The Instigator
flyinitalian88
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
38 Points

Should Keith Olbermann receive a lifetime ban from telelvision broadcasting?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/27/2011 Category: News
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,437 times Debate No: 18501
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (10)

 

flyinitalian88

Pro

I have never heard this guy make one intelligent statement. Right now, I am reading a book, and there's a part that talks about an interview Olbermann had with Playboy in I believe 2007. His exact statement was "Fox News is worse than al Qaeda." He also even said that Fox News is worse than the KKK. I don't think he realizes how many people he offended. I know I would be offended if I had a family member die in 9/11, or if I had a family member killed by the KKK. Last time I checked, Fox News doesn't kill anybody. Nobody. I am conservative, and I prefer to watch Fox News. Actually, if I watch the news, it is Fox News. But that's beside the point. Granted, not everyone likes Fox News, just like how not everyone likes CNN or MSNBC. It's anyone's free choice on what news they watch. But honestly, how can someone make such an arrogant statement and not be banned off the air forever? I don't like CNN or MSNBC because in my opinion they are very biased. But never will I accuse them of being worse than a group of terrorists, or a group that killed many blacks, Catholics, Jews etc. I know people have different opinions, and the right to free speech. They are some of the things that make this country so great. But what Olbermann said wasn't an opinion, it was completely arrogant, offensive, and unnecessary. This is just one example of why he shall be banned from television. Other examples will be used if necessary.
Ore_Ele

Con

For this debate, I will be arguing from the angle of rights to free speech.

"ban" - short for "banish" - "Officially or legally prohibit" [1]

Since the US does not have absolute private spectrum property rights, they are managed and regulated by the US government (many nations view that they are owned by the government) [2]. Therefore, to ban someone from television broadcasting must be undertaken by the government and not private entities.

I will now jump to the 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Please let me know if a source is needed for this quote.

The government has no right to legally ban Keith from television broadcasting, and they have no right to tell the press to exclude him. So, from a constitutional perspective, Keith should not receive a lifetime ban.

Now, I'm not a constitutional supporter, and I perfer to view it as general guide lines, rather than concrete rules. As such, I believe there are cases where it is morally acceptable for government to cross over the right to free speech (screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire, etc). This is not one of those cases. We could argue that what Keith is saying is wrong, and emotionally driven, however if my opponent believes that emtions should be illegal, my opponent will need to present a case for that.

I'll end with this and see where this goes in the next round.

[1] http://www.google.com...
[2] http://www.fcc.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
flyinitalian88

Pro

I'm one of the biggest advocates of the constitution. People a lot of times take advantage of their free speech, and I believe this is a perfect example. This isn't to say that he can't not like Fox News, but it was the way he went about it that I don't approve of. How would you feel if you knew someone that got killed on 9/11, or by the KKK, and you heard a statement like this. I'm thinking that you would be pretty infuriated. What he essentially did was called people on Fox News a bunch of terrorists. With that being said, he obviously doesn't know what a terrorist is. Merriam Webster Dictionairy defines Terrorist as: The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. How does Fox News do that? If they did, they would be fired. Their job is to tell us about current events and how they see them, not to kill inisent people.
Ore_Ele

Con

Not approving of something is not grounds for legally banning it. So far your argument has come down to, 1) you don't like his views and 2) they are not factually correct. Neither of those are reasons for him to receive a lifetime ban from TV. If it was, then it would also be grouds for almost every single talk show host to receive a life time ban. So far, no compelling reason has been provided to why the constitution should be ignored in this particular case. Unfortunately, I have no other arguments to refute and no sources to refute. I will let his pass into the final round.
Debate Round No. 2
flyinitalian88

Pro

I feel like I speak for every person effected by 9/11 and the KKK when I say this. Going back to your "yelling fire" statement, I feel like that this is a similar situation. Even though this statement may not necessairly cause a clear and present danger, there is still cause for concern. The constitution states that free speech can be exercised as long as it doesnt impair the interests of the state, public, or lawful rights and interests of other citizens. Olbermann is essentially saying that Fox News is a group of terrorists, and that is impairing interests of the public. Free speech is a great thing, but when someone uses it to wrongfully accuse another of being a terrorist, clearly there is a problem.
Ore_Ele

