The Instigator
flamebreath
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
vardas0antras
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

The United States government should limit the freedom of 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  
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: 12/23/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,713 times Debate No: 14127
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (8)

 

flamebreath

Pro

if you accept this debate you shall follow these rules: Round one is the introduction and not an actual debate round.
Round two is the speech round where you give your speech with no clashes between sides
Round three: cross examination
Round Four:conclusion and round up
ULTIMATE RULE: Be respectful
Thank you and a merry Christmas to you :D
vardas0antras

Con

Greetings, I suppose we will have to do two things in round three since there is no such thing as round four in this debate. Incidentally, Merry Christmas !!!

I can't await,
M
Debate Round No. 1
flamebreath

Pro

Thank you for accepting and sorry for the inconvenience.

many countries have deliberately prohibited the use of "hateful speeches" under intensive laws to ensure the safety of its citizens. we have to take in consideration that the united states should limit the freedom of speech as well as reducing the damage caused by hateful speeches each day.
Contention one: Democratic equality>> the united states must uphold the democratic equality in which it stands for. We have to see that the democratic equality provided to the citizen by the government simply cannot be violated with a simple excuse as to the freedom of speech.
Sub point one: democratic equality
when looking into democratic equality, we often find that there are more issues connected to it than we often tackle. The United states supports the idea of democratic equality and the constitution in which the united states bill cannot be amended in anyway however; when looking into the issue of "hateful speeches" we often find that it is more important to uphold the equality and the human rights of the citizens rather than to neglect the fact that the many citizens feel inferior to others.

"The two principles of democratic equality deal with liberty and equality, which is broken down into equal opportunity and what Rawls terms the "difference principle. Rawls argues for basic liberties that are equal for all. Included among these liberties are political liberty, freedom of speech, assembly, conscience, and thought, integrity of the person, the right to personal property, and freedom from unlawful arrest and seizure. However, these liberties are malleable, allowing some to be compromised in order to attain the greatest total liberty. " (http://intjforum.com...
Sub point two: Amend not Eliminate
when looking into this resolution, we must find that it calls for the amendment of the freedom of speech and not its elimination. We also have to take in consideration that the amendment of the freedom of speech will provide us with the same amount of freedom but protecting the other citizens right.

"To argue the case above, one has to dilute one's support for freedom of expression in favor of other principles, such as equal respect for all citizens. This is a sensible approach according to Stanley Fish. He suggests that the task we face is not to arrive at hard and fast principles that govern all speech. Instead, we have to find a workable compromise that gives due weight to a variety of values. Supporters of this view will tend to remind us that when we are discussing free speech, we are not dealing with speech in isolation; what we are doing is comparing free speech with some other good. For instance, we have to decide whether it is better to place a higher value on speech than on the value of privacy, security, equality, or the prevention of harm." (http://plato.stanford.edu...)

in conclusion the united states must amend the freedom of speech simply by limiting its range.
vardas0antras

Con

O Observation
As I read my opponents speech I realized that this is about hate speech, anyhow as asked I won't address his speech in this round.

O Definitions
Hate Speech:
speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
Corruption:
corrupt or dishonest proceedings.
Words:
an expression or utterance: a word of warning.
Dictionary.com

O Argument

---------------------- "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than --------------------------
---------------------- to speak out and remove all doubt". ----------------------------------------
---------------------- - Abraham Lincoln.-------------------

Unless you're the supporter of hate speech then you think that the spokesman is a fool, idiot and a mere inconvenience in today's society. Now do you think that the hateful spokesman would become wiser when silenced ? Obviously no but do you think that the spokesman will be able to do this forever ? Again no because what about his job, family and etcetera ? All of those aspects of that persons life will be effected more and more until he shuts up. What if the spokesman offends his boss or his infamous status gets his family into trouble ? My point is that a fool can't survive even in the most lenient society.

What is hateful speech ? Should we eliminate hate speech so that some people wouldn't be offended ? If you are offended by another persons comments, you have the right to say so. However, if you want to take away that person's rights to speak because you are offended, that is oppression. Remember: before the Civil Rights Movement, it would have been incredibly offensive, and even illegal, for a black person to sit next to a white person on a bus.

What about corruption ?

If the person is truly filled with hate, he will commit a crime. If someone is against for example homosexuals, he will bully them hence he will get himself into trouble. On the other hand a preachers loves a homosexual, he just thinks that his ways are sinful. Now this preacher would do anything to help a homosexual if hes bullied. Nevertheless my opponent suggests that both of them should suffer since both of them practice "hate speeches".

To those that want to see an end put to hate speech being tolerated in this country remember this; your hate speech concerning those that publicly speak of their hatreds is, perhaps to you, the right and noble thing to do, say and think. Still, for all that, you hate. And you say so willingly and loudly every chance you get. You hate those that aren't thinking and acting like you. Collect your Nazi arm bands and practice your "Hiel, Hitlers!". Your quest to see a nation of little clones of yourselves will surely fail, thank God, just as every little dictatorship sooner or later does. And by the way,...I hate you! Have a nice day.
Debate Round No. 2
flamebreath

Pro

----My case----
Hatefull speech has to be banned to protect and promote democratic equality and human rights.

