The Instigator
fire_wings
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
That1User
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Unique Topics Tournament Round 1 User v.s. Fire: Hate speech should be permitted

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...
That1User
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/15/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,701 times Debate No: 93757
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (47)
Votes (2)

 

fire_wings

Pro

Resolution: Hate speech should be permitted

I thank my opponent User for debating me in this debate, and thank bsh for making the unique topics tourney. The BoP is shared, as both sides need to make arguments, and Pro has to affirm that hate speech should be permitted, when Con needs to say that hate speech should not be permitted.

Definitions

Hate speech: "a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women [1]."

Should: used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency [2].

Permit: to consent to expressly or formally [3].

Rules

1. No forfeiting
2. No trolling
3. No kritiks
4. No semantics
5. No source focusing, main focus should be arguments.
6. Have good conduct
7. All arguments have to be posted in the debate text
8. Sources can be posted in an external link
9. No new arguments in the last round (defense and rebuttals of defense do not count as arguments, but rebuttals of normal arguments are counted as arugments, therefore not allowed)
10. Punishment for not following these rules will be up to the voters.
11. My opponent accepts these definitions as presented.
12. You cannot argue with the definitions
13. Not following the rules gives a loss to that side

Debate structure

1. Acceptance
2. Arguments
3. Rebuttals
4. Defense/ Conclusion/ Summary

Now new arguments in the first round, and in the last round. (Defense does not count as new arguments)

I look forward to the debate!!! Thanks for User to do this with me.

Sources

[1] http://definitions.uslegal.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

That1User

Con

I thank Fires for instigating this debate. The debate I instigated has an HTML 400 error on all my devices save one while this one has no HTML errors. I also thank bsh for directing this tournament and I apologize for taking so long with starting the debate. I accept the debate challenge. My job as con is to negate the resolution, and we will discuss hate speech being permitted in general.
Debate Round No. 1
fire_wings

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting the debate, and I'll get into my arguments. My case will be kinda strange. I really hope there will be no forfeits in the debate, because of the ongoing glitch. My opponent and I agreed that swearing is a type of hate speech, but was to late to put it in the definitons. I thank my opponent That1User for accepting my debate, and being my opponent, and thank bsh for making the tournment. This is round 1, and for advertising, round 1 can be viewed here (I am turning to such a spammer these days): http://www.debate.org...

Framework/ My case

My framework will be based on freedom. Freedom of choice, freedom of speech, blah. I will be showing how freedom is important, and how freedom gives an impact to the debate.

First of all, be all have basic freedom. We aren't slaves, we don't nessecarily are owned by anyone like slaves, slavery ended around 150 years ago [1]. This gives us basic freedom.

Why is freedom important? Because without freedom, then we can't be free, and do the things we want to do. We can't make our own choices, we can't really speak what we want to speak without freedom. Here is a definiton of slavery: the quality or state of being free: as [2]. Without freedom, we can't be free, and can't make our own choices overall.

Slavery was very unfair, my opponent should agree. If my opponent doesn't agree, which won't really happen, I will just say that slaves got no money, had to work in fields all day, got hurt if couldn't do work by the "whites." Here is a source about how bad slavery was, and there will probably be a lot more sources about this [3].

Slavery actually is basically no freedom, as slaves were not free. Slavery is bad. Slavery is the same as no freedom. Therefore, no freedom is bad. This is the long way of saying this, short: No freedom is bad because we can't make our own choices. Therefore, we should have freedom.

There are different kinds of freedom. Freedom of choice, or also known as liberty [4], is one of them. This is that we get to make the right of choice, and we can do what we want to do. Freedom of speech is one of them, there is also the freedom of speech [5]. I believe that this debate is based on the U.S, as this debate site is a U.S. site. Freedom of choice is important for the US, and it is the first amendment in the Constitution. This means it is a law, and we need to follow it. As these are both some kind of freedom, and we need freedom, we need the freedom of choice, and the freedom of speech.

As I showed in my last paragraph that freedom of speech needs to be followed, as it is a type of freedom. In speech, we have different kinds of speech. Just talking, debating, hate speech, etc. These are all a type of speech. This debate is about hate speech. Hate speech is a type of speech. We have the freedom of speech. Therefore, we must have the freedom to have hate speech, meaning that it should be permitted. No matter if it is swears, or whatever, we have the freedom of speech. This includes hate speech. Therefore, hate speech should be permitted.

That was the main reason that we should not ban hate speech, and hate speech should be permitted. The rest will probably be defensive arugments.

And, there is particularly no reason to ban hate speech. Why is hate speech so bad. Why do people swear? Because they want to swear!!! They have reasons why they want to swear, or express hate in speech. They won't suddenly used hate speech and swear in the middle of something which happens nicely. They swear because they want to swear. We should let them swear if they want to swear. There is no reason to actually ban hate speech, as they want to swear, or use hate speech.

There are many other reasons why we shouldn't ban hate speech. First of all, as I said in all that spam above that hate speech is a type of speech, we have the freedom of speech, as we need freedom. Freedom of speech is the first amendment to the US constitution [6]. If we ban hate speech, that is banning a sort of speech, which takes out the first amendment, freedom, and liberty. We are breaking many laws. And, there is no need to actually ban it. So why should we ban it? There is no reason to ban it, there are only bad effects.

Conclusion

There is no reason, only bad effects if we ban it hate speech. We break laws, the freedom of people, etc. I have shown enough reasons why hate speech shouldn't be banned. There is no reasons why hate speech should be banned. Until my opponent says why hate speech should be banned, then the resolution is still affirmed. Vote for Pro.

Sources

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[3] http://www.christianitytoday.com...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks for User for accepting. I will pass the debate to him.
That1User

Con

The central issue of the debate is whether hate speech should or should not be permitted. As Con it is my job to negate the resolution, thus it is my BoP to prove that Hate speech should not be permitted.

My primary case is that Hate speech violates international law and violates international human rights, particularly the articles laid out in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. My intention is twofold: To build up Con's case while destroying Pro's case. The articles in question are Article 2, Article 3, and Article 7 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. -

Article 2:
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

Hate speech: " "a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence it is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women"

Hate speech directly violates Article 2 by inciting hatred and violence to a group of people. When people are hated by others, they are treated as inferior, and when people are treated as inferior their human rights are eroded. Prime examples of this is the Jim Crow south where African Americans were declared as "Separate But Equal" to Whites in Plessy vs. Ferguson by the Supreme Court. From 1896-1964 Black Americans were not treated equally but treated as inferior to White Americans. Blacks received poorer education, poorer neighborhoods, were denied various locations in towns, denied opportunity for advancement, etc. Another example of this was Apartheid South Africa.

Article 3:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Life: "an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction." (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

Liberty:The condition of being able to act or function without hindrance or restraint; faculty or power to do as one likes.

Security: the quality or state of being secure:: freedom from danger : safety : freedom from fear or anxiety : freedom from the prospect of being laid off (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

Hate speech threatens a person's right to life, liberty, and security.

P1) Hate speech incites violence
P2) Violence threatens the life of a person
P3) When someone's life is threatened, they are no longer secure.
P4) When someone is not secure, one is not free
P5) When one is not free, their liberty is gone.
C1) Thus Hate speech threatens a person's right to life, liberty, and security.

Article 7
"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."

Hate speech is speech that encourages and incites discrimination against an individual or a group, when a person is discriminated against they lose their human rights, including their liberty, as demonstrated with the Jim Crow South, Apartheid South Africa, and my Article 3 argument.

My opponent makes the claim that US law must be followed, and to counter I claim that international law must be followed, and since international law effects more people than national law, international law is superior to national law.

The main premise of Pro's argument is "Slavery is bad. Slavery the opposite of freedom, hate speech is a form of freedom, thus hate speech should be permitted."

I agree with pro that slavery is morally wrong, thus I urge that Hate speech should not be permitted for hate speech was used to justify slavery, primarily the hate speech that stated slaves were inferior to whites and subhuman, thus slavery was morally justified under this hate speech. "Some slaveholders believed that African Americans were biologically inferior to their masters. During the 1800s, this argument was taken quite seriously, even in scientific circles." (http://www.ushistory.org...)

Another horrible atrocity that hate speech gives moral justification to is genocide.
According to Gregory H. Stanton, the first three stages of genocide are classification, symbolization, and dehumanization.

"DEHUMANIZATION: One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder. At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group. In combating this dehumanization, incitement to genocide should not be confused with protected speech." (http://www.genocidewatch.org...)

The very act of hate speech is dehumanization, because when someone incites hatred on a person or a group, others see them as less than human. The most dangerous form of hate speech is when the government of a nation partakes in hate speech. The prime example of this is Adolf Hitler, Fuhrer of Nazi Germany using hate speech to demonize and dehumanize the Jews and other people he deemed as untermensch.

" . .. the discovery of the Jewish virus is one of the greatest revolutions that has taken place in the world. The battle in which we are engaged today is of the same sort as the battle waged, during the last century, by Pasteur and Koch. How many diseases have their origin in the Jewish virus! ... We shall regain our health only be eliminating the Jew." -Hitler

What Hitler stated is blatant hate speech for it carried no meaning other than the expression of hatred for the Jews, and this hate speech dehumanized, and encouraged violence and mass extermination of the Jewish people.

