The Instigator
AngelofDarkness
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1Credo
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Should hate speech be protected by freedom of speech?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
1Credo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 605 times Debate No: 70629
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

AngelofDarkness

Con

Absolutely not. Yes, in America there is the freedom to express your opinion, but hate speech is offensive. Yes, we can share our opinions, and it is okay if our opinion clashes with someone else's, but there is no need for this clashing to become what is known as hate speech. A line has to be drawn, so here's my thoughts.

Allowed: Freedom to express opinions, to be heard
NOT allowed: Using this freedom to provoke violence, or hurt someone else.
The freedom of speech is there to prevent oppression, but is it there to let people hurt others? I think not. If someone wants to make themselves heard by saying: "I think xxxxxxxxxx," that is fine, but if someone was to say "I hate xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(because I think xxxxxxxxxxxx,)" that is not acceptable. Especially if this person goes so far as to say "I hate xxxxxxxxxxxxx so let's hurt them by xxxxxxxxxxxxx," that is definitely not acceptable and should not be protected. As for drawing lines, this hate speech and hateful actions need to be cleared. Because burning a cross(yes, this has happened, unfortunately) is different from saying you hate a religion, or whatever.
1Credo

Pro

Acceptance

I accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I look forward to a good discussion!

Rebuttal

"Yes, in America there is the freedom to express your opinion, but hate speech is offensive."

What is "hate speech" to one individual may very well be something worth hearing to another individual. Your feelings, however hurt they may become, must take second priority to my right to express my opinion. Moreover, there is no way to say that certain expressions are objectively "hateful".

"Allowed: Freedom to express opinions, to be heard"

There is a clear contradiction here: you first state that hate speech ought not be allowed, then go on to argue that freedom to express opinions ought to be allowed. The obvious issue that arises is that just about anything I can say has the potential of hurting someone's feelings and thus being classified as "hate speech". As a result, under your view, I should not be allowed to say anything that might have the potential to offend a single living person. This would leave me with an extremely limited vocabulary indeed. This view, which I completely object to, is the exact negation of the "freedom to express opinions" that you claim ought to be allowed.

"If someone wants to make themselves heard by saying: "I think xxxxxxxxxx," that is fine, but if someone was to say "I hate xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(because I think xxxxxxxxxxxx,)" that is not acceptable."

Allow me to demonstrate how ridiculous this is:

"I think pizza tastes good." (This statement ought to be allowed on my opponent's view)
"I hate pizza because I think pizza tastes bad." (This statement ought to be prohibited on my opponent's view)

There are, of course, more relevant examples of why this view is absurd. If it were enacted into law, I couldn't legally say things like "I hate war" or "I hate child rapists" or "I hate world hunger".

Summary

My opponent has taken the radical view that any statement which may potentially hurt a single person's feelings ought to be prohibited. In my rebuttal, I have shown the absurdity of this view. Free speech, no matter how many individuals consider it to be offensive, is the cornerstone of liberty and of a free society and must always be given complete protection.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
AngelofDarkness

Con

AngelofDarkness forfeited this round.
1Credo

Pro

Extend arguments
Debate Round No. 2
AngelofDarkness

Con

AngelofDarkness forfeited this round.
1Credo

Pro

Extend arguments
Debate Round No. 3
AngelofDarkness

Con

AngelofDarkness forfeited this round.
1Credo

Pro

Extend arguments

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
AngelofDarkness1CredoTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
AngelofDarkness1CredoTied
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: Forfeit.