----My opponents case---
my opponent argues that the direct amendment of the freedom of speech is also an oppresion to the other persons rights however; he failed to realize that in many cases, the victim does not get the time or has the will to freely oppose the instigator simply becuase the victim feels inferior to the instigator. My opponent also made the statement of "what about his job, family and etcetera ?" and again he neglected the fact that the person does not need to terrorize the victim multiple times to place him or herself above the victim making the victim feel inferior.

in his second paragraph, my oppinion strongly argued that this would be an act of violation towards the other person's need however we find that in our current state as a united government, we must see the right of the citizens first and by limiting and amending the freedom of sdpeech, we are upholding the individual rights of the citizen. we also have to take in consideration that the United States government will not be oppresing therights of the citizens by limiting the freedom of speech simply for the reason that we are amending and not eliminating.

In his second contentiopn, my opponent mentioned the issue of corruption and crime, we find that the united states already face the problem of crime due to hate towards another person. My opponent failed to realize that the limitation of the freedom of speech would reduce the amount of hate related crime as it makes it clear that there is a stronger law that completly upholds democratic equality. we must consider the fact that simply telling a child that is mean to tuant someone will not solve anything however; when a law or in the childs case a rule or punishment is enforced, we find that it is highly unlikly that the child will tuant another fellow again.
Thank you.
vardas0antras

Con

My Case:
There aren't enough good reasons to have hate speech banned nor is it a problem in todays society.
Examining my opponents response:

"he neglected the fact that the person does not need to terrorize the victim multiple times "
You are referring to bullying whereby one person verbally harms a specific individual multiple times. Hate speech is verbal bullying in some cases. Nevertheless, as I stated in the previous round this isn't a big hinder to my position. There are many types of bullies but like I said before these type of bullies won't survive the modern world.

"we must see the right of the citizens first and by limiting and amending the freedom of sdpeech"
This is too insufficient, if you want to keep everyone fro being offended then you might as well get rid of all the American advertisement (half naked women and the materialistic version of life it promotes, etcetera) and make sure there's only one viewpoint in this world. Is hate speech more direct ? Yes but what is even more direct is family arguments and arguments between friends. Wherefore, hate speech isn't as half as offensive as what an average person experiences on monthly basis perhaps even daily.

Now that we have read all this - shouldn't it be better to do as Pro says so that we would have at least some improvement ? The answer is no. Reasons below :

"limitation of the freedom of speech would reduce the amount of hate related crime as it makes it clear that there is a stronger law that completly upholds democratic equality"
Actually, the answer is education... Even if you silenced all hate, you still have hate furthermore silenced hate leads to explosive behavior.

"when a law or in the childs case a rule or punishment is enforced, we find that it is highly unlikly that the child will tuant another fellow again." I've done this as a child and so at some point did virtually every other child. I changed because I observed the adults and after getting my first friends, I started to despise those who spread pain. Do you think that silencing me would have done anything good ? Nope, perhaps my hate would build up but without education I would still be full of hate.

So what do I propose ?:
1. Instead of silencing we should focus on educating people.
2. We should not let corruption take away my precious preachers.
3. We shouldn't let corruption take away the minorities view.
4. Education prevents number two and three.
Therefore, Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"I have to agree that i did have some flaws within the debate but i enjoyed the debate nevertheless"
Oh yeah this debate is awesome ehhhhhhh too bad that not all of my debates are fun :(
Posted by flamebreath 6 years ago
flamebreath
I have to agree that i did have some flaws within the debate but i enjoyed the debate nevertheless
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
If the debate was an open challenge, then the challenge should have spelled out the subject of the debate. Are we talking about limiting the right to give out nuclear launch codes, or what? Anyway, it was a good debate about hate speech. More reference should have been made to the experience of countries that prohibit hate speech.

Pro loses S&G for failure to find the shift key to bring about capital letters, and for sloppy formatting.

Both sides argued well. I think it takes a substantial burden to overcome free speech rights. Pro had to make the case that saying things, without otherwise committing a crime, was very harmful to society. I think con argued well enough to the contrary.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
By the way, this was a great debate !
Posted by flamebreath 6 years ago
flamebreath
I am not saying that they should the preacher should not do anything to help the homosexual, I am simply implying that if this law was indeed passed there will be no need for a situation like that of the homosexual.
Posted by mcc1789 6 years ago
mcc1789
Everything offends someone. I believe we can stop direct provocations to violence, but unless it's that censorship is a never-ending slide into disaster. I am inclined to Con's side, however:

vardas0antras: "On the other hand a preachers loves a homosexual (sic), he just thinks that his ways are sinful. Now this preacher would do anything to help a homosexual if hes bullied. Nevertheless my opponent suggests that both of them should suffer since both of them practice "hate speeches"."
I'm not at all sure this "love the sinner, hate the sin" ideal often actually gets practiced. Besides, if you hate the expression of someone's identity, how do you not hate them exactly? That said, I do realize disapproval of something does not mean you will automatically do violence to stop that.
Posted by flamebreath 6 years ago
flamebreath
Ohh i am so sorry i must have made a mistake.
Posted by M.Torres 6 years ago
M.Torres
You state you want a Round Four, but created a Three Round debate. Error?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
flamebreathvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
flamebreathvardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
flamebreathvardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by MitchyMill 6 years ago
MitchyMill
flamebreathvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by belle 6 years ago
belle
flamebreathvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by rogue 6 years ago
rogue
flamebreathvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
flamebreathvardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
flamebreathvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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