The Instigator
FourTrouble
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
SolonKR
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should public colleges protect/restrict constitutionally protected speech?

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...
FourTrouble
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/1/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 526 times Debate No: 102332
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

FourTrouble

Pro

The resolution is: "Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech."

No rules.
SolonKR

Con

I look forward to an interesting debate. Good luck, and have fun!
Debate Round No. 1
FourTrouble

Pro

I support the status quo for two reasons.

First, because public universities shouldn’t violate the Constitution. If they did, the violation would quickly be struck down, causing needless litigation, expense, and delay. It would also threaten the rule of law.

Second, because public universities shouldn’t restrict more speech than necessary to accomplish their institutional goals. These goals include the education of its students, the freedom of inquiry (i.e. following the evidence wherever it leads), and the managing of passions in the same way that the proprietor of a sports stadium might manage the crowds at a sports event. To accomplish these goals, a university need not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. And so it shouldn't, because it'd be inappropriate for a public university to engage in partisan-politics by restricting more speech than necessary to accomplish its goals.

SolonKR

Con

I thought I'd have more time on my hands, and I don't. I know FT would probably much rather I made decent arguments rather than rush it, so I'm going to bow out. Hopefully, you'll be down to do this in July. Sorry it didn't work out.
Debate Round No. 2
FourTrouble

Pro

Shows the power of concise arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
FourTrouble

Pro

Nothing to extend, mate.
SolonKR

Con

Words words words.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by FourTrouble 2 months ago
FourTrouble
A fine debate. Strong attempt, Solon. Better luck next time.
Posted by SolonKR 8 months ago
SolonKR
I also had a difficult paper and 3 finals :/
Posted by FourTrouble 8 months ago
FourTrouble
lol c'mon Solon, you had 48 hours to rebut two paragraphs of argument.
Posted by Lucky_Luciano 8 months ago
Lucky_Luciano
The resolution is worded such that the PRO debater argues for a prohibition against restricting free speech. They have the obligation of proving that such a prohibition exists. The CON debater does not have to argue for any particular restriction of free speech. In the common case that ought is defined as moral obligation, the CON debater simply needs to defend that there exist no such moral obligation against restricting constitutionally protected free speech.
Posted by FourTrouble 8 months ago
FourTrouble
Also, btw, don't know why they worded this resolution as they did. It lends itself better if you're Pro, imo, since you're arguing for a restriction and I'm not.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 8 months ago
dsjpk5
FourTroubleSolonKR
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
FourTroubleSolonKR
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: