When in conflict, an Individual's free speech ought to be valued above a community's moral standards
Debate Rounds (4)
We will debate the resolution presented in 3 argumentation rounds.
Do not accept if you are not willing to have a debate that adheres to the standard rules of Lincoln Douglas Debate as adapted by leagues such as the NFL or STOA.
Ethics are a must
For clarification purposes, let"s begin with definitions
1.Conflict: "An incompatibility between two or more opinions, principles, or interests." [Oxford American Dictionary]
2.Freedom of Speech: "The right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc." [Dictionary.com]
3.Value: "The importance, worth, or usefulness of something." [Merriam-Webster"s Online Dictionary]
4.Community: "A group of people who have the same interests, religion, race, etc." [Merriam-Webster"s Online Dictionary]
5.Moral Standards: "A rule or principle adhering to conventionally accepted standards of conduct" [Dictionary.com]
There is one evident yet significant fact concerning the analysis of the resolution. The resolution calls for us to discuss all circumstances in which the freedom of speech of an individual and the moral standards of a community come into conflict. Thus, today"s round should be exclusively focused on the circumstances in which they do conflict, and any examples which prove to be otherwise are now irrelevant to this resolution.
The value I will be upholding throughout today"s round is Common Law. This concept founded in Britain is implemented in almost all communities and societies today. The definition of Common Law, in the words of political theorist, Richard Jay Maybury, is as follows. "The body of definitions and precedents growing from the two fundamental laws that make civilization possible. "Do all you have agreed to do and do not encroach on other persons or their property."" There are two principle reasons why Common Law should be paramount throughout today"s round.
1.Common Law is necessary. In the words of Maybury, Common Law is necessary for a civilization to even exist. Following these two fundamental concepts that Common Law provides, communities possess the tools to operate, and often thrive as well.
2.Common Law is fundamental. While examining major communities, it is obvious that every injustice or law violation can be traced back to one of the two clauses of Common Law. For instance, it is universally illegal in most countries to drive through a red light. The people that do, are now significantly increasing the risk of an accident. If an accident occurs, the person"s property has been encroached upon, if not their own well-being too.
Contention 1: Free Speech achieves Common Law
We have analyzed the momentous benefits of Common Law, and the importance of its position in communities, but how does free speech fit into the situation? To arrive at a conclusion lets bring up several applications.
Application 1: William Wilberforce
In the 18th and 19th centuries, the British Slave Trade was a roaring issue, and at the time free speech in that area was generally frowned upon. However, when William Wilberforce, a prominent politician, stepped outside the current ethical boundaries and exercised freedom of speech, he alone caused the abolition of the slave trade, which was a direct infringement of Common Law.
Application 2: Mahatma Gandhi
A more recent example is the Indian Independence movement in 1937, led by Mahatma Gandhi. The British possession of India through the East India Trade Company was a direct violation of the second clause of common law, and once again it was the freedom of speech that Mahatma Gandhi exercised that resulted in the protection of Common Law. We see now that after the restoration of common law in India, the country and population thrived much more than before the movement, as was the case with Britain and the slave trade.
Application 3: Martin Luther
Although a slightly different type of community, the core concept is still similar. This time relating to a religious movement, Martin Luther exercised his free speech through the 95 theses, which as a result abruptly halted the Roman Catholic Church and their violations of both clauses of common law.
In all three of the above circumstances, we see that free speech results in the preservation of Common Law, however does valuing the moral standards of a community have any effect on the famous legal system?
Contention 2: Negative hinders Common Law
In the vast majority of circumstances, when a community chooses to value their moral standards over the free speech of their individuals, Common Law suffers.
Application 1: Hindu Sati
In the 18th and 19th centuries, the Hindu culture had a tradition of murdering any woman who was recently widowed. Because this was a part of their religious practices, they were not willing to abolish the tradition, and although certain individuals exercised their free speech and tried to stop the injustice, the Hindu community simply clung on to their moral standards and refused to let even a part of them change. As a result, Common Law continued to suffer until finally a British official put an end to the crime.
Application 2: Civil Rights Movement
During the 20th century, the African-American community was unfairly treated, the accusers violating the second, and often the first clauses of common law. Although many tried to stop the injustice through freedom of speech or through force, many were unsuccessful, and the racist community stuck to their moral standards. Although the work of Martin Luther King Jr. and others finally stopped the crime, it is sufficient proof that when a community refuses to change their moral standards, Common Law often suffers.
In conclusion, we have examined the importance of Common Law, and how it is both necessary and fundamental in every community. We then saw how Free Speech achieves Common Law, while valuing Moral Standards over Free Speech hinders it, thus offering sufficient reason to vote for Affirmative. Now in the next 7 minutes my opponent is likely going to express their views about how important the moral standards of a community are, and how freedom of speech is not nearly as important as those standards, but at the end of the day, it"s a simple reminder of the blessings of liberty and the prosperity of common law that should convince us otherwise. Jean-Jacques Rousseau put it brilliantly, "We may acquire liberty, but it is never recovered if it is lost."