Con

I will not argue in this last round, only ask that members please look at all evidence and sources. Pointing back on that a broadcast ban would be done by the government (mentioned in R1) and that such a ban would be a violation of the 1st amendment (mentioned in R1). Neither of these were refuted, nor attempted to refute. While my opponent says that the constitution says something different on free speech, no source was presented, so the 1st amendment stands.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
hi i am kelly i we like to know you beter you can mail me at my mail adderss kellywilliamslove29 @ yah oo . com so i can send my photos to you i we orso tell you mor abtu myselfe for you to know whom i am.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
"Who would put a douche in their eyes?"

An attempt at humor I guess. You have had a lapse in your otherwise above average responses.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Rags, some people have weird fetishes, it is not a libertarian's place to judge what someone chooses to put in their own eyes, lol.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 5 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"I'm one of the biggest advocates of the constitution. "

Lol wut.

" douche in someones eyes."
Who would put a douche in their eyes?
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
"I feel like I speak for every person" Boy oh boy you couldn't be more wrong. You are so wrong there isn't an extreme extreame enough to describe how wrong you are. Olberman is actually good in a way. He personifies an extreame view. It is a view, it is valid and should be put forth. Just as any other view.

Some people think defending the institution of marrige as being between a man and a woman is extreame. People like Olberman put perspective to this notion.
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
What a comprehensively fatal loss...
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Pro, I find your views wrong. Should Juggle ban you from DDO for a lifetime?
Posted by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
Yeah the debate might have gone differently if he argued he should be fired instead. MSNBC has the right to fire anyone within the context of their employment contracts.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
If you ban Olbermann what is the point of the first amendment? So what if you think he's a douche. Someone thinks your a douche and someone thinks I'm a douche. So what. Everyone's a douche in someones eyes.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by kkjnay 5 years ago
kkjnay
flyinitalian88Ore_EleTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious win for Con.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
flyinitalian88Ore_EleTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was actually quite close, largely because Con put just enough effort to counter Pro. Now Pro does not address the underlying cause of why yelling "fire" when there is no fire is unlawful i.e. because it is dangerous. He never shows how saying that Fox News is worse than AlQeada is dangerous. Con makes the case that there should be freedom of speech, a point that Pro never refutes. Con win.
Vote Placed by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
flyinitalian88Ore_EleTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case was based off emotion and boiled down to "everything I don't like should be banned"
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
flyinitalian88Ore_EleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro waited until the very last round to argue against Con's use of the constitution--the incident of the 'man proclaiming that there is a fire when there is none', which was only one part of Ore_Ele's case... Pro resorted to using emotions (X: how would you feel if you heard this and that?) and never coherently linked between disliking and finding Keith Olbermann's views to something that requires a 'ban from television broadcasting'... In other words, Pro was venting.
Vote Placed by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
flyinitalian88Ore_EleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't rebut con's arguments and didn't have any coherent argument of his own.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
flyinitalian88Ore_EleTied
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: Not agreeing with an obviously hyperbolic statement is no grounds for banishment from broadcasting. Con proved this on a legal level and pro did little to disprove it, other than arguing completely off of his personal emotions.
Vote Placed by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
flyinitalian88Ore_EleTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's R3 is basically my RFD
Vote Placed by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
flyinitalian88Ore_EleTied
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: Obvious win.
Vote Placed by Lickdafoot 5 years ago
Lickdafoot
flyinitalian88Ore_EleTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed that the dislike of someones opinion is not grounds for banishment; we all have freedom of speech.
Vote Placed by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
flyinitalian88Ore_EleTied
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: Pro doesn address any of Con's arguments until the last round. As the saying goes, getting around to defending you case in the last round is "too little, too late." Easy decision Con.