The Instigator
SirMaximus
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
anime-arguments
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Censorship is good

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 7/6/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 549 times Debate No: 77334
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

SirMaximus

Con

In this debate, I am going to argue that censorship is bad.

There are many kinds of censorship. One of them is self-censorship, which I am not going to be arguing against, just to be clear. Self-censorship is when someone doesn't want their audience to be exposed to something, so they leave it out. My problem with censorship is that it forces creators to leave out stuff, often against their will, which makes their work suffer. If it's the creator their self who's censoring the work, then the work doesn't suffer, because it's creator-approved.

I have already stated why I think that censorship is wrong. I welcome anyone to accept this debate.
anime-arguments

Pro

Censorship can be useful, and even needed in some circumstances. Some books or movies are censored for content that may be inappropriate for certain ages. For example, censoring certain amounts of nudity in movies can be for the sake of the audience. Some people may be bothered by it, and others may dislike seeing certain things. Censorship is for the good of the general public, and when not over-used, can be helpful. After all, you may see or read something and not be expecting something of that level. Children may pick up something at home that the parents don't want them to have, and censorship can protect the child's emotions as well as the parent's rights to dictate what the child has access to.
Debate Round No. 1
SirMaximus

Con

For the record, I do not consider parents dictating what media to which their children can and cannot be exposed to be censorship. I consider that to be basic parenting. I think that all parents have a responsibility to determine what they should and should not allow their children to see, hear, etc. I am not attacking my opponent. I am merely clarifying what I mean when I speak of censorship. I agree that parents have the right to dictate what media their children can and cannot be exposed to.

My opponent says, "Some books or movies are censored for content that may be inappropriate for certain ages. For example, censoring certain amounts of nudity in movies can be for the sake of the audience. Some people may be bothered by it, and others may dislike seeing certain things. Censorship is for the good of the general public, and when not over-used, can be helpful," but I disagree. Unless it's the creator censoring their own work (i.e. self-censorship), which I have already discussed, I believe that it is the responsibility of the audience to learn about movies (or books, or video games, etc.) before they see them so that they can be prepared. If they don't like to see certain things, e.g. nudity, then they should either learn about the work they're planning to see beforehand or take a risk and see it anyway without learning about it.
anime-arguments

Pro

I will agree on the point of parenting, and will no longer debate that. However, having content that is more adult that children can possibly be exposed to can cause an uproar from the public. If something is released that is controversial or taboo, then the general public will usually respond badly to it. People may send hate mail or rude and offensive things to authors/producers about content that they produce. People may also get in arguments or even fights about certain released content. In order to keep the public calm, and to keep everything safe, censorship can be used. Censorship is a tool that is not always right to be used, but to keep people's emotional states in check, and to not outrage or insult people, it can be sensible or necessary. If something is made that insults a certain race, sexuality, religion, or other group that may be insulted, then using censorship to keep everything under control, and keep fights and anger to a minimum, can be a smart idea.
Debate Round No. 2
SirMaximus

Con

My opponent says that if something controversial or taboo is released to the public, then there may be a backlash from the public to the people who made the controversial/taboo content. This is true, and I agree that this is bad. However, this does not mean that the content made by people should be censored in order to appease the public. Take, for example, people who have drawn cartoons of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. These people usually get death threats from radical Muslims, who interpret Islam as saying that it is forbidden to draw pictures of Muhammad. Should these people who have drawn pictures of Muhammad be censored just because some people don't like that they're drawing pictures of Muhammad? No. It is their right to express themselves by portraying the prophet Muhammad. My opponent also says, "If something is made that insults a certain race, sexuality, religion, or other group that may be insulted, then using censorship to keep everything under control, and keep fights and anger to a minimum, can be a smart idea," but I have a rebuttal to that. Suppose a hypothetical situation in which someone writes a book saying that white people are superior to black people. Would it be morally right for the author to write this racist book? Absolutely not. But should that book be censored? No. If the author wants to publish that racist book, then the author should be allowed to do so, even if that book is morally wrong (which it is).
anime-arguments

Pro

My opponent brought up an example of people drawing cartoons that may be rude or offensive to a certain religious group. I agree that the people have the right to express themselves in that way. That example is not something that I believe should be censored. Allow me to clarify: I don't believe that censorship should be used in every case when someone may be offended, only at certain times is censorship positive. Still, not censoring anything is a very bad idea, and can cause many problems for many different people. In response, I'll bring up my own example of a time when censorship is useful. Certain government information has been leaked from the U.S. over the years. The information has been on many topics, and has involved many different organizations throughout the years. Though I won't discuss specific leaked information, I'll be discussing the situation as a whole. A lot of the information that people have found out over the years has caused an uproar from the public. Learning things that the government keeps from the people, or learning specific things that the government is doing have caused people to react in very different ways. Sometimes, people will get in arguments, fights, will start riots, or will react in other violent ways to the things that they learn about the government. For the good of the country, and all the people in the country, the government censors the information and amount of information that it shares with the public. If the government shared all of the information that it has with the entirety of the American public, then things would be a lot less safe. Certain things can be misunderstood if they are judged or evaluated by people who do not know what they are doing. With some information, people will form opinions, and fight with others to prove their points and opinions. Even if the people do not fully understand the things they are forming opinions on, or do not understand the results that will come from their opinions, they will still argue their point. When things are only disclosed to people who need to know it, and people that can understand and make use of it, then better results and no panic result from the information. In this way, certain information is keep from people, whether it's the government, a company, or something else that is withholding the information. When information is withheld like this, it is a form of censorship that benefits the person/organization/thing that is censoring it, and benefits the people by stopping possible panics, violence, and misunderstanding. Therefore, censorship can be used in a way that is beneficial and right.
Debate Round No. 3
SirMaximus