Con's “free speech” is restricted by the rules of this debate (set by Pro in Round 1) must “adhere to the standard rules of Lincoln Douglas Debate.”
In general, in the Lincoln Douglas debate, “The role of debaters is to argue a moral position, and to use logic and ethical reasoning to do so.”
Is not the rules of Lincoln Douglas a “moral standard?” Therefore, Pro decrees this “moral standard” and valued it above Con's “free speech.”
Con wanted to use an immoral position to stress Con's free speech, giving an example why “free speech ought” NOT “to be valued above a community’s moral standards.” Such demonstration will validate Lincoln Douglas' “moral standard” on the debating floor.
Con's position is, “when in conflict, an individual's free speech ought to be valued” without governmental interference, while using the community's moral standards as the instrument in social evolution.
What are the Physical Laws behind morality and freedom? All life must operate within the matrix of the Physical Laws of Nature, there are no exceptions. During the Enlightenment Era, inspired by John Locke, Thomas Jefferson discovered our Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
There is scientific empirical evidence that morality is an outgrowth of Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the physical Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Therefore, morality is part of the physical Laws of Nature, not some byproduct of man-made laws (Common law, etc.).
According to Takac, there is an imbedded bio-program, found throughout all life. This bio-program is simply, once alive, "Life," must have the freedom (“Liberty”), in “the pursuit of” survival; otherwise, there is no life. Since we have life, survival is a form of positive-feedback and a prerequisite for human “Happiness.” Hence, Thomas Jefferson's celebrated discovery, which he declared “self-evident” and used the labeled Unalienable Rights representing a polished version of this bio-program by the following, “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Morality is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights in group formation. The binary values of morality is Right (moral) or Wrong (immoral). The objective of morality is doing Right keeping a group alive. That is, when two or more humans form a group, the group becomes alive. The life of the group is sustained through goodwill and kindness leads to a mutual moral respect for embracing the Unalienable Rights of the members within the group. Goodwill promotes order, stability, and harmony through the pursuit of group-wide positive-feedback. Over time, group-wide positive-feedback is the genesis of traditions, social values, beliefs, language, etc., the norms of society. These norms are tried and tested, and conservatively pass down from one generation to the next establishing its culture. A moral order guides an individual in the prudent exercise of judgment relative to those norms, going with the social flow minimizing civil resistance (Constructal Law). The individual in a civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous; that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable, respecting and embracing the Unalienable Rights of others relative to those tested norms.
The objective of morality is to keep a group alive, is the evolution of traditions, social values, beliefs, language, etc, the norms of society. The empirical evidence of the diversity of language and social norms throughout history and today demonstrates the universality of morality, a thread that runs through the tapestry of humanity and life, the genesis of group formation.
Morality simply refers to the binary state of Right or Wrong. These states generate mutual positive- or negative-feedback, relative to the Unalienable Rights of another. Mutual positive-feedback, in group creation, is found throughout the spectrum of life in the beneficial formation in schools of fish, flocks of birds, packs of wolves, tribes of humans, and in addition, inter-specie relationships, such as those between humans and their pets.
The US form of governance (US Constitution) is a design based on the discovery of Jefferson's Unalienable Rights sparked a social experiment within a short period of 200-years, changed the world like no other society in recorded history, through the fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example of what happens when our Unalienable Rights are morally free to flow, having minimal resistance (Constructal Law), within the awesome machinery of nature.
Effective communication operates within a community's moral standards, having freedom from governmental interference. Such communication embraces the Unalienable Rights of others, using those moral standards as a tool, in a constructive debate, or “when in conflict,” as in the example of the moral conduct found in “the standard rules of Lincoln Douglas Debate.”
The Lincoln Douglas Debate is an outgrowth of the US Constitutional mission to embrace and protect everyone's Unalienable Rights. In the beginning, the US started with a difficult task relative to the cultural reality of the day. Cultural norms do not change overnight, because they are inherently conservative. For example, slavery and woman's standing in society were deeply rooted in the culture, including the norms of the ruling-class, for they too reflect the culture of the day. Our founding Fathers knew Unalienable Rights will remove cultural ills, having freedom of speech from governmental interference, as a result, slavery (aka Lincoln Douglas Debate), and the treatment of woman, etc, in time during the moral evolution of culture will address and resolve those cultural ills.
On the other hand, Ronald Reagan's concerns are valid for the US is in a post Constitutional era, where the institution of government is morphing to a tyrannical oligarchy. In addition, the government controlled educational system is subtly changing the community's moral standards, to value government policies above free speech.
In closing, when in conflict, an individual's free speech ought to be valued above government policies during the conservative evolution of a community's moral standards. Relative to government controlled education, morality---a physical Law in Nature, should be a subject of study in a science class.
Nathaniel2840 forfeited this round.
Nathaniel2840 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.