With Hitler's promise to restore Germany to greatness and his hate speech against the Jews, the German people believed his words and elected him Chancellor in 1933 and in 1934 Hitler made himself Fuhrer of Germany, where his hate speech became law, thus Hitler implemented the Holocaust which resulted in the genocide of 11 million people, including 6 million Jews. (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

Pro claims that hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution in the form of freedom of speech. Pro's claim is only true if hate speech does not incite/cause violence. If the hate speech does incite/cause violence, it is illegal, and thus not classified as freedom of speech. "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." - Majority opinion of the Supreme Court, Brandenburg v. Ohio. The SCOTUS is the final word of what is Constitutional.

Conclusion
I've listed many reasons on why hate speech should not be permitted.
1) Hate speech violates human rights by:
A) Threatening a person's right to life, liberty, and security.
B) Discriminating people, making them de facto unequal under the law
C) Dehumanizing people, justifying slavery and genocide.

Sources:
https://docs.google.com...
Debate Round No. 2
fire_wings

Pro

I thank my opponent for his arguments, and this round, I will go solely for my rebuttal of my opponent's arguments. For most of the arguments, my opponent is going on the perspective of the people who are getting hate speech, when I am talking about the people who are doing hate speech.

Burdens

The debate is about whenether hate speech should be permitted. Not, "hate speech should always be permitted.", or "hate speech should be permitted the majority of time.", or "hate speech will be permitted." My opponent seems to make his arguments around "always", but it is not, it is "should", meaning not always, sometimes, and at least once.

Rebuttals

Article 2:

My opponent gives lot of quotes about the 2nd article of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

The article says, "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

My opponent shows/says that Hate speech is a kind of speech related to the race, religion, gender, etc. My opponent says that this is violating the second rule. It is also bothering not doing hate speech, as it says, "Everyone is entitled to have freedoms...", and not having free speech is not having freedom. And also, my opponent is just saying some sort of hate speech, not all hate speech has gender, or the things listed above. I am not talking about all kinds of hate speech, only "should", meaning some, and I can be meaning the other some, not the one listed above. So, yeah, this isn't actually a good rebuttal because of the resolution. If it was "always", it would have been a good argument, but it is "should". Not having hate speech still violates the freedom part, and "the other opinion" part, and violates this article, so vote for Pro.


Article 3:

My opponent gives a long list of premises, and I will quote them below:

"P1) Hate speech incites violence
P2) Violence threatens the life of a person
P3) When someone's life is threatened, they are no longer secure.
P4) When someone is not secure, one is not free
P5) When one is not free, their liberty is gone.
C1) Thus Hate speech threatens a person's right to life, liberty, and security."

For P1, not always, only some hate speech causes violence, and the resolution isn't always. And, violence may threaten the life of a person, but not always. Saying, "go kill yourself" is violence, but it doesn't threaten a life. Yeah, I agree with P3, but P4, it is not always. P5, yes, but because I refuted some premises, and I refuted the first one, which made all fall, so it can't be.


My opponent does not mention that hate speech can hurt liberty, as we can't actually speak what we want to do. Therefore, it doesn't always harm Article 3, as the debate is a "should", not "always". And, in every single time, banning hate speech will harm liberty, so banning hate speech will violated Article 3. The point is refuted, and goes to my side. Vote Pro for Article 3.

Article 7:

The weird thing is that in this argument, only the first paragraph are the arguments, and the others seem to be the rebuttals of the arguments. I will rebut my opponent's arguments, and defend my arguments in this one.

My opponent says that all are equal..., from the 7th article. All have equal protection. I agree with the second one, but then not everyone is equal.

Is the president of the United States and a hobo equal? Is Trump and Hilary equal? There are many people who are not equal, so therefore not everyone can be equal, and that part of Article 7 is WRONG. We can't always actually believe everything said in these "articles". The next paragraph, I will rebut what my opponent says.

My opponent says that hate speech encourages discrimination of a group, or people, and lose their rights. This doesn't do anything with Article 7, but I will rebut it anyways. I already showed, not always, and they don't lose their liberty, as my opponent didn't show that, as his premise failed, and he couldn't show anything from it. My opponent just gives a link about the South African thingys, but he doesn't actually put it in the text. If he assumes that he will make me read the source, he is wrong. It is not my burden, or my job to read his source, he has to present it in his argument, which he doesn't. I can post 500 pages for my opponent to read, and say it is my argument.

