The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Trolling should be illegal.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2015 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 743 times Debate No: 72215
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Trolling should be illegal because it's actually bullying and it doesn't help our community at all.

Trolling can destroy a young child's current and future life.

Posting a kid raging on the Internet where anyone can access and watch the Youtube video can ruin our children's life. It affects their social life. Their friend can easily watch the Youtube video of them raging or being trolled that can easily reject the friendship between them. If the video gets popular enough, it can decrease the chances of the kid to make friends. His depression can lead to suicide and other extremely serious actions. His future career can be disrupted too. If the kid is applying for the job, there is a process where there is a person who will check if the person applying for this certain job is on the Internet. If so, it can lead to the kid on his adult period to not get the job that would support his life and family.

It doesn't bring any positivism among our society.

I know that the trolls are funny but the audience (people who are watching the video) can be affected. They would take an act of bullying funny and maybe send the kid messages of hate. It would make him feel depressed. Therefore that is the act of bully. Now I seen a lot of trolls against cheaters and hackers (a person who cheats with the use of programs or mods unfairly) and people say,"They deserved to be trolled" but trolling them and posting them on the Internet doesn't solve it. Here's why:

It will be taken as revenge. If a hacker or cheater sees themselves on the Internet, they would take it as revenge and would want to boot or hack their account. It can also cause a huge emotional argument between each. They would always want to hit harder. Instead the "troll" should call an report to a enforcement team. Doing that should prevent emotional fighting among each other.

One more thing I should point out, trolls like Minnesota Burns and LostInPlace are the large hypocrites because their saying that cheating is bad for the community but they don't realize that they are doing something that is more effective and emotional than simple cheating or hacking. Compare a person cheating that is ruining a game for everyone with someone who is affecting innocent kids' current time and the future of them in real life, leading to kids of serious actions such as suicide, and cause more emotional arguments that could be easily solved without threats a.k.a trolling. It looks like trolling is a lot worse than hacking or cheating. You can just leave a match if someone is cheating but in a troll, there is no escape.

Trolling is causing problems for our society and it needs to stop.


First of all, this violates the first amendment or freedom of speech. The AFF does not clearly define trolling. The Neg's definition of trolling is repetitively killing someone on a video game. First of all, The AFF has no plan for stop trolling. Second the AFF does not define what kind of debate this is. Third there is not critieria. Vote neg to protect constitutional rights and to beat a troll at trolling
Debate Round No. 1


First of all, in the Freedom of Speech didn't say that you can say what ever you want. It's letting the people have the right to protest against the government laws the society doesn't like. In North Korea, there is no freedom of speech. Therefore if a North Korean citizen protested against the government laws, he or she will get executed. Not in the United States though. There is a difference between consequence-free speech and freedom of speech.

Second of all, trolling is defined as," make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them." I was talking about this trolling, the most common type of trolling in the Internet.

Last of all, if the AFF doesn't have a plan to stop trolling, I'm here to convince anyone to agree with me. Like how Gandhi wanted independence from India even though the British government didn't plan to make India free. His protests caused the British government to make India independent. Gandhi and I are using persuasion to start something or make someone else think the same point of view.


Vote Neg because the AFF is just ranting about trolling.

Neg's counterplan:

Agent: United States Federal Government

Enforcement: Congress

Funding: Taxpayer dollars

Timeframe: right now

Plan text: Only hate speech directed toward race, gender, or religion will have legal action.

First of all, The AFF does not give any evidence of a higher law than the constitution and the first amendment. Second of all I would like to call topicality because the aff is excluding the neg from this debate by saying that trolling is any kind of provocative speech over the internet.

Disadvantage 1: The videos listed with trolling provide income for many people famous or not. This will cause many youtubers to homeless because the AFF's ideas will cause this calamity.

Disadvantage 2: The AFF's solvency will not work because the internet is too big. The AFF does not propose any law to actually solve the problem. And the AFF completely ignored the arguement of the neg that trolling can be alleged cheating in a video game.
Debate Round No. 2


According to (a government controlled website), there is a list of what the Freedom of Speech does for the community. It lists what the freedom of speech includes the right of speech related actions. No where did it say that congress doesn't have the right to create laws that stop offensive communication to others. Also trolling is having an aim to make someone mad or receive an angry response. Offensive speech is one factor of Internet trolling. (Usually a random person being mean or aggressive to someone else.) Tricking or trolling without hate with the aim of getting someone else mad (Usually on youtube videos these days.) Your definition of trolling is,"repetitively killing someone on a video game." That type of action would make someone mad and full of rage.

So congress banning trolling doesn't violate the US Constitution because offensive speech (one factor of Internet trolling) isn't protected by the freedom of speech because the freedom of speech is mostly for political purposes. The second factor of trolling is just harsh and emotional. This type of trolling causes little innocent kids to be posted on the Internet

Trolling people on the Internet and posting them on the Internet to entertain other people can give you money. But they forgot one thing, they could have chosen a path in life that would be less emotional and cruel. They could have been a man and actually take courses to get a better job that wouldn't take other people's future career but they decide to take this path

The laws of anti-troll-ism should have to ban videos on Internet trolling being posted on the Internet. Therefore, if one troll video gets popular enough, there should be a ban on the video to prevent the destruction of other people's future career.

Last of all, you barely have support against anti-troll-ism. Most of the time, you tell me what my mistakes are in my argument. You didn't tell me why trolling violates the freedom of speech. Doing this would make you a hypocrite. You say that I should prove my answers better when you don't even have a strong thesis.

