The Instigator
InfraRedEd
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
LB628
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

Speech is our most important freedom.

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  
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,295 times Debate No: 8159
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (6)

 

InfraRedEd

Pro

Resolved, that speech is our most important freedom.

By "importance" of a freedom I mean the value of having it minus the value of not having it.

Government oppression is not a value.

By "speech" I mean any kind of communication.

My opponent will be expected demonstrate that there is a freedom more important than speech, and to explain how this can be, without speaking but by using that other freedom instead.

I am of course open to arguments that my opponent should be allowed to speak, as of course I am sure he or she will be open to arguments that I should be allowed to use that other freedom.

By "freedom" I do not mean to include any acts of violence or property damage, which will be considered communication in any case.
LB628

Con

Alright. Thanks for creating this debate, and I think this should be very interesting.

I have one question before moving on to my argument. Am I supposed to actively demonstrate a right? or simply argue that it is more important?

Anyways, the basis of my argument is pretty simple. The right to life, or rather, the right to not be arbitrarily killed, it more important than the right to freedom of speech, because life is necessary for speech. If life is necessary for speech, but speech not necessary for life, then life is more important than speech, because violation of the right to life also ends the right to speech.
Debate Round No. 1
InfraRedEd

Pro

Notice that I use the word "freedom," whereas my opponent uses the word "right."

Rather than speculate I would need to have this clarified.

We all die sooner or later anyway but words will still be there. It is better for the rest of us if my opponent leaves a few words rather than not leave anything at all. We don't really care what my opponent wants.

The unexamined life even if of quiet desperation sure is worth living anyway but not as much as an examined one which guarantees at least meaningful desperation.
LB628

Con

"Notice that I use the word "freedom," whereas my opponent uses the word "right."

Rather than speculate I would need to have this clarified.

We all die sooner or later anyway but words will still be there. It is better for the rest of us if my opponent leaves a few words rather than not leave anything at all. We don't really care what my opponent wants.

The unexamined life even if of quiet desperation sure is worth living anyway but not as much as an examined one which guarantees at least meaningful desperation"

============================================================================

In this case, the freedom is also a right. Freedom from being arbitrarily killed. Likewise, freedom of speech is also a right.

As for whether or not it is better to leave a few words than to leave nothing, those few words cannot be left if you are dead.

The issue of an unexamined life versus an examined life, once again, ignores my fundamental point. It is an unexamined life, or death.

My basic premise has not been refuted. Life is necessary in order for freedom of speech to exist. Life is therefore more important.
Debate Round No. 2
InfraRedEd

Pro

"It is an unexamined life, or death." Well if there is no one alive there is no need to keep them alive.

My opponent equates being alive with having freedom from being arbitrarily killed. How is being arbitrarily killed any worse than being killed any other way? How can the government possibly protect anyone from being arbitrarily killed? It would be pretty easy to prove that the killing wasn't arbitrary at all.

If everyone has a right to be alive then right to be alive is a non-issue and why are we having this debate?

Either there are no people who have no right to be alive, or there are many people are alive who have no right to be alive.

In the latter case please explain why they have no right to be alive.

My opponent argues that "Life is necessary in order for freedom of speech to exist."

A better statement would be "Life is necessary in order for freedom of speech to not exist."

And that is not much of a clarification.
LB628

Con

"It is an unexamined life, or death." Well if there is no one alive there is no need to keep them alive.

==========
My Response
What? All I was saying was that you misrepresented the options. You are supporting freedom of speech, I am supporting right to life. We assume, that if freedom of speech is taken away, that you are censored, we assume, that if right to life is taken away, you can, and probably will be killed. Because you are censored or dead, does not make right to life, or freedom of speech any less important.

==========

My opponent equates being alive with having freedom from being arbitrarily killed. How is being arbitrarily killed any worse than being killed any other way? How can the government possibly protect anyone from being arbitrarily killed? It would be pretty easy to prove that the killing wasn't arbitrary at all.

==========
My Response
The idea of right to life (not just the existence of life, the right to that life) being equated with freedom from being killed comes from social contract theory and the state of nature. In the state of nature, everyone has absolute freedom, including the freedom to do whatever you want to to other people. For example, killing them. Right to life, protected by society, is simply restricting the right of others to murder you if they want to.
As for arbitrary, I meant that to avoid a death penalty debate. It is not worse than any other form of death.
The government protects people from being killed by maintaining the peace, as well as punishing perpetrators if necessary.