My opponent says that it is about international law, not U.S. law. Most debates are about the U.S., and I thought that it would be too. Unless the Instignator says, "The whole world", or a specfic country, debate.org mostly does U.S., as it is an company in U.S. I will still assume, and make it the U.S. and, my opponent gives many statistics and most of them are the U.S., so I don't see a problem. We can do international things but the debate is mostly centered around the U.S. It doesn't matter really, just that it's hard to find other's constitiutions, as they are all in other languages, and I don't have the time to translate all of them. My opponent does not explain how international law is better, and more superior.

My opponent concedes that slavery is wrong. My opponent says that slaves were getting wrecked by hate speech. That isn't any reason why slavery was banned. It was banned because of no freedom of choice, not because of hate speech. So because of hate speech, it can't be morally wrong, as that wasn't the reason why it was banned. And, my opponent concedes this point, so basically my slavery point is dropped.

Now my opponent says I bunch of things that because of hate speech Hitler was a bad leader. Hitler was a good leader, it was just that he was leading for the wrong side, and the wrong purpose, but he acutally led well. So hate speech can be good. My opponent shows dangerous hate speech, and it should be banned. Yeah it can be banned, but my opponent's burden if to ban all hate speech, and why they are all bad. My opponent doesn't show how swears are bad, etc. So, yeah, and the resolution is a should, so anyways rebutted.

My opponent then says that it is hate speech when it is not violent. Yes, and hate speech doesn't always mean violent. My opponent doesn't rebut the causes of if it is not violent, and my opponent needs to do that for his/her burden. As my opponent failed to do that, vote for Pro.

Conclusion

My opponent seems to not understand the resolution. He makes arguments on, "all hate speech", but it is actually, "should", not meaning all, but some. As my opponent made arguments which are not following the resolution, and my opponent fails to try to rebut any other of my arguments, Vote for Pro. My opponent fails to refute the First Amendment, and drops all the other arguments of mine. He can post other rebuttals in Round 3, and I have more time to defend my arguments. Thanks for the debate, and vote for Pro. (I am extremely sorry that I was REALLY late on posting this, and even might have forfeited. I thank User for being kind and saying it can be a tie, but thanks. Now it is your turn User, good luck.) I thank Bsh for making the "Unique Topic's Tournament", and thank User for being my opponent, it's being a good debate so far.

Good luck in the rest of the debate, User. Now it is your turn. Don't follow my opponent's not related to the resolution arguments, and resume to vote for Pro. Thanks.
That1User

Con

Permit: to consent to expressly or formally

Consent: To agree to do or allow something : to give permission for something to happen or be done

Pro views not permitting hate speech as a threat to liberty, equating not permitting hate to banning hate speech. Not permitting hate speech does not mean banning hate speech, it simply means not consenting to hate speech, thus it is not a threat to liberty. Permitting hate speech is not only a legal issue, it is also a social issue and an individual issue and each shall be analyzed. It is Pro's BoP to prove why hate speech should be permitted in each situation.

Should: used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency [2].

Individually:
This is when one person uses hate speech on another person. Why should the victim of hate speech permit the perpetrator's use of hate speech?
1)The victim does not have a legal, moral, or social obligation to permit the perpetrator's insults.
2) The perpetrator's hate speech is against propriety, for it violates socially and morally accepted behavior.
3) The perpetrator's hate speech is not expedient to the victim, for it harms the victim emotionally, making hate speech an obstacle for the victim, not an expedient.
4) Emotional harm ruins a victim's quality of life and leads to low self esteem, depression, and sometimes suicide, especially when this verbal abuse is constant.

A victim of hate speech has no reason to permit hate speech from the perpetrator, thus a victim should not permit a perpetrator to use hate speech on them.

Socially: A major part of people's lives is the society they live in. Two main parts of a person's life is school and work.
School: Bullying is defined as "the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others. "
Hate speech is a form of bullying and verbal abuse and should not be permitted or tolerated in school. According to stopbullying.gov, a website ran by the United States Federal Government, negative effects of bulling include Depression and anxiety, increased feelings of sadness and loneliness, changes in sleep and eating patterns, and loss of interest in activities they used to enjoy. These issues may persist into adulthood. Health complaints. Decreased academic achievement""GPA and standardized test scores""and school participation. They are more likely to miss, skip, or drop out of school." (http://www.stopbullying.gov...) The purpose of school is to create an environment where a child can be happy, learn, and excel, and bullying prevents these educational goals by leading to emotional harm and low grades. Bullying in school is also illegal in the United Since. Since hate speech is a form of bullying, hate speech should not be permitted in school. The alternative to not permitting bullying in school is permitting bullying in school. When any form of bullying is permitted in school, including hate speech, bullying becomes socially acceptable, thus it leads to more bullying. Bullying is also a cause of suicide for students. In the words of MLK "Hate begets hate; violence begets violence." This is true, according to stopbullying.gov children who were bullied are more likely to become school shooters. These school shootings deny the right of life to many students, thus it is imperative that bullying, the root cause of misery and death for many students, be not permitted in school.

