The Instigator
Tashasays
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
elijah452
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Wendy Williams should apologize for shaming public breast feeding

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 851 times Debate No: 85258
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)

 

Tashasays

Pro

Wendy Williams is a talk show host who discussed breastfeeding in public with advocate Alyssa Milano. She stated that she personally didn't want to see a woman breastfeeding because breasts are sexual in our culture. Millions of people have expressed their outrage at her ignorant comments and I would like to see a public apology.

I understand that breastfeeding in public makes some people uncomfortable, but those people need to know that it's not the mother's fault that they are uncomfortable. She has the right to breastfeed her child anywhere the public is allowed, and it is their responsibility to either be silently uncomfortable or move. She does not have to cover-up to accommodate other people. Wendy Williams has millions of viewers who respect her opinion. In this case, her opinion could damage the momentum that breast feeding advocates have worked so had to create.
elijah452

Con

We live in a free country with freedom of speech laws. People are allowed to say virtually whatever they want regardless of if it shames people or damages momentum. As a citizen of said country you should respect that and not make a silly fuss over the computer, and as it stands there really isn't anything else to debate about the topic unless you are against free speech.
Nuff Said.
Debate Round No. 1
Tashasays

Pro

You're right, people can say whatever they want, but that doesn't mean that they should. If everyone went around saying every offensive thing that popped into their head, what kind of society would that be? People are judged by what they say, especially celebrities. Those who have the power to influence millions *should* choose their words carefully. Would you be so quick to dismiss the racist comments made by Paula Deen as free speech? Wendy Williams owes every breastfeeding mother past and present an apology.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com...
elijah452

Con

Who are you to judge what people say and how society reacts? Why is an uninfluential person (you) criticizing an influential person's free will and choices.

You ask me "Would you be so quick to dismiss the racist comments made by Paula Deen as free speech? "

First of all what all of these people are saying IS free speech, if free speech has to be limited as to not be offensive,rude ETC. Then it is NOT true freedom of speech.

Second of all I am not dismissing their speech, I am silently putting up with it. As I ask you again. Why is a citizen of America that has sworn and oath going against one of their most prominent laws of said country. If your views are serious I would consider you a disgraceful American and give you advice to move to another country. There are plenty of countries without free speech that you may like to go to. Almost every middle eastern country has laws AGAINST free speech, and the penalty for breaking those laws is death (or something similar). Would you prefer that?

Btw the link you sent me litter ally changes nothing. So are we going to have a debate against free speech now or are you going to concede?
Debate Round No. 2
Tashasays

Pro

I support freedom of speech, which is why I am choosing to exercise my freedom by stating that I want Wendy Williams to apologize for her comments. In a country that has free speech, there is no reason to silently tolerate offensive speech. If your position is that we should not criticize the things other people say, then you do not truly support the first amendment.

Freedom of speech does not mean that you are not responsible for the things that you say. Politicians, like celebrities, are constantly scrutinized for the things they say, as they should be. Just because someone is legally allowed to speak his/her mind doesn't mean that no one is allowed to respond.

Your argument is void. Wendy Williams is allowed to say whatever she wants, and so am I. You cannot support her rights, but not mine.
elijah452

Con

" If your position is that we should not criticize the things other people say, then you do not truly support the first amendment."

Criticize her arguments not her words. Those are two completely different things.

"Your argument is void. Wendy Williams is allowed to say whatever she wants, and so am I. You cannot support her rights, but not mine."

Excuse me? You started the debate with the sole purpose of debating this issue. Although I support your right to speak freely (and tolerate whatever trash may spew out). You can't play the victim card if you are the instigator.

"I support freedom of speech, which is why I am choosing to exercise my freedom by stating that I want Wendy Williams to apologize for her comments."

Well did you know that your disrespect of the constitution has severely offended me, you are giving anti-free speech activists on this website lots of momentum. On behalf of the internet will you apologize to them and me for being so offensive?

Yeah this debate was pretty sad.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Ritik33jain// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: In the comments

[*Reason for removal*] The RFD insufficiently explains the decision. The voter cannot just explain why they did not find Con's argument convincing because that doesn't mean that Pro automatically wins the debate. The voter has to assess specific arguments from both sides to explain their decision.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: EAT_IT_SUKA// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: First, Con only argued about freedom of speech and prett much ignored Pro's point of how you shouldn't say everything even though you can.

[*Reason for removal*] The RFD seems to be cut off, and there's not much to it. Merely pointing out that Con argued a single point and ignored Pro's points is not enough. The voter has to explain what arguments Pro is winning and why they think those arguments outweigh freedom of speech.
************************************************************************
Posted by elijah452 1 year ago
elijah452
How are they more accurate? I am in fact correct. Stop siding with Pro because of your natural biased.
Posted by Ritik33jain 1 year ago
Ritik33jain
My RFD doesn't make sense because you are biased probably ... I'm sorry ..but objectively speaking..I found pro's arguments to be more accurate..I'm mean how is asking someone to apologise for something they said is hampering their right of free speech ? They aren't sending her to jail because of what she said..they found it offensive hence they are demanding an apology ..whether she apologises or not is totally still her choice..hence your free speech argument was void..I hope I explained my RFD in this one better..If not I'm sorry ..it's the best I could do .. But in anyway it's not because of my personal BIAS ..
Posted by elijah452 1 year ago
elijah452
Your RFD literally makes no sense. My argument IS right. You are merely siding with PRO because of your biased.
Posted by Ritik33jain 1 year ago
Ritik33jain
Although con's premise that everyone (unpopular or popular) has right of free speech is correct..

But you have to agree with pro's argument 'just because somebody is allowed to speak their mind doesn't mind nobody is allowed to respond'

And her free speech isn't truly being hampered just because people are asking for an apology and criticising what she said(that's just their right of free speech)
Unless illegal means are used to get a forced apology out of her ..her free speech isn't being hampered

Asking for an apology isn't hampering her free will

Although I didn't think that it was the point if the debate .. But regarding free speech .. Pro's premise is more convincing and accurate..hence my vote
Posted by elijah452 1 year ago
elijah452
"debate"? You got schooled so hard. If you want to getting your arguments logically wrecked challenge me again.
Posted by elijah452 1 year ago
elijah452
"debate"? You got schooled so hard. If you want to getting your arguments logically wrecked challenge me again.
Posted by Tashasays 1 year ago
Tashasays
You, too. I look forward to our next debate.
Posted by elijah452 1 year ago
elijah452
"I don't know what that means."

I know you don't.. Have a nice day!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RainbowDash52 1 year ago
RainbowDash52
Tashasayselijah452Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate comes down to the meaning of the word "should". Both sides seem to agree that "should" is used to indicate obligation, but disagree to what. Pro is using "should" as "moral obligation", while Con uses it as "legal obligation". Both sides argued two separate things, and neither gave me a reason to assume one's definition was better, so I am voting a tie.