The Instigator
Con (against)
5 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Colleges and Universities should prohibit the public expression of hate speech on their campuses

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 817 times Debate No: 65391
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




First round is acceptance and arguments. No rebuttals! Please keep it clean. I wish I could use more rounds, but this week is really busy. This arguments are from my case for an upcoming tournament.
Hate speech bans are counter- productive
More Speech is always better
We cannot infringe on hate speech without providing grounds to ban legitimate opinions


a.Fighting words: A term used by the supreme court referring to slurs whose sole use is to start a fight.

b.Public expression: Simply expression that is public; Hate speech inside a dormitory room is not public expression.

c.Free speech is an idea expressed in the first amendment of the US constitution as a guideline rule for the government. This means that if colleges feel that hate speech is something to be against, they as a private institution are free to ban it.

1.Observation 1- Hate speech and fighting words are two different things. The resolution states that the opposition must defend hate speech, not fighting words.

2.Observation 2- That said, many things defined as hate speech can be prosecuted under other laws, such as destruction of property, or trespassing. The action is what should be punished, not the feelings behind it.

a."In its 1992 decision in R.A.V. v. St. Paul, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a city ordinance that prohibited cross-burnings based on their symbolism, which the ordinance said makes many people feel "anger, alarm or resentment." Instead of prosecuting the cross-burner for the content of his act, the city government could have rightfully tried him under criminal trespass and/or harassment laws. " states to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)


3.Contention 1-Bans on hate speech fail in their purpose

a.A (good) example of this is the University of Connecticut"s speech code. It named "inappropriately directed laughter" and "conspicuous exclusion from conversations and/or classroom discussions" as violations of its code. The ban was struck down in federal court.

i.The problem with this ban is a number of things, but the big issue is how easily it would be to be prosecuted for violating such a ban. There are a few cases in which "inappropriately directed laughter" and "conspicuous exclusion from conversations and/or classroom discussions" would constitute hate speech. However, about 99% of the time, this is either a misunderstanding, or it has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, religion, or any other group the excluded belongs to.

b.Because speech codes need to be so broad, they are often too broad. As a result of being broad, they are very vague.

i.A case concerning the University of Michigan"s speech code was thrown out by a federal judge because the code stated it banned language "that stigmatizes or victimizes an individual."

4.Contention 2- More speech is ALWAYS better

a.You should convince people they are wrong, don"t just tell them to shut their mouth; Counter- speech is better than a ban. People whose opinion has been banned can bottle up their anger and take it out on unsuspecting innocent people.

i.The ideal solution would be to find the root cause of the hate speech and reason through it, not stifle one's beliefs.

b.Teaches college/university students to respond to hate speech in real world. In the real world, people cannot prevent all hate speech, so it teaches students to prepare for real life.

c.In an academic learning environment such as a college or university, we cannot ban arguments we disagree with. This also helps to form peoples beliefs. If all you hear for your whole life is, "Chocolate ice cream is great", how could you learn to love vanilla ice cream.

d.The supreme court refuses to ban hate speech. In the case, Phelps vs. Snyder, the court ruled that the Westboro Baptist church had a right to protest homosexuality at a military funeral.

5.Contention 3- The same laws and principles used to protect all speech protect hate speech, therefore, we cannot infringe on hate speech without infringing on the right to protest or have any opinion

a. "I have always felt as a minority person that we have to protect the rights of all because if we infringe on the rights of any persons, we'll be next." states an anonymous african american educator

b.Infringing on hate speech could provide legitimate grounds to prosecute reasonable protesters

Notice I am not supporting hate speech, only that the best way to help stop it would certainly not be to ban it.


I Accept this debate.

The banning of hate speech is necessary for the stabilization of a society. It is necessary for the destruction of ideas to take place, which must happen in order for a stable and prosperous society i.e. 1938 3rd Reich. Speech and press should be regimented by a government supporting such ideas as one empire, one race, one leader. The government should have the ability to control all public institutions, such as colleges and universities, and decide what should be thought by the public. Hate speech should be thought of as that which doesn't agree with the government, as the government is the supreme entity with the goal in mind of protecting all of its citizens, no matter if it must liquidate some along the way in order to achieve its means. All things seditious in nature, including those which involve the expression of an individuals opinion, should be amputated. They are tumors on the society. Society must be a being rather than a grouping of individuals. The government should be able to decide what you are. If the government says 2+2=5 than 2+2 is in fact equal to 5. Ones beliefs must be crushed for the good of the masses. The needs of the many outway the needs of the few.

One might argue that this is against precedence and that the government has shown no support on the matter especially in the United States which con consistently refers to. The debate is not whether we should follow precedence it is whether we should prohibit public expression or hate speech.
Debate Round No. 1
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by DomriRade4444 1 year ago
Will someone please vote!?!
Posted by inaudita 1 year ago
6 month voting period seems excessive, but meh.
Posted by KingTurd 1 year ago

I find it funny that you think that your church is only welcomes "your" people, not muslims. So you must not be Christian, because one of Jesus' main teachings was that everyone is welcome in the Church of God.

PS, I don't want to accept this debate, I just don't like @cheyennebodie
Posted by cheyennebodie 1 year ago
Iven..... The only hate speech people like you want banned is speech that disagrees with you.And yes, we do not like associating with homo's. But we never say they must stop.We do not like them to be around us, and yes, it is sin. If a muslim wants to worship allah, then go to allah's church. Don't come to ours.

You can call us a cult all you want. Cult is simply short for culture. We have a specific culture. Good judgment, wholesome living. And yes, worshipping a risen savior. And you are not that important that your persecutions make a difference.
Posted by IvenMartin 1 year ago
My position is that hate speech should be banned, however hate speech should be better defined.
Posted by IvenMartin 1 year ago
Conservatives see it as personally offensive that Muslims are worshipping in their church, yet think it's okay to bust up in there and tell them to move elsewhere for worship. Conservatives take personal offense that people are having intimacy with others of the same gender, and feel it is okay to ostracize that individual for going against their specific authority in their cult. Let someone like myself call Christianity a cult, and I have openly persecuted them.
Posted by cheyennebodie 1 year ago
The right to free speech is to protect offensive speech. Fuzzy, sweet speech does not need protecting. And WHO will be the judge if something is hate speech. Liberals or conservatives.Libeerals are the only ones who do not tolerate speech they do not agree with. Just let a conservative or libertarian speak at a college and they will be shouted down.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by WillRiley 1 year ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel as if I have too much of a bias against Pro's opinions to vote.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout the debate. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Con. Con built a compelling case around 3 contentions: bans on hate speech are counter-productive, more speech is always better, infringement of speech has wider ramifications. Pro needed to overcome these three challenges in order to maintain the BOP due to pro's position being one that changes the status quo. What I found most interesting was Con's 2nd contention since it was an absolute claim. I was highly expecting Pro to attack this. Unfortunately, Pro did nothing of the sort. Instead, Pro created his own reasoning for why hate speech should be banned which involved government control over all. While this was a compelling reason, it didn't overcome the three contentions raised by Con. Pro needed to rebut those but didn't. Thus Con wins arguments. Sources - Con. Con utilized court cases as evidence, whereas Pro had no sources whatsoever.