==========

If everyone has a right to be alive then right to be alive is a non-issue and why are we having this debate?

Either there are no people who have no right to be alive, or there are many people are alive who have no right to be alive.

In the latter case please explain why they have no right to be alive.

===========
My Response
The right to be alive is an issue, because we are not debating whether or not the right to life and the right to freedom of speech exist, we are debating whether one is more important than the other.
===========

My opponent argues that "Life is necessary in order for freedom of speech to exist."

A better statement would be "Life is necessary in order for freedom of speech to not exist."

And that is not much of a clarification.

===========
My Response

Both statements are equally true. Life is necessary for freedom of speech to exist, and if freedom of speech exists, then it can be removed from existence as well.
But my primary point remains unanswered. Without life, freedom of speech cannot be exercised. Therefore, the freedom from being killed is more important than freedom from being censored.

Freedoms and rights are used interchangeably because most rights are freedoms, and most freedoms are rights. I am just accustomed to saying right to life. Right to life, and freedom from being killed are the same thing, in the same way that freedom of speech, freedom from censorship, and the right to free speech are all the same thing.
Debate Round No. 3
InfraRedEd

Pro

Now we see my opponent's agenda in a code phrase. Besides "where are all those protesters after the child is born," let's look at the more serioous hidden agenda problem. This debate is over and the new one is:

Using an example from another debate:

Now I have made the point I think that my opponent used this

http://www.finitesite.com...

to produce this

http://www.debate.org...

without telling anybody.

so What?

One thing is lacking here, and it is a good point and one made frequently in debating: Who cares? So what?
What value do you attach to pursuing this matter? Why are you bringing this up anyway? What is your agenda? Put your cards on the table.

Any court of law is going to want to know where you are going with this, and it is important to know why. It is not because we don't want to waste the court's valuable time.

It is because the withholding of that information is not fair to your opponent. What you are doing is concealing an agenda. If your opponent does not know what you intend to prove down the road with this conclusion, in debating terms it is like posting an incomplete opening argument that does not attach any value to itself. It cannot be countered with opposing values because there are none to oppose. In layman's terms, so what?

Taking a look at that Michael Coren buffoon we can easily see so what. He's the buffoon on the right. The guy on the left is the one that is going to debate me. Now if I don't know about this clip I won't see the buffoon on the right who lays it all out for me. Debating him would be a dream come true. He is translating the smooth academic language Ross McKitrick is speaking but does not practice into the hysterical stuff that Joe Sixpack will hear on talk hysteriadio.

Where does anyone say anything about what Mann says about Man's (or Mann's for that matter) contribution to global warming? That would be critical if you are arguing, as they are, that the value is "look at all the money we are spending on global warming because of bad science." Well we are not spending money to address natural global warming.

More importantly the buffoon on the right, Michael Coren, whom I have never heard of and now I see why, exposed the whole agenda of piecemeal attack.

It is like the old Cisco Kid radio show where one bad guy starts confessing and the other bad guy says, "Shut up you fool!"

He forgot to explain that this whole agenda of piecemeal attack is bad science. Michael Coren, who we may think of as a reincarnation of Wally George, thinks it is OK and spills the beans.

Disregarding for the moment the remarkable similarity between the title of the YouTube post and my opponent's premise, and that it's pretty clear he was pretty dishonest but that's not the worst of it.

If all I have is the arguments of the guy on the left, the only thing I have to go on is a valueless argument.

Serious debaters have long since left all three of these buffoons, and online debating itself, in the dirt with the simple requirement that you need to attach some value to your argument.

Now we see why.

Because it tells where you are going with this argument.
LB628

Con

"Now we see my opponent's agenda in a code phrase. Besides "where are all those protesters after the child is born," let's look at the more serioous hidden agenda problem. This debate is over and the new one is:

Using an example from another debate:

Now I have made the point I think that my opponent used this

http://www.finitesite.com......

to produce this

http://www.debate.org......

without telling anybody.

so What?

One thing is lacking here, and it is a good point and one made frequently in debating: Who cares? So what?
What value do you attach to pursuing this matter? Why are you bringing this up anyway? What is your agenda? Put your cards on the table.

Any court of law is going to want to know where you are going with this, and it is important to know why. It is not because we don't want to waste the court's valuable time.

It is because the withholding of that information is not fair to your opponent. What you are doing is concealing an agenda. If your opponent does not know what you intend to prove down the road with this conclusion, in debating terms it is like posting an incomplete opening argument that does not attach any value to itself. It cannot be countered with opposing values because there are none to oppose. In layman's terms, so what?

