The Instigator
MetalheadWolfman
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
scuderi
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Things Are Only Offensive If You MAKE Them Offensive

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 2 votes the winner is...
MetalheadWolfman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 911 times Debate No: 55982
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

MetalheadWolfman

Pro

1st round: Acceptance only.

All rounds after can contain new arguments, rebuttals, and summaries. No insults and no name calling for the sake of formality.

Thesis: Humor, jokes, "bad" words, and many forms of free speech that don't directly affect other people are subjective. It drives me insane when people complain about my opinion or my particular sense of humor. There's no such thing as "objectively offensive."
scuderi

Con

Unless it is obvious that there is a reference being made in a joke, or a name being said as talking inappropriately then no, it is not offensive. Ideas or thoughts aren't offensive unless one desires to make them so. They come as a spontaneous thing. No one can really take in control of what they are thinking. Therefore, yes, things can only be offensive when they are meant to be offensive, and not otherwise.
Debate Round No. 1
MetalheadWolfman

Pro

1) Humor

I often hear, "That is an offensive joke," and, "That's not something to joke about," being told to myself as well as others.

a) I'll start my argument with a great quote from Stephen Fry.

"It's very common now to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that,' as if it gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, and no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I'm offended by that.' Well, so ****ing what?"

There are many kinds of jokes that are considered offensive or taboo, including and involving: rape, racism, mental retardation/autism, death/murder, religion, and so on and so forth. People like to spout off that these jokes are objectively bad; as if they're physically hurting other people. Free speech is a basic human right, and it is not okay for someone to take a person's basic human right away to make yourself feel better about something. The people hearing the jokes choose their responses to these jokes, not the people that make the jokes. A joke being "offensive" is 100% contingent on someone's inaccurate subjective interpretation.

b) Something I've often heard is this: "As soon as the issue you're joking about becomes personal to you, it stops being funny." Not even remotely true, and one of the most idiotic statements I've ever heard in my entire life. I AM autistic, and I have known many autistic people, yet I still use the "Never Go Full Retard" meme from Tropic Thunder. I have also seen severely autistic and mentally challenged children, yet that meme still makes me laugh. I have dealt/been around those who have dealt with with sexual corruption, cancer, religious persecution, diseases, mental retardation, rape, murder, death, demonic beings, Hell, alcohol/drugs, and the like, yet I STILL find those sorts of jokes funny. Why? Because humor, once again, is subjective, and I realize this fact. Those jokes aren't demeaning those situations, they're just meant to be witty, intelligent, or ironic, or just plain stupid-funny for those of us who enjoy some dumbed down humor every now and then.

c) Regarding those like me who make jokes which pertain to those sorts of subjects: we are, in absolutely no manner, viewing those situations and things as any less extreme, or funny. "Well, how can you joke about it then?" Because we're not joking about something actually happening; we are joking about a fictional, hypothetical statement that never happened. If someone were joking about something that actually happened in a manner in which they intended to be demeaning, then it would be okay to take an issue. However, it would not be okay to take an issue because the statement is offensive, but because it's demeaning real situations that hurt real people. Either way, said joke being offensive is still subjectively offensive.

2) Words, Slangs, and Terms

People say we shouldn't words like "gay," "retard," and "f*g" in a joking context, once again, because it's offensive and demeaning to gay people, retarded people, or other groups with various slangs. I've kind of already covered the fact that non-demeaning jokes are not offensive, and even if they were, it would still be subjective.

a) Word meanings themselves are subjective and change over time. Sometimes, retard is can be just a funny insult. Sometimes, gay is just a funny insult. Sometimes, a lot of words that people use are basically definitionless insults. They don't actually mean that something is homosexual or that something lacks a lot of basic mental capacity. We're not using those words to be demeaning to gay people or severely autistic people, we're just using them to joke around. Again, it's subjective, and a person doesn't have the right to make people censor themselves for their unjustified, irrational sensitivities.
scuderi

Con

scuderi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
scuderi

Con

scuderi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
MetalheadWolfman

Pro

Why I should win

1) I gave detailed explanations of why offensive of subjective
2) Opponent withdrew and did not supply any good arguments
scuderi

Con

scuderi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by MetalheadWolfman 2 years ago
MetalheadWolfman
Dick :/
Posted by MetalheadWolfman 2 years ago
MetalheadWolfman
Why did you take my challenge, then???
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
MetalheadWolfmanscuderiTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not touch on the subjective and objective aspects of the resolution and came only to reassert what seems to be an endorsement of proponent's case. Pro came with an argumment further without any rebuttals from Con. Arguments to Pro & Conduct for the forfeits.
Vote Placed by voxprojectus 2 years ago
voxprojectus
MetalheadWolfmanscuderiTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Not dropping out is definitely better conduct.