At work: Bullying, which includes hate speech, also results in emotional harm at work. This emotional harm results in increased stress, anxiety, depression, mistakes, absences, lowered company loyalty, decreased motivation, and decreased productivity. Not only is bullying at work harmful to the employees, but it is also harmful to the employer, since less productivity=less profit. Less profit in corporations hinders economic growth. Economic growth is beneficial because it results in a higher standard of living by increasing income and reducing unemployment as well as improving public services, greatly increasing someone's economic security and liberty, not only ensuring survival but allowing an individual to live happy. Since bullying at work leads to emotional harm and inhibits economic growth, and hate speech is a form of bullying, hate speech should not be permitted in the workplace.

Society as a whole: If society in general permits hate speech it creates a society where the bullying and verbal abuse of others is socially acceptable. When the bullying and verbal abuse of others becomes socially acceptable it leads to further bullying and abuse. In the words of MLK "Hate begets hate, and violence begets violence." Socially permitting hate speech, and by extension, bullying, results in a more anxious, depressed, suicidal, angry, violent, and poorer populace, thus hate speech and bullying should not be permitted by society.

Defense:
Here I shall defend against Pro's rebuttals to my R2 case.
Article 2
"Not having hate speech still violates the freedom [of speech] part, and "the other opinion" part, and violates this article, so vote for Pro."
I am advocating that hate speech should not be permitted, which is not the same as advocating the legal banning of hate speech. People can still legally say hate speech as long as it doesn't cause violence, and people can also legally object to hate speech, both parties are expressing their freedom of speech, thus what I am advocating for does not violate freedom of speech.

Article 3:
Pro states that my argument stating that hate speech threatens a person's right to life, liberty, and security is invalid because hate speech does not always incite violence. This rebuttal does not invalidate the truth of my argument, since when hate speech does incite violence, hate speech does threaten a person's right to life, liberty and security. Thus my argument is valid.
"Saying, "go kill yourself" is violence, but it doesn't threaten a life."
If a person does not have a will to live, and you say "go kill yourself" to this suicidal person, their life is threatened, and if the suicidal person follows the perpetrator's commandment then the perpetrator would be partly responsible for the suicide.
Article 7:
Pro states, "There are many people who are not equal, so therefore not everyone can be equal, and that part of Article 7 is WRONG." I am not saying that all people are equal in the same ways, I am saying that all people are "equal under the law and all are entitled to equal protection under the law."
Equal protection under the law isn't only guaranteed by Article 7 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, but it is also guaranteed by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." Pro states that this debate is about US law. UN law becomes US law if the US signs a UN law or via executive agreement." The US signed the UN DoHR, thus it is US law along with the 14th Amendment, and they agree with eachother, thus everyone is equal under the law.

Pro states that Hitler was a good leader. This is false, not only did Hitler initiate the Holocaust which killed 11 million people, he also lost WWII, which resulted in the death of 7.4 million Germans and the split up of Germany into East and West.

Conclusion:
I've negated the resolution that hate speech should be permitted. HS should not be permitted because it leads to emotional harm, lowers education, and inhibits economic growth.

Sources:
https://docs.google.com...
Debate Round No. 3
fire_wings

Pro

This is the last round of the tournament, well the round 1 part of the tournament. My round will be precise, as precise is important in a debate. I thank User for being my opponent, and bsh for being the person who made the tournament.



Observations



My opponent does not rebut anything about the burden check, so I assume what I said is right. My opponent says that I have to prove everything situation of hate speech should be permitted, and is basically telling me to explain. This is shocking, as that it is not part of my burden. My burden is to say that hate speech should be permitted, not "all" basically means that if I show some hate speech should be permitted, then my burden is full. My opponent gives no rebuttals on my argument about swears, so that is dropped.



I did say that that hate speech can threaten liberty, well some hate speech can. My opponent says that not permitting hate speech does not mean not banning hate speech, only means consenting. This is shocking too. In Merriam Webster, the definiton of permit is, "to allow (something) to happen : to give permission for (something) [1]" Not is basically the opposite. So, it means "not allow" Ban is a close with not allow. So, I am right, as I showed some definitions, and I don't get how my opponent can say this.


