The Instigator
DonSutherland
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SkepticalDebatee
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

The intolerant must be tolerated if they do not break the law

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...
SkepticalDebatee
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 548 times Debate No: 54432
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

DonSutherland

Pro

I am taking the position that if one wants to be tolerated at large, one must tolerate the intolerant for the sake of consistency so not to pervert the principle. You will argue that this is not the case.

Accept first round and make an argument if you wish

Short is fine, just be clear
SkepticalDebatee

Con

I feel that people shouldn't be required not to be intolerant to those that are intolerant.
Debate Round No. 1
DonSutherland

Pro

DonSutherland forfeited this round.
SkepticalDebatee

Con

Sigh... I'll never understand why people don't follow through with their own topics.

Anyways, this resolution pretty much negates itself as it is intolerant of the intolerant of the intolerant. (This really is quite a ridiculous debate.) Not only that, but it also creates a double standard, and quite a dangerous one. It represents the idea that somehow intolerance is okay, so long as it is not discouraging intolerance itself. The only way this could be seen as a good thing is if Pro is for the continuation of intolerance.

I would go further, but seeing as how my opponent hasn't made an argument I will stop here.
Debate Round No. 2
DonSutherland

Pro

DonSutherland forfeited this round.
SkepticalDebatee

Con

I am taking the position that if one wants to be tolerated at large, one must tolerate the intolerant for the sake of consistency so not to pervert the principle. You will argue that this is not the case."

Well, I might as well argue this semblance of an argument.

First of all this doesn't really fit the resolution, "The intolerant must be tolerated if they do not break the law", and it is not like my opponent couldn't have made his resolution fit this debate. The tolerant must tolerate the intolerant if they don't break the law, perhaps. Despite this as my opponent has made no arguments I may as well take apart this stance as well.

The resolution states "unless they break the law" which I am assuming still applies under this new topic. This means your argument refutes itself. If they "pervert the principle" while the other person is not breaking the law, why do they not "pervert the principle" if they do break the law. What if the law broken is one that should be broken?

In conclusion my opponent has forfeited before even giving an argument, and therefore I see no other vote than con.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Kaneo 3 years ago
Kaneo
And what if the government makes it illegal for them to use free speech, or on the other end of the spectrum, make it legal for them to use violence against the people they don't tolerate? Why not as long as they aren't harming anyone?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
DonSutherlandSkepticalDebateeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
DonSutherlandSkepticalDebateeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeits. Arguments because Pro presented non, and therefore Con's arguments stand. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.