The Instigator
RyddianDynia
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
kkjeldgaard12
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should cyber-bullying be banned by federal/state laws?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 527 times Debate No: 69874
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

RyddianDynia

Con

I would like to debate on the topic of banning cyber-bullying by law. I am vehemently against this as I believe it is a violation of freedom of speech and expression. First, though, I will lay out the proposed structure to the debate.

Round One: Acceptance, Questions/Concerns
Round Two: Argument(s)
Round Three: Rebuttal(s)
Round Four: Counter Rebuttal(s)
Round Five: Closing Discussion (Thoughts on the debate, etc.)

As previously stated, please make any questions or concerns known before we begin. It will be much simpler that way. I look forward to an interesting debate.
kkjeldgaard12

Pro

Cyber bullying should be banned, if you want to say something to somebody grow some guts and say it to their face! And I hope you realize that 1 in 5 people get cyber bullied each day and 68% of young teens say that they are "seriously cyber bullied" and many people kill themselves because of this.
Debate Round No. 1
RyddianDynia

Con

While I urge the voters not to hold this against you, you completely ignored the debate structure I laid out. Round one was supposed to be for "Acceptance, Questions/Concerns" and instead you simply posted your first argument. I guess we will just have to improvise and set-up a new layout. Now, onto my arguments.

For a long while now the right to free speech has been continually chipped-at by large numbers of people from an equally-large number of groups. From conservatives and the patriot act, to social-justice extremists and the cyber-bullying dilemma. I am in no way denying that cyber-bullying is harmful, because studies have shown that is is greatly so, but one large difference between the American and European idea of freedom is how it is interpreted. For example, in America, the Westboro Baptist Church (among other groups) has the right to protest at any funeral at any time, provided they're off the property. In the United Kingdom, however, their citizens have the right to mourn the dead's passing without interference. America (generally) takes a stand for ALL freedoms that come with the first amendment, why should freedom of speech be an exception in the case of cyber-bullying.

Fighting to outlaw peoples' right to say what they wish in one scenario (in this case, cyber-bullying) opens up a dangerous door for the public to silence others they disagree with. A small group of Muslims on twitter thought that French cartoonist Charlie Hebdo had is coming, that is obviously advocating violence. If we banned them from saying what they wanted, however, the religious community would be outraged. Radical religious figures commonly advocate violence, but as long as they aren't directly stating "Anyone who follows me should kill X for Y reason.", then according to the constitution our very government is founded upon, they have the right to say it.

In relation to your "1 in 5 people get cyber bullied each day and 68% of young teens say that they are "seriously cyber bullied" I need to clear something up. Prohibition is not the answer. Take the alcohol prohibition in the United States in the early twentieth-century, all that did was make criminals like Al Capone obscene amounts of money, as well as make them revered by the people. The only valid solution to the problem is to teach victims to better cope with bullying, not stop the bullies altogether. If we can teach the youth of America how to stick up for each other and how to deal with the bullying problem at it's core than they will be able to deal with the problem themselves. This point also applies to the suicide argument, if the children are not negatively affected by the bullying itself, then that problem is solved as well.

I have one more thing to clear up with you. In the example of, say, Amanda Todd, pictures of her when she was underage (child pornography) were circling around the internet. Obviously this, for example, cannot be tolerated. But her peers insulting her on Facebook were not doing anything illegal simply by doing that.

In conclusion, insults and obviously fake threats are not a problem, according to the very document our government defied itself on. But child pornography and serious threats are. Banning everything that people can abuse in this world would leave us with practically nothing,

I look forward to hearing your response(s).
kkjeldgaard12

Pro

thats too much to read lol i forfit
Debate Round No. 2
RyddianDynia

Con

No offence, pro, but please don't accept a challenge you aren't prepared to finish. This site is supposed to be for full debates, and now the topic is pointless because you didn't take it to the finish. Please, don't accept any challenges from me from now on.
kkjeldgaard12

Pro

kkjeldgaard12 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
RyddianDynia

Con

RyddianDynia forfeited this round.
kkjeldgaard12

Pro

kkjeldgaard12 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
RyddianDynia

Con

RyddianDynia forfeited this round.
kkjeldgaard12

Pro

kkjeldgaard12 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Lee001 2 years ago
Lee001
No not you con, pro is the troll.
Posted by RyddianDynia 2 years ago
RyddianDynia
Lee001, who is the troll here, me or kkjeldgaard12. I am being completely honest about my beliefs.
Posted by Lee001 2 years ago
Lee001
What a troll.
No votes have been placed for this debate.