Me and my opponent agreed that rule 9 should be ignored, and we can make rebuttals in the last round, but not new arugments, or contentions as you call it. So, you cannot punish us for not following this rule, if you punish for making rebuttals in the last round. New contentions are punishable.



R1. Hate Speech in Society, and why it shouldn't be banned



My opponent make some new arguments here, so I'll rebut them, then go onto the rebuttals of the defense. My opponent says that two main parts of a person's life is school or work. That is, if you are a student. I'm a student, so I'll just say it is. My opponent says that bullying is a type of hate speech. Only when actually talking, as it is speech, not actually beating up. Bullying is never going to end. The school will be lazy to ban it. And, teasing is a type of bullying [2] [3]. Teasing can't actually be stop. Then calling "monkey face" is hate speech, and should be banned. Monkey face can be a nickname also. Then probably these nicknames would be banned too. Also, there is friendly teasing, and other types [2]. They are teasing. My opponent is basically saying that bullying should be banned. Then this teasing needs to be banned.



Okay, now it is for the work part. It is the same, only that this means bullying like emotional harm at work, and mistakes, absences, etc. First of all, these things should be permitted. If you are absent, or doing something wrong, then you should be punished. My opponent says that hate speech should be banned because of emotional harm. My opponent is somewhat dreaming of a future where all work is easy, no one get's in trouble, and a clean world. Well, that cannot happen, don't even try imagining it. First of all, work has some emotional harms, and some stress, that is why it is called work. No work is easy. Then it isn't really work. Hate Speech should/ and has to be permitted.



D1. Article 2



Now let's go on some defense... Okay, now I will go onto Article 2. My opponent says, "People can still legally say hate speech as long as it doesn't cause violence..." My opponent is therefore conceding that some hate speech should be allowed, the ones that don't cause violence. I don't need to argue about all hate speech, only some. I am saying that non-violent hate speech should be allowed, and my opponent is basically agreeing with me that some hate speech should not be banned. My opponent concedes his side. Vote for Pro.



My opponent says that hate speech with not violence is freedom of speech, and should be allowed. It is hate speech. As the definiton says that not all hate speech does violence, this isn't freedom of speech, it is hate speech. It has to be all hate speech needs to be freedom of speech, which it is, making my argument suceed, my opponent is basically arguing my side, or only hate speech, which still comes to my side, as this is not violent.



D2. Article 3



My opponent says that his argument is still valid if hate speech does have violence. Hate Speech doesn't really threaten someone's life, as I already said. Not all Hate Speech does. And not all hate speech gives violence. I don't need to say we need to permit all kinds of hate speech. It is "should", so meaning "some" And the "some" here is the ones that don't cause violence. My opponent says that "go kill yourself" to sudicial person will harm their life. There won't be lot's of people who are suicidal people in the U.S, probably 1 or 2 million out of few hundred million. So, the changes are low, and most of the time it won't cause violence. That's my point. There are other kind of hate speech like "a$$", does that cause violence? No, it probably won't. Or many other kinds of hate speech too.



D3. Article 7

My opponent says that he was saying that all people are equal under the law. Not all people, as I said. Some rich people and some poor people, like hobo's are not equal. And if they are, my opponent does not say how this gives an impact. My opponent says that everyone is equal, so we should ban hate speech, but he doesn't say why we should ban hate speech just because everyone is equal under the law. And, my opponent can't just add a reason, because I can't rebut it, and it is basically a contention, which won't be allowed in the debate, as it says in Rule 9.



My opponent says that Hitler was a bad leader, because he killed many people. He didn't really look at what I said. I said, "he leaded for the other side" If he leaded against any bad place, then he would have been a great leader, it is just that he wasn't thinking right on who they should attack. He leaded pretty well, by using hate speech though. So hate speech is good for leading, as people like soldiers can be scared to what they say, and I also gave an example about Hitler, and how he leaded, only for the wrong side.



Conclusion



My opponent is saying that I have to show all kinds of hate speech needing to be permitted, and makes me do that. That is not part of my burden, my burden is to show that it should be permitted, so if I show some times that hate speech should be permitted, or at least one time where hate speech should be permitted, then I fill my burden. I have shown that swears should be permitted, and we should permit hate speech because it harms liberty if we don't, and my opponent doesn't really rebut these arguments. My opponent also concedes that he/she allows hate speech which does not have violence, and he/she says that is freedom of speech. I said there was 2 premises, and both fall to my side. My opponent concedes that some hate speech should be permitted, and that is basically my burden, so my opponent basically gave my burden, and made me fulfill it. My opponent drops that banning hate speech is banning liberty, thus turning into slaves. My opponent rebuts no arguments of mine, and only concedes to my side. Then I win, as my opponent is conceding.

Therefore, vote Pro.


