people have been corrupted by our violent, sex-driven culture doesn't meant that we have to expose children to this kind of thing; again, voters, my opponent is committing a large is/ought fallacy, as I explained above.

8. Indecency laws

a. He claims that he was "referring to indecency laws that don't violate Libertarian laws."; realize, voters, that he certainly hasn't clarified until this final round; that is, he's shifting his position yet again from the abolition of indecency laws altogether to only abolishing indecency laws that harm Libertarian law; first of all, as I stated, he continues to warp and twist his position to make it more and more conditional; and, he's never proven why Libertarian laws ought to take priority over indecency laws, or any set of laws for that matter; simply because my opponent is a Libertarian does not mean that we're abiding by those standards in the debate.

b. "making things illegal might just because some people find them distasteful might as well be fascism." <-- I think I'll call this one an appeal to ridicule; he's assuming that censoring anything lewd or indecent is the equivalent of fascism; however, I'll leave this to the voters; but, I for one don't much want to see pornographic billboards or indecent behavior in the streets; and, if I'm driving, for example, I don't exactly have the opportunity to 'look away'.

c. One thing: He ignores my argument that he's making an appeal to nature, and again switches his argument. And honestly, I assume we're talking about censorship in America, forgive me if I'm wrong: But, generally speaking, that's how democracy works; if we don't like policies, we elect people to fix them.

In the end, my opponent has shifted his position more times than I can count, has committed multiple fallacies, and has really fallen into every trap that I've set up; at this point, I hope that you value logical consistency over my opponent's contradicting views on 'freedom', and the numerous drops he's made throughout the round. With about 100 characters remaining, let me just finish my opponent's final statement.
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wolfgangxo69 4 years ago
wolfgangxo69
Doing a debate about this in speech. Came across this site and typed in 'Music Censorship' and this is the second one to come up.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 4 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Uh... I did this debate three years ago. How did you come across it?
Posted by wolfgangxo69 4 years ago
wolfgangxo69
I feel that any type of person has the right to put their opinion or art out in the world any way they want. If you don't like it, don't listen to it. I vote pro
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Oh, yeah, sorry, that comment was directed towards AM; I can understand your objection; I thought the very same thing when I was typing that, actually.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
Me? I didn't vote. I assume atheistman gave himself seven points.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
You know, an RFD for the 7 points Pro would have been nice, instead of pointing out one minor argument that was made among a myriad of others.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
I think there's a distinction to be made between abolishing and censoring. Either way, though, the whole "you need to censor censorship to get rid of it!11!" argument is useless; pointing out the hypocrisy of a stance doesn't make it invalid...it doesn't even really address the argument.
Posted by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
Well you've said vote con enough already. I just assumed you knew what I meant by indecency laws and speech, if it violated a law then it shouldn't be legal. I didn't change my position, I just had to further clarify it for you. The censoring censorship was a stupid point as it's obviously needed to end censorship.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Conduct: Con - Pro tried to tie the debate down in Round 3 to suit "Libertarian Law", and tried to shift the debate using that.
S/G: Tied
Arguments: Con - Pro was extremely conditional, committed a few fallacies and contradictions, and was preempted on a couple of arguments by Con.
Sources: Con - Con used 2 sources in Round 1.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
That's weird. It always cuts me off, even if I have characters remaining. That was supposed to be...

"vote CON." at the end, there.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
atheistmanCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Con relies largely on appeal to ridicule ("If you want to see lewd, uncivil, and offensive behaviour...") rather than argumentation and presses the non-sequitur assertion that "the only way to abolish censorship is to censor it", while Pro's only real argument is the First Amendment (which, as Con points out, can and should be gotten rid of if it does more harm than good).
Vote Placed by wolfgangxo69 4 years ago
wolfgangxo69
atheistmanCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
atheistmanCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I think voting on ancient debates ought to be closed ought, but somehow this one surfaced. Pro was doing pretty well until he got to the "parents have no right to censor their children's reading thing." mean, parents have the right to keep Paul Krugman columns from innocent minds, as well as other things. Pro was right that the resolution doesn't have to be the title, if it's explained it in the challenge. But he didn't make sense of the conflicting exceptions.
Vote Placed by Awed 7 years ago
Awed
atheistmanCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by BlueNotes 7 years ago
BlueNotes
atheistmanCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by dogparktom 7 years ago
dogparktom
atheistmanCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Madoki 7 years ago
Madoki
atheistmanCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
atheistmanCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
atheistmanCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
atheistmanCody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06