The Instigator
YoshiBoy13
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
y890
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Is Free Speech abused in modern society?

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 2 votes the winner is...
YoshiBoy13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 628 times Debate No: 70746
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

YoshiBoy13

Pro

Movement: This house believes that the law on Freedom of Expression is overused to the point of abuse by the general public.
Structure of debate:

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Beginning arguments (no rebuttals, just opening statements)
Round 3: Second points + rebuttals.
Round 4: Rebuttals only, no new arguments, + conclusion and summary.

Note: This debate uses the UK law on freedom of expression from the Human Rights Act 1998:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

I hope for a well-rounded debate.

*edited to include fourth round, and take out some mistakes*
y890

Con

no its not because most people don't have that right
Debate Round No. 1
YoshiBoy13

Pro

Movement: This house believes that the law on Freedom of Expression is overused to the point of abuse by the general public.
Round: 2 - Beginning arguments, no rebuttals

People use the law on Freedom of Expression as a shield against oncoming attacks pertaining to opinions. The law is not such a shield - I believe the misuse of the law is due to the fact that

Many people today are mistaken as to what the true meaning of the term free speech is. They seem to think it is an impenetrable, impermeable, impassable barrier to ward off all types of ridicule.

Free speech does not put you in a bubble that cannot be popped, it does not mean the government is at your every beck and call for whatever replies you may get, and it does not mean that people are not allowed by law to disagree with you.

Freedom of speech is simply the rule that if you say something offensive, or radical, or just plain tasteless, they can’t hold it to you in a court of law. So if you get expelled from a chat room for offending everyone there, if you get insulted for your views, however rude they have been, even if you get told by people all around that your views are strange, or even wrong, your rights to free speech aren’t being violated. It’s just that people think you’re being an idiot, and they’re showing you the door.

Article 10 of the Human Rights act states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” Does this mean you can say whatever you want and expect a guarantee of complete and utter support from everyone around? Of course it doesn’t, it means you can say whatever you want and expect a guarantee of not being taken into custody and charged for it.

Citing free speech to defend your argument is not a smart move by someone who knows his legal rights, it’s almost exactly the polar opposite of it – it’s like the ultimate concession, because you’re admitting to the entire community that the most compelling thing you can say to back up your argument is that it’s literally not illegal to express.

If someone went up to you with an opinion you didn’t agree with – then said that you couldn’t mock that opinion because of the law for Freedom of Speech, he’s basically telling you: “Oh yeah? Well I can’t be arrested for saying it! So there!

y890

Con

no because people earned the right to talk
Debate Round No. 2
YoshiBoy13

Pro

Movement: This house believes that the law on Freedom of Expression is overused to the point of abuse by the general public.
Round: 3 - Second points + rebuttals

no because people earned the right to talk


And that's his entire argument. Okay.
I'm going to admit something - I completely agree with him. People have earned the right to talk. This debate rests on the premise that people do have freedom of speech - or as Con puts it, the right to talk. The question is freedom of speech abused by the public would make no sense if there wasn't freedom of speech in the first place. We are not disputing its existence, we are disputing its use by the public.
Of course, saying earned the right to talk implies that there was a time when people had to ask permission to talk. This may have happened in feudal times, back when there were slaves and slave owners. Instead, the law is having the right to talk however you want - and not being arrested for it. There is a difference. Con is implying the law made it from you have to ask to talk to you can talk without asking permission. The law actually made it from you can get arrested for your talk to you can't get arrested for your talk. So really, his second round argument makes almost no sense at all. And either way, just because someone has such a right doesn't mean they should use it to defend against any argument. That's not what freedom of speech is about. As I said, it's not a pledge by the government to stop anyone disagreeing with you. It's just a pledge saying you won't get arrested for your opinions.
And as such, people don't have the right to force the government to put a stop to anyone that says you're wrong.

no its not because most people don't have that right

Again, that's his entire argument. To date, he has given exactly eighteen words to support his view. And these ten are just plain wrong.

In Geneva, 2003, the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) declared freedom of speech a universal right:
We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the Information Society, and as outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. (ref. 1)

most people don't have that right
Incorrect. Everyone has that right.

Also, I'm just going to point out he made that argument in the first round, which was acceptance only.
I'm also going to point out that he rebutted my argument in the second round, which was opening statements only, no rebuttals.

References:
(ref. 1) http://www.itu.int... look at point 4.
y890

Con

y890 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
YoshiBoy13

Pro

I extend my arguments due to forfeiture on Con's side.
y890

Con

y890 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by YoshiBoy13 1 year ago
YoshiBoy13
Well, Con made a total of eighteen words of argument, and a total of two forfeitures.
Vote Pro.
Posted by YoshiBoy13 1 year ago
YoshiBoy13
*epic countdown voice*
<strong>Forty Minutes Remaining.</strong>
Posted by YoshiBoy13 1 year ago
YoshiBoy13
Currently, all his arguments add up to eighteen words.
This is clearly not enough to make a valid point.
Posted by EchoboostX4 2 years ago
EchoboostX4
I don't wanna help any side but if Con sees something in the title and looks at the 2nd round arguments presented by Pro, Con will at the very least achieve a semantic victory.
Posted by YoshiBoy13 2 years ago
YoshiBoy13
Tried to get my opening arguments finalized on the train home, forgot to un-bold my key points that I had noted, whoops. Also, it seems to be in a smaller font. Oh well.
Posted by YoshiBoy13 2 years ago
YoshiBoy13
Well, can't really be done now. Oh well, I'll post my argument when I get home, because my lunch break's almost finished and I can't write anything really coherent for a debate within the span of two minutes.
Posted by EchoboostX4 2 years ago
EchoboostX4
I'm considering it as well. @ YoshiBoy13 I would indeed reconsider the structure of this debate. Maybe adding one more round. (I think the limit is 5.)
Posted by Toxifrost 2 years ago
Toxifrost
It's all good. Just saying you really don't want to start a debate with a faulty premise.
Posted by YoshiBoy13 2 years ago
YoshiBoy13
@Toxifrost, oh, sorry. I'm pretty new to this site, so I'm not sure what all the terms mean. I mean, I only just found out what AL debating was... I'll edit my post accordingly.
Posted by Toxifrost 2 years ago
Toxifrost
You're off to a really bad start. The burden of proof is not on con and this shows you have no idea how actual debate works. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. In which case this is you actually. All con really is responsible for doing is refuting your arguments but any good debater would come up with his own arguments for the sake of being thorough. Im actually thinking about taking this although I'd have to read up on UK law. Might be interesting though.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
YoshiBoy13y890Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Jupiter1 1 year ago
Jupiter1
YoshiBoy13y890Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro- argued the debate Con- did not argue the debate, and thus I relieve the vote to Pro.