The Instigator
ryaninjaa
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
BetteMidler
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Supreme Court of the United States should not ban "Hate Speech."

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: 1/13/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 351 times Debate No: 84925
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

ryaninjaa

Pro

If you are interested in accepting this debate, please read the following and say so in the comments.

In this debate, I will be arguing in favor of the resolution, "The Supreme Court of the United States should not bad "Hate Speech."
The Con (Or Neg/Opp) will be arguing against the given resolution above.

I would appreciate it if we don't see any Kritiks or squirmy cases.

Debate Itinerary:
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Introduction of arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals (No new arguments)
Round 4: Conclusion and Voters (No new arguments. Rebuttals allowed, but a focus towards the voters would be preferred.)

You should NOT be allowed to accept this debate.

Please comment if you are interested in debating.

I look forward to a great debate.
BetteMidler

Con

I accept! I think that arguing "no new arguments" is interesting since all rebuttals contain arguments and most experienced debaters hold back arguments that they know will be relevant as rebuttals. I'm sure it will be perfect though, so let's do it!
Debate Round No. 1
ryaninjaa

Pro

Great. Let's get started.

I stand on the Affirmative of the following Resolution: The Supreme Court of the United States should not ban "Hate Speech."

For this debate, my value will be Social Justice.

Contention 1: There is no bright-line to define "Hate Speech."

Hate Speech has multiple definitions and be phrased in many different directions. If we consider hate speech under standard definition of "words that attack different ethnic, religious, etc. groups," then there are plenty of phrases that can be considered Hate Speech in which the Supreme Court has no real ability to draw a bright line between. But, why is this bad? There is no way to actually ban it. Look, we can take different fronts on this. First, it would be impossible to ban certain phrases that are culturally relevant and acceptable and words/phrases that are completely inappropriate and straight-up rude all together. We can't group these words together and yet we can pick and choose what words to ban and what words not to. It's a frivolous process that would never be complete and should never even start.

The second front as to why this leads to negative impacts is that it doesn't give people any more of an incentive to stop using hate speech against certain societal groups. If anything, banning such words would only make situations worse for these groups. Students and teenagers would find in interesting and "cool" to use words like these and find more of a reason to call Islam, a religion of war. On top of this, if we end up with more and more juveniles stating these words and going to prison because of it. our prisons would overcrowd like never before. The issue here leads to even larger issues such as domestic economic devastation and accidents turning into major mistakes in life.

Contention 2: It undermines the constitution

Generally put, having such a ban just simply undermines our Bill of Rights. We have a right to be vocal on close to everything, including rude and vulgar statements. It would be against the U.S. framework of what we call law to actually arrest any individuals for speaking their mind, regardless of how offensive.

Some could make the argument as how it would be illegal to shout "Bomb!" in a movie theater and, hence the same applies to this case. Yet, anything of that nature actually doesn't apply. When we look at Hate Speech, it doesn't inspire any sort of violent action. It doesn't inspire war or genocide. Statements, although rude, don't necessarily cause these types of things themselves. For violence to actually be inspire or created. it is dependent upon the individual who listens to Hate Speech and acts, not the person who made hate comments in the first place.

Sorry about not being very lengthy. Turns out I was busier than expected this week. Regardless, I look forward to your rebuttal.
BetteMidler

Con

BetteMidler forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ryaninjaa

Pro

ryaninjaa forfeited this round.
BetteMidler

Con

BetteMidler forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ryaninjaa

Pro

ryaninjaa forfeited this round.
BetteMidler

Con

BetteMidler forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by BetteMidler 1 year ago
BetteMidler
I would accept this, arguing that the Supreme Court SHOULD ban specific forms of hate speech.
Posted by KryptoKroenen 1 year ago
KryptoKroenen
Indeed, you SHOULD not be allowed to accept this debate, as the answer is so obvious. But who knows, maybe you'll luck out and some rabid SJW will accept your challenge. If that happens, I wish to congratulate you as already having won the debate.
Posted by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
The SC does not ban hate speech. See http://www.supremecourt.gov... Regarding the Westboro Baptist Church.
No votes have been placed for this debate.