The Instigator
Russian
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
SeventhProfessor
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Phil Robertson was in the right when he said what he said.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Russian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 763 times Debate No: 44655
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

Russian

Pro

Round 1 is for acceptance

Good luck 2 my opponent
SeventhProfessor

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Russian

Pro

Ok, I would like to start off by saying this, Phil Robertson has free speech just like the rest of us, A&E knew that Phil was a Christian man, so to get mad at him for speaking his mind is just insane.

Duck Dynasty is a Christian rounded show, what were the viewers expecting? Him flying a gay pride flag?

When you take a redneck Christian from Louisiana, you should know he's going to speak his mind.

This concludes my argument for round 1
SeventhProfessor

Con

"Ok, I would like to start off by saying this, Phil Robertson has free speech just like the rest of us, A&E knew that Phil was a Christian man, so to get mad at him for speaking his mind is just insane."

A&E also has a reputation, and having a homophobic main character would cause people to stop watching the show. A&E had a lot more to lose if they just ignored Phil Robertson's comments.

"Duck Dynasty is a Christian rounded show, what were the viewers expecting? Him flying a gay pride flag?"

But his comments weren't related to Christianity. The group he compared to murderers and terrorists were people "attracted" to the same gender. The Bible specifically condemns those who act, but not those who desire. His words were not inspired by the Bible, but from his own hatred.

"When you take a redneck Christian from Louisiana, you should know he's going to speak his mind."

When you take a redneck Christian from Louisiana, he is also most likely xenophobic, racist, and hates Muslims (I'm not stereotyping, this is the majority of people in the south, which is where I live). No matter what group of people he is attacking, he should know when to keep his mouth shut and accept the consequences for his actions.
Debate Round No. 2
Russian

Pro

He still has free speech, and could sue A&E for taking that, also you said that their ratings would go down, well, Phil started the entire business, and the rest of the Duck Dynasty crew said they would stop A&E from filming if they took him away, how low do you think their ratings would be then? Millions of people watch A&E just for Duck Dynasty, if it stopped airing new episodes, millions of people would stop watching.
SeventhProfessor

Con

"He still has free speech"

And he has to face the consequences when he says incredibly hateful things.

and could sue A&E for taking that"

No, he can't. He said homosexuals "invent new ways to sin", and A&E punished him for it.

"also you said that their ratings would go down, well, Phil started the entire business, and the rest of the Duck Dynasty crew said they would stop A&E from filming if they took him away, how low do you think their ratings would be then? Millions of people watch A&E just for Duck Dynasty, if it stopped airing new episodes, millions of people would stop watching.""

The only group that would stop watching A&E are conservatives that watch it solely for Duck Dynasty. This group would quickly be replaced by liberals that wanted to boost A&E's ratings for cancelling a show with a homophobic star.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Duck dynasty is scripted. The interview was a set up. When dawg made his controversial statements and A&E pretended as if they were going to cancel his show but actually brought it back then their rating soared. They are taking the same strategy that unintionally worked with Dawg and applying it purposely to duck dynasty. I can't believe anybody falls for that crap.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
RussianSeventhProfessorTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Robertson had a right to say what he did and A&E had a right to cancel the show. However pro never did get around to giving us his premises for why Robertson was in the right he only showed that Robertson had the right. Con really had nothing to refute because pro offered no arguments to support his claim. The rest of the voting criteria is even
Vote Placed by black_squirrel 3 years ago
black_squirrel
RussianSeventhProfessorTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Phil R. can say what he wants that is his free speech. But A&E can broadcast what they want. That is their free speech. I thought that CON rebutted PROs arguments well. It was not clearly stated what Exactly the debate was about. Con gets "arguments" and everything else is equal.
Vote Placed by Cooldudebro 3 years ago
Cooldudebro
RussianSeventhProfessorTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD. Sources were non existent. Grammar was... Let's not go into that. Conduct goes to pro because con made a remark about the south based on no real evidence. Overall, convincing arguments go to pro for two reasons 1. Didn't even put up a argument. Just rebuttals. I like to see at least some conflicting arguments. 2. I felt that con did not successfully refute some of his points. Pro wins this debate with a landslide.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
RussianSeventhProfessorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: SeventhProfessor defended well that there is good reason to be offended by the words of Robertson from the viewers' perspectives. However, I think Con might be being a bit optimistic to say that there would be liberals who would immediately replace the conservatives, and Pro couldn't respond. Since Con's and Pro's main arguments seems 2 come from the perspective of ratings and money and such and not morality, I think that Pro wins that being Pro-gay would make them lose ratings. I'm sorry Con, I really do agree with you. I would have liked to see a "Robertson shouldn't have said anything," but I felt like I didn't see that. It seemed to be jumping to "Roberson should have been openly pro-gay" which is great for ethics but bad for ratings. Be careful that you do not also be offensive, Con. The part where you said "I'm not stereotyping" you are definitely stereotyping. One can be a "redneck" or belong to a "redneck" culture without all of the distasteful stereotype baggage. Greatdebate!