Sources


[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] https://www.kidpower.org...



Therefore, vote Pro. Thanks for the debate.

That1User

Con

I shall rebut Pro's statements:

Observations
In regards to the burden, it is pro's burden to prove that Hate speech should be permitted in general, while it is my burden that hate speech should not be permitted in general.

Pro's argument boiled down
P1) Con that not permitting hate speech does not mean not banning hate speech, only means consenting.
P2) Not permitting means not allowing
P3) Ban is close with not allow
C1) (Thus, not allow= ban)
C2) Therefore I am right.
Pro's argument suffers from the non sequitur fallacy because the conclusions do not follow the premises. just because not allowing is synonymous with banning does not mean not allowing=banning. For example, a person can not allow someone to insult them, despite that this insult is not banned by the law. Pro also skips C1. Despite this being an implied conclusion, it makes the non sequitur even worse. Since P3 is wrong, C1 and C2 are also wrong, thus Pro's entire argument here is negated. Therefore my argument remains true, Not permitting hate speech is not a threat to freedom of speech, thus not permitting hate speech does not threaten liberty as a whole.

R1. Hate Speech in Society, and why it shouldn't be banned
Pro makes the following rebuttal against my school argument:

"Bullying is never going to end. The school will be lazy to ban it"
It does not matter if bullying is never going to end or not, as a community the people of a school should combat bullying however they can. One of these ways is not permitting hate speech in school by not making hate speech socially acceptable. When a behavior is not socially acceptable/tolerated there is a decrease in this behavior. This is what I am advocating for, to make hate speech not socially acceptable in school on the grounds that hate speech increases emotional harm and decreases academic performance and the quality of education. When a behavior is socially acceptable, however, it increases the likelihood of this behavior. Pro is advocating that hate speech should remain permitted, including in school, which leads to an increase of hate speech, bullying, emotional harm, and a reduction in academic performance and quality of education. Pro also gives no reasoning why hate speech should be permitted in school other than "Bullying is never going to end. The school is too lazy to ban it" while I listed legitimate reasons why hate speech should not be permitted in school, citing emotional harm and its negative effects. Pro also commits the over generalization fallacy with "the school is too lazy to ban it" when many schools have banned bullying/hate speech. Here's an excerpt from my High School in the Student Handbook:
"Speech: Students use words to encourage and support one another. Students refrain from inappropriate language, bullying, and other verbal and/or words that tear down one another." (http://www.svcschools.org...)
The school also has a policy against harassment.
Pro says that teasing=bullying. Teasing is only bullying if it has the intent to abuse, so friendly teasing isn't bullying.

Pro makes this rebuttal on my work argument:
1) Emotional harm at work, mistakes, and absences should be permitted (at work) should be permitted
2) If you are absent/doing something wrong, then you should be punished.
3) Con says hate speech should be banned because of emotional harm.
4) Con is unrealistic with saying all work is easy... it can't happen, don't even imagine it.
5) Work is called work because it has some emotional harms and stress.
6) No work is easy
7) Hate speech should and has to be permitted.

Basically Pro's argument is: Hate speech should be permitted at work because work has emotional harms.

Why should hate speech be allowed if work has emotional harms? Just because something is happening does not mean something should happen. The main cause of emotional harm at work is bullying, which includes hate speech. If hate speech and bullying is not permitted at work, then there will be a reduction of hate speech and bullying at work, thus reducing harm. Pro gives no reason why hate speech should be permitted other than his fallacious circular reasoning argument. Further, Pro states that "Hate Speech should/ and has to be permitted." Why does hate speech have to be permitted?

Pro also contradicts his own circular argument
"It is the same, only that this means bullying like emotional harm at work, and mistakes, absences, etc. First of all, these things should be permitted. If you are absent, or doing something wrong, then you should be punished."
Pro is advocating that these wrong doings should be both permitted and punished at the same time. If something a behavior is allowed, then one cannot be punished for this behavior.

"Work has some emotional harms, and some stress, that is why it is called work."
No, work is called work because an employee works for an employer. Emotional harms caused by hate speech and other forms of bullying reduces the quality of an employee's work, thus hate speech should not be permitted at work.

Article 2
Pro is saying that I am conceding that hate speech should be allowed by stating that "People can still legally say hate speech as long as it doesn't cause violence." This is not a concession of my argument, it is a statement of fact. I was not saying that hate speech should be allowed, I was saying that it is allowed. My R3 argument was that hate speech should not be allowed by a victim of hate speech or by society as a whole (including school and work, despite being legal at times Me stating this does not make me argue his side, because we are arguing different things.