This is the first time of starting a argument and I don't know completely what to say and do.

What does the freedom of speech mean link:


As for the topicality. The AFF has excluded the neg by saying that any offensive word directed toward someone else should be banned by congress. And the AFF's solvency is incorrect because this cannot be done. The internet is simply too big to be controlled by any one country. Also this definition is subject to change. The First Amendment is part of the highest law of the land which is the constitution. To clarify, the Neg's plan does not allow ALL offensive speech directed at another individual as illegal but only directed toward race, gender, or religion etc. Making this illegal will burden our legal system more than it has already.

And for the freedom of speech. Simply put, that is an article published on a website. NOT the highest law of the land. Therefore it is subject to change but the constitution will most likely be unchanged.

The AFF's definition of thesis is also how it is cheating in this debate. This happened late in the debate and was not included in the 1AC therefore The neg could not have possibly countered this.

A system of banning trolling videos would not work. YouTube already has a poor system of banning as it is. The AFF's plan will be a waste of money because the internet is too large. This will cost more money where it could be used instead for new innovations and more features being added to YouTube.

Also, making it illegal to repetitively kill someone on a video game would be just like communism. The government has already proven incapable of regulating things such as healthcare. Obamacare is a good example of why the government should not regulate online interactions. The Obamacare website is a great of example of why they should not regulate online interactions. To conclude, The AFF has excluded the neg from the debate, shown no way how to solve this problem, and completely ignored the Neg's plan.

Vote Neg because neg can become a reality and the AFF can't.
Debate Round No. 3


To be honest, I may have lost to the trolling on being offensive to someone but something more hurtful in today's world is another type of trolling usually on youtube in which I explained in on Round 1 and mostly what are the negative effects on what can it do to a innocent person's life.

Now before I become attacked by people saying,"You just lost the debate" let me explain. Trolling by being offensive to others wasn't my main point. I mentioned it on Round 2 because when you said it violates the Freedom of Speech, it didn't seem like you understand WHAT TYPE of trolling. Trolling with the act of publishing videos is what I was mainly talking about. It's actually pretty understandable it is this type of trolling because:

1. It was in the category Entertainment because trolling with the use of publishing video are used for entertainment for other people to get a laugh and I'm saying that trolling like this is serious negative effects in our society.
2. There are many key words of this type of trolling on round 1. For example, "Youtube", "Video", "Minnesota Burns", "LostInPlace." I would have to say that the key words of Minnesota Burns and LostInPlace are OBVIOUS because this type of youtubers troll like this.

Now if the Internet is "too" big, then why is the government of Arizona trying to ban trolling if it's too big or that the EU is trying to arrest people who internet troll. Now I am wanting for the US government to take in action and sooner or later there would be a international policy for stopping Internet trolling. Already other countries are taking in action and the United States and other nations should too.

The youtube banning system isn't terrible and even if it was, it wouldn't matter that much. In our generation, youtube videos are having less and less inappropriate videos. A reason maybe for this is that the people should take in action. In case you didn't know, you can report a video that is inappropriate and violating online law. The reason that I'm debating about this is because that if I convince the government and the people that trolling is a terrible thing for our society, they would all report on trolling videos therefore making the banning system a lot stronger.

Vote the AFF because trolling is a bad thing for our community and it is possible of non-legalizing it.


You have ignored the fact that you have given no solution. The AFF has no solvency whatsoever. Now to address the fact of trolling YouTube. You would literally would have to create a new industry for regulating this. Define innapropiate. Also the AFF has not a answered the Topicality. The AFF has excluded the neg from the debate by narrowing it down to YouTube videos.

Back to the legal system. The AFF has has no plan to stop trolling in the U.S. The AFF also does not give a plan for the U.S let alone with the Entire world. Also The neg makes baseless claims in an attempt. The AFF also does not define whether this law is for the U.S or international law.

One disadvantage with this plan is that This cannot happen as any law because the internet is international. A new industy would have to created.
Debate Round No. 4


For my final argument, national laws on the Internet were created like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. I'm saying that online trolling should be outlawed in U.S and maybe could create a "Trolling" like Geneva Convention which is an international policy of war crimes. Instead it's about trolling and more to the people than the relationships between nations.

The solution to stop online trolling is just creating a law for U.S and the Entire world banning trolling on the Internet. More specifically, banning the post of videos on trolling innocent people. It's quite understandable to figure out what the solution is. Laws are created to solve problems in the society. Now I give the REASONS why the U.S. should put a ban on trolling. That is why it says, "Trolling should be ILLEGAL." So my summary is this: There should be a policy for trolling in the U.S. and the Entire world because it is disrupting kids' current and future live and it doesn't solve ANY problems against hackers and cheaters.

Now the solution of banning videos on Internet trolling should be like this,"Anybody who is caught Internet trolling will punished and arrested." The U.S. government would demand a ban on the video. A local court would take a online troll on a trial and anyone can talk against the court's decision.


benjacannada56 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by SmallTacos 3 years ago
Sieg Heil to der f"hrer! Dose who criticize our f"hrer ist to be banned by our glorious f"hrer!
Posted by Varrack 3 years ago
So anything that doesn't bring any positive to society should be outright banned?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by racsomv 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: If you really have gamer knowledge, you would know that trolling s not illegal, and to make it illegal is to make a large portion of the gaming community to be banned