The Instigator
Yraelz
Con (against)
Winning
45 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Pro (for)
Losing
44 Points

Hate speech should be made illegal.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 5/6/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,466 times Debate No: 8138
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (14)

 

Yraelz

Con

My position in this debate is going to be that hate speech should not be limited. Furthermore I'll be using Wiki's definition of hate speech, I kind of enjoy it:

"Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting."

I believe that stopping hate speech is the equivalent to restricting free speech.
Logical-Master

Pro

Greetings to my opponent and many thanks for hosting this debate. With pleasentries out of the way, let us proceed.

I don't necessarily agree with my opponent's definition of hate speech, but since he made teh debate, I'll guess I won't place any objections unless he attempts to define it any further.

RE: "I believe that stopping hate speech is the equivalent to restricting free speech."

By all means, it is. Stopping ANY kind of speech is in fact a restriction on free speech. Just ask my opponent as even he (in the comment section) makes it pretty clear that there are cases where free speech SHOULD be restricted.

To cite precedent ( Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942):
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ).

Noting the above, it is rather clear that hate speech can be considered an extension of the "fighting words" limitation on free speech. Thus, I hold that hate speech ought to be illegal in government supported (or to be more blatant, public) areas (as is the case with all other limitations on free speech) in order to preserve peace and civility amongst the common people.

And that's all I have time to say at the moment. I shall be more than willing to expound on what I'm actually defending in the next round and look forward to my opponent's case.
Debate Round No. 1
Yraelz

Con

Yraelz forfeited this round.
Logical-Master

Pro

Wow. No response. To be honest, I was hoping any objections by my opponent could cleared up through expounding on the above, but seeing as how my opponent literally has none, I guess the above is sufficient.

Let me again say that we are by no means discussing whether or not restricting a citizen's right to hate speech anywhere is acceptable. Rather, as implied by my opponent's definition of hate speech, this particularly concerns anything which is in a public setting. After all, even as my opponent points out in cross examination, certain speech can and has directly brought about dreadful consequences and limitations allow for speech to be controlled in government protected settings.

And that's all for now.
Debate Round No. 2
Yraelz

Con

Yraelz forfeited this round.
Logical-Master

Pro

Pull all of that across and vote PRO. :D
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yraelz 7 years ago
Yraelz
NEVER! (Not all caps)
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
1 forfeit = Conduct violation
2+ forfeits = Default 7

Just my general guideline =D
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
lulzy. :D
Posted by KeithKroeger91 8 years ago
KeithKroeger91
Dude what do you think freedom of speech is for?
Freedom of speech protects "hate speech".
Speech that doesn't offend anybody does not need protection.

Also what speech will be considered hate speech? Will speaking out against Gay marriage be classified as hateful?

Banning hate speech is a very slippery slope.
Posted by heyitsjay 8 years ago
heyitsjay
well, hate speech refers to the first ammendment. The first ammendment gives everyone in the US the freedom of expression and speech. There are still hate groups like gangs. Unfortunatly, the US really cant limit one's opnion. Say it were illegal. Just because it might be against the law, doesnt mean everyone is going to follow it. Face reality here, how exactly is the government supposed to monitor everyone's voice or ideal expressions expressed through words? On the other hand, there are limitations to freedom of expression like for example, your idea of expression might be to run about naked through the supermarket. Abviously there, you would be arrested. It all depends on the level your speech and expressions are endured and pursued.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Eh, I've kind of lost interest. Someone else will have to accept your challenge, but I shall engage you in a different topic this week or next.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Sorry Logical, was distracted with some events. Would you want to start this debate over?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Ick, fighting words. Forbidding an honest evaluation of someone because they have an anger management problem.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
3) Why or why not?
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
2) Do you agree with this limitation: http://en.wikipedia.org...
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 9 months ago
fire_wings
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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:60 
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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 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 Yraelz 7 years ago
Yraelz
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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 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 Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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 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 Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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 Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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 Mars 8 years ago
Mars
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by KeithKroeger91 8 years ago
KeithKroeger91
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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