Article 3
"My opponent says that "go kill yourself" to sudicial person will harm their life. There won't be lot's of people who are suicidal people in the U.S, probably 1 or 2 million out of few hundred million."

It does not matter if there are only a minority of people that are suicidal, each life is precious and should be protected from extreme threats. 1 or 2 million people is still a lot of people, and saying "go kill yourself" to a suicidal person threatens that life, thus saying "go kill yourself," especially to a suicidal should not be allowed since it threatens their life. One of the causes of suicide is depression, which is caused constant bullying, harassment, and abuse by other people (http://www.nhs.uk...), which hate speech is a part of. If hate speech is not permitted by society then it decreases the likelihood of someone committing suicide. For the non suicidal person, saying "go kill yourself" results in emotional harm.

Article 7
"My opponent says that he was saying that all people are equal under the law. Not all people,"
Yes all people, in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the United States all US citizens have equal protection under the law, and in Article 7 of the UN DoHR all people are equal under the law, these are statements of legal fact. Pro states that Hitler lead well, this is false, for under Hitler's leadership Germany lost WWII and was occupied by the Allied powers

Conclusion:
The BoP of Pro is to prove that hate speech should be permitted and he has failed to do that. His main argument was that not permitting hate speech was a threat to liberty. I disproved this statement, proving that people and society can use freedom of speech to not permit hate speech, violating nobody's liberty. Pro then goes to arguing from the status quo in R4, stating that hate speech should be permitted in school and work because emotional harm happens.
I am saying that hate speech should not be permitted on the basis of emotional harm and I have shown the negative effects of emotional harm, such as decreased quality of life, decreased academic and work performance, and increased risk of suicide. Since hate speech results in emotional harm, hate speech should not be permitted.
Debate Round No. 4
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
Fire_Wings,
R3:
My opponent seems to make his arguments around "always", but it is not, it is "should", meaning not always, sometimes, and at least once.
A2:
I am not talking about all kinds of hate speech, only "should", meaning some, and I can be meaning the other some, not the one listed above". If it was "always", it would have been a good argument, but it is "should".

Conclution:
"all hate speech", but it is actually, "should", not meaning all, but some.

Definitions:

Should: used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.
Always: at all times; on all occasions.
Some: an unspecified amount or number of.
Sometimes : occasionally, rather than all of the time.

There is a bit of twisting of the meaning of words and how they are used. Some and should are not the same. Contesting language used rather than overall meaning of content has little value in weight against actual arguments.
Posted by That1User 1 year ago
That1User
Thanks for the vote Lannan!
Posted by That1User 1 year ago
That1User
Thanks for the vote Peep!
Posted by That1User 1 year ago
That1User
I am ok with you voting on it too Lannan
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
Thanks for the vote. But "all", "should", are not semantics. Care to say why they are semantics? They aren't semantics, as I clearly proved that they are very different.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
Yes lannan.
Posted by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
RFD:
PRO contends that hate speech is a Constitutional right and part of our liberty of choice, to ban it would be unlawful. Since hate speech does not always pose a threat or cause/incite violence it should not be banned because the right to free speech supersedes.

CON contends that hate speech is an infringement of liberties of its victims. Consenting/permitting hate speech the receiver of said speech is subject to violations of socially accepted morays causes emotional harm and diminishes the quality of life and sense of security. No one should subject themselves from this type of aggression. Hate speech has been used to justify slavery and used to promote genocide.

PRO's assertions and rebuttals with use of a bit of semantics "all," "should," "some," "always" etc, and circular reasoning that since it does not always incite violence and there are different types of hate speech that free speech should not be infringed upon. But this carries little weight against CON's assertions that hate speech can incite hatred, provoke violence; victims are treated as inferior, dehumanized and vilified, diminishing the rights of the victims. All people are equal before the law and afforded equal protection. CON takes a further stance that all people are not created equal. To imply that rich and poor are unequal under the law because that wealthy are of more value is a discriminatory stance that furthers CON case.

Debate to CON major points that hate speech can cause physical and emotional harm to others and equal protections under the UN Declaration of Human Rights and 14th Amendment protects persons from the ramifications of hate speech. It not only caused individual harm, but can cause greater societal harm in the form of justification to dehumanize and at times promote genocide.
Conduct, S&G, and Sources are tied, no name calling, all text readable, sources both used adequately to assert points.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
You guys okay with me voting on this?
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
Okay.
Posted by That1User 1 year ago
That1User
Fin.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
fire_wingsThat1UserTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This vote has been brought to you in part by, the DDO Voters' Union. The RFD can be found here http://www.debate.org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/91161/1/#2537304
Vote Placed by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
fire_wingsThat1UserTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.