Taking a look at that Michael Coren buffoon we can easily see so what. He's the buffoon on the right. The guy on the left is the one that is going to debate me. Now if I don't know about this clip I won't see the buffoon on the right who lays it all out for me. Debating him would be a dream come true. He is translating the smooth academic language Ross McKitrick is speaking but does not practice into the hysterical stuff that Joe Sixpack will hear on talk hysteriadio.

Where does anyone say anything about what Mann says about Man's (or Mann's for that matter) contribution to global warming? That would be critical if you are arguing, as they are, that the value is "look at all the money we are spending on global warming because of bad science." Well we are not spending money to address natural global warming.

More importantly the buffoon on the right, Michael Coren, whom I have never heard of and now I see why, exposed the whole agenda of piecemeal attack.

It is like the old Cisco Kid radio show where one bad guy starts confessing and the other bad guy says, "Shut up you fool!"

He forgot to explain that this whole agenda of piecemeal attack is bad science. Michael Coren, who we may think of as a reincarnation of Wally George, thinks it is OK and spills the beans.

Disregarding for the moment the remarkable similarity between the title of the YouTube post and my opponent's premise, and that it's pretty clear he was pretty dishonest but that's not the worst of it.

If all I have is the arguments of the guy on the left, the only thing I have to go on is a valueless argument.

Serious debaters have long since left all three of these buffoons, and online debating itself, in the dirt with the simple requirement that you need to attach some value to your argument.

Now we see why.

Because it tells where you are going with this argument."

============================================================================

I am very confused.
Did you post an argument that you meant for another debate? Because this seems completely off topic. This does not address my arguments at all. I will try to respond for it, but I hope you can clarify what you are talking about in the next round.

As far as I can tell, I am being accused of promoting a hidden agenda. But my opponent has really provided what that agenda is, or how he knows I am promoting it.
Apparently I have not attached value or importance to my arguments, but this is clearly false, as I explained the impacts in my last speech.

So, my points have not been refuted, and my opponent has just gone off on wild tangent. Right now, all of my points still stand, and he has not refuted of my arguments against his.
Debate Round No. 4
InfraRedEd

Pro

I think a basic difference between my opponent's paradigm and my own is that my opponent is describing the effect of freedom on the individual, whereas I am more conceerned with its effect on society. But both views have to be balanced against one another. That is what courts are for. Consequently my values are superior to those of my opponent who only sees one or the other aspect of a very complicated issue.
LB628

Con

"I think a basic difference between my opponent's paradigm and my own is that my opponent is describing the effect of freedom on the individual, whereas I am more conceerned with its effect on society. But both views have to be balanced against one another. That is what courts are for. Consequently my values are superior to those of my opponent who only sees one or the other aspect of a very complicated issue."

=============================================================================
My Response
On the contrary, I am describing both the effect on society and the effect on individuals. 1st, on society. If life is not a right, then it can be taken away at will. This negates the entire point of society and is essentially anarchy, far worse than the impacts my opponent describes.
2nd, If life is not a right, for an individual, it can be taken away at will, and when an individuals life is taken away, so is his freedom of speech. As such, my impact encompasses and outweighs his impacts.

In conclusion.
He has yet to refute my points about how right to life is necessary to freedom of speech to exist, meaning that right to life is more important than freedom of speech. I have addressed both societal and individual impacts of removing the right to life, and in both instances, they outweigh the removal of freedom of speech. There is only one way to vote.
Vote Con.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
CON argues that life is more important than speech but life is meaningless. Speech can have meaning.
Posted by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
That was an interesting Round 4...
Posted by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
"We all die sooner or later anyway but words will still be there."
Actually, words go away as soon as we've said them. Yes, people do remember the words, but no one remembers anything after they're dead.
Posted by InfraRedEd 8 years ago
InfraRedEd
What is to prevent me from continuing to "edit" the debate so as to keep it alive forever until someone takes it? At least I get my picture on the front page forever.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Charlie_Danger 8 years ago
Charlie_Danger
InfraRedEdLB628Tied
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 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
InfraRedEdLB628Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Flare_Corran 8 years ago
Flare_Corran
InfraRedEdLB628Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
InfraRedEdLB628Tied
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 
Vote Placed by animea 8 years ago
animea
InfraRedEdLB628Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by crackofdawn_Jr 8 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
InfraRedEdLB628Tied
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