Con

My opponent says that the government should censor some of its own information and not let it leak to the public so that there is not a backlash from the public. I somewhat agree, but I contend that that is a form of self-censorship, which I have already discussed my approval of. If the people who are censoring the government's information are part of the government itself, then the government's right to free speech is not being abridged, so I would have no problem with that.
anime-arguments

Pro

If, in this debate, we are counting the government censorship as self-censorship, then I will no longer debate that topic. Thus, I will bring up another example of censorship that can be useful and positive. That example is libraries. Some books/films/other cannot be found within public and school libraries because they have been removed from the shelves for a certain reason. This is a form of censorship. When certain items are removed form the library it is for inappropriate content, or for content that would offend the general public. It could also be because of numerous complaints from community members, and those complaints could be for too many reasons to count. Censoring the content that is available to a community is a job given to a committee of community members, but since it does not represent everyone then it does not count as self-censorship. My other point is school libraries. The books that are removed form school libraries are chosen by parents and librarians. This is also not self-censorship because the people that are affected don't get to pick what is censored. Still, both are beneficial to the people they censor. Censorship in libraries helps protect the emotional state of all the people in the community, and keeps groups of people from being offended by certain content that is available within public places.
Debate Round No. 4
SirMaximus

Con

My opponent says that parents and librarians choosing which books should and should not be in school libraries is a good form of censorship, because it prevents people from being offended by certain content. I disagree. If people are easily offended by sex, violence, profanity, etc., then it is up to them to learn about the media that they are planning to read (or watch, or listen to, etc.) before they read (or watch, or listen to, etc.) it so that they won't be offended. If they are easily offended, then it's not the job of the librarians or parents to appease to them and remove the books, but the job of the people who are easily offended themselves.
anime-arguments

Pro

My opponent says that if people are easily offended, then it isn't the job of librarians to censor the content, but the reader's job to avoid things that offend them. However, my opponent avoids the fact that the community chooses what is censored, and that includes things that offend some individuals. Also, it is unfair to ask every person to research every material that they read or watch. If you had to research the plot and themes of every book you ever read, or book you watched, then it would ruin some of the fun of the content, and would ruin the point of reading or watching the content. In some cases, censorship can help fix this. If the only things in an elementary school library are appropriate for age level, then the kids can feel free to pick up any content they want, without having to worry about whether or not it contains things they should not see. Censoring the content in libraries like that can help protect the minds of the people who read it, and make sure that the person is not required to do any research into the content they are reading beforehand. Also, many books may seem perfectly fine at first glance, but contain things that offend them, or are not appropriate for them. It is the job of censorship to make sure that all content available to the public is appropriate, and doesn't spark any debates (that lead to fighting, not the calm and logical kind) and that doesn't seriously offend a group of people. For example, if someone writes a novel that black lives don't matter (which they completely do), then releasing that could lead to fights, hate mail, or other violence from groups that are insulted by the content. That novel should not be released to the public in a place like a library, because it could lead to all those negative outcomes. Censoring a book like that benefits the community because it can prevent violence, and can make the community a more safe and calm place. Finally, censoring content can prevent public backlash, and keep everything more controlled and safe for everyone to live in. Censoring things keeps people in a better emotional state than they would be in with offensive and rude content right before them. Censoring materials benefits everyone it effects, when it's used correctly, and provides a better base of publicly available content, helping to keep everything appropriate and to make sure that the public will not resort to violence to show their opinions on certain content. When used correctly, censorship is good.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
I agree with the Con side. Pro side argument is weak.
Posted by mfigurski80 1 year ago
mfigurski80
In some cases, yes. In others, no, censorship is absolutely horrible.

I guess you could live a happy life both ways, it doesn't really matter. If I'm always truthful to a friend and don't sensor my thoughts, I would get all the bad stuff out of the way first and eventually have a better relationship. If I sensored the bad thoughts, we could play-pretend a good relationship and effectively reach the same thing.

And if she dumps you, she's wasn't worth it anyway.
Posted by Preston 1 year ago
Preston
Can honestly say CON is not, nor will he/she be in a relationship anytime soon, assuming they dont self censor.
No votes have been placed for this debate.