The Instigator
AtomicDebatingOrganistion
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
calculatedr1sk
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Should public statements that are offensive be prohibited?

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 4 votes the winner is...
calculatedr1sk
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,437 times Debate No: 35087
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

AtomicDebatingOrganistion

Pro

Prohibit means to ban, formally forbid by law. Laws provide us with a benchmark into what is acceptable behavior and what is unacceptable behavior in society. Offensive language in definitely not tolerable behavior in society, there"s a law for speeding, a law for murder and a law for theft, so why shouldn"t there be a law for offensive and abusive behavior? This law will enforce the protection of rights of all individuals and may help reduce bullying which could lead to depression and in the worst case suicide; this new law may also stop abuse towards racial groups through insults and gender discrimination.
Bullying can be defined as a repeated verbal, physical, social or psychological behavior that is harmful and involves the misuse of power by an individual or group towards one or more persons. The government has anti-bullying campaigns all over the country and doing all they can to prevent bullying from happening inside schools. But if physical bullying stops, what about verbal bullying? It can be just as harmful but there is no law preventing it! Verbal bullying can lead to depression and many other mental disorders. One in three people in Australia have experience some form of bullying during their adolescence. Around the world 200 million young people get bullied each year, but young people are not the only ones, adults also get bullied in the society. Offensive language is bullying, so why isn"t anything being done to deal with it. This reformed speech should be dealt before any permanent damage to the society is done.
On the other hand, if a country is a democracy and they choose to ban public statements that are offensive. This would destroy the basis of a democracy's "freedom of speech". But in order to achieve a goal, it is imperative that something is sacrificed in order to achieve it. Overall, this point is valid and reasonable but the health of the majority of the society far outweighs this point.
In conclusion, offensive language is a type of reformed verbal abuse that is now common all around the world. Government should immediately take action before permanent damage to the society's health is done.
calculatedr1sk

Con


In his opening round, Pro identifies verbal bullying as being a problem which is distinct from physical bullying, and suggests that the government should immediately take action to protect its citizens from what he refers to as “offensive language”. I share his assessment of the seriousness of the problem of bullying, and also share a desire to minimize the problem of bullying in all its forms. However, in this debate I will argue that criminalization of “offensive language” would be a poor approach to this problem for several reasons.


1) Bullies themselves are often victims of abuse or other emotional trauma, suffer depression, and may need counseling or other intervention themselves [1].


2) The vagueness of what constitutes “offensive language” or “verbal bullying” and the difficulty inherent in collecting evidence makes enforcement all but impossible. [2]


3) The legal system is a clumsy and cumbersome mechanism for situations that in many cases could be handled more effectively by responsible adult authorities.


4) Such a law, even if “effective” would not solve the problem because cruelty can take many forms, many of which do not include overt verbal or physical abuse. Imagine, for example one pretty girl who bullies a second less attractive one by making a habit of seducing every boyfriend the second one goes out with. Surely this meanness would be emotionally damaging, yet still not illegal. And what happens if the second one yells at the first in frustration? Now under Pro’s regime she is also labeled a criminal, a bully, and punished by the law.


5) Teachers, parents, students, and others would be made more insecure for the fact that they could be accused of saying something another person deems offensive, but which they themselves do not. In fact, the law itself could become the tool of bullies who make false claims about what others said.


6) As Pro already mentioned, but has not overcome to my satisfaction, this law would be in direct conflict with the First Amendment, rendering it unconstitutional.


Major campaigns are already underway in our educational system to empower children to speak up when they are victimized so that the situation can be handled appropriately [1]. Sometimes the victim may need to change, for example if they are being ridiculed for not bathing or some other unhygienic, unsanitary, or dangerous behavior. Other times they may need to be protected from their fellow students. Either way, it is my contention that teachers, parents, and administrators are in a better position to be making decisions on how to remedy the situation than lawyers and judges in an expensive and already overburdened legal system. There are often no easy answers to solve difficult and complex problems, but there are certainly easy ways to make things much, much worse. This is one of those bad ideas.



References


1) https://en.wikipedia.org...


2) http://definitions.uslegal.com...



Debate Round No. 1
AtomicDebatingOrganistion

Pro

AtomicDebatingOrganistion forfeited this round.
calculatedr1sk

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
AtomicDebatingOrganistion

Pro

AtomicDebatingOrganistion forfeited this round.
calculatedr1sk

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
AtomicDebatingOrganistion

Pro

AtomicDebatingOrganistion forfeited this round.
calculatedr1sk

Con

Why did he have to make this 5 rounds? Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
AtomicDebatingOrganistion

Pro

AtomicDebatingOrganistion forfeited this round.
calculatedr1sk

Con

Pro failed to construct and defend his position. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Torvald 3 years ago
Torvald
What are the acceptance criteria?
Posted by drafterman 3 years ago
drafterman
Paragraphs man, paragraphs!
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Specify what country, and whether you're differentiating between harassment (which IS generally illegal), and simply offensive statements. That's 2 different things.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
AtomicDebatingOrganistioncalculatedr1skTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
AtomicDebatingOrganistioncalculatedr1skTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by BrandonButterworth 3 years ago
BrandonButterworth
AtomicDebatingOrganistioncalculatedr1skTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by THElittleRISK 3 years ago
THElittleRISK
AtomicDebatingOrganistioncalculatedr1skTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit