Internet Censorship
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
ConservativePolitico
| Started: | 6/2/2012 | Category: | Technology |
| Updated: | 11 months ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 1,371 times | Debate No: | 24015 |
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)
 Con Internet censorship is absolutely ridiculous. We have freedom to express ourselves, and more government regulation is not something that we need.  Pro I accept assuming that Con means that he is opposed to all forms of internet censorship and is for a completely free internet. |
 |
|
Con Pro Child Porn So you agree that child porn should be allowed to be viewed on the Internet? Under a completely free internet things such as child porn could be viewed any where, on places like Youtube and with no age restrictions. You are in favor of this? Excessive Violence and Obsenity Websites like bloodshow.com would be visible by all. Brutal beheadings, which have been removed from the web before, would be visible again. You are in favor of this? Children could watch explicit material without any age requirements because requirements would be censorship. Jihadist Websites Websites organizing terrorist attacks and activites have been shutdown and censored here in the US. You're saying they should be allowed to flourish? Websites wishing the president dead, organizing jihadist attacks and praising things like 9/11 should not be allowed on the web. Internet censorship is needed in these cases. |
 |
|
Con I am against government input on unneeded topics. Child pornography is illegal, so it's not unneeded to remove that. Freedom of expression exists, so the groups talking about murdering the president should be allowed to exist as long as they don't act on what they say. I am NOT saying that I am FOR these orginazations, I'm saying that they do have the law behind them. Having those up along with their plans could even help us protect the president. Pro ConservativePolitico forfeited this round. |
 |
|
Con Ienjoysaturdays forfeited this round.
Pro I apologize for forfeiting a round but my opponent did also so we'll skip over that and call it even. "there is still freedom of speech" The First Amendment does not protect all kinds of speech. Hate talk, threats and obscenity are not covered under the First Amendment which is what my examples are well examples of. [1] "Freedom of expression exists, so the groups talking about murdering the president should be allowed to exist as long as they don't act on what they say." You do not have the freedom to express your will to kill the president. That is not protected under the First Amendment. Our freedom of speech doesn't cover hate speak, threats, defamation, libel or slander. [2] Those things are still illegal even with the First Amendment. While adhering to the First Amendment internet censorship should be allowed to keep certain terrible things off the internet. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... |
 |
|
Con Ienjoysaturdays forfeited this round.
|
 |
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 11 months ago
| Ienjoysaturdays | ConservativePolitico | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 7 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments trumped Con's bad arguments. Plus, extra ff. Better sourced, etc...
Vote Placed by MouthWash 11 months ago
| Ienjoysaturdays | ConservativePolitico | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: I think the government overreacts when some guy says he wants to kill the president. Why the hell does EVERYONE who would imply such a thing have to be investigated? It happened to Eminem a few years back, when he was still passionate about making music. Anyway, Con forfeited.
http://www.debate.org...