The Instigator
smya_8
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Yassine
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

freedom of expression should be boundless.

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...
Yassine
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 412 times Debate No: 85259
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

smya_8

Pro

Freedom of Expression is basic right that ensures people are allowed to express their opinions.They have a right to say whatever they want . No has the right to stop them. You may not like some of the opinions people voice but it is absolutely no reason to restrict freedom of speech. We can't even imagine a society without freedom of speech I firmly believe that everyone has the right to express their thoughts on things no matter how controversial it may be.
Yassine

Con

I thank Pro for instigating the debate. Burden of proof is on Pro.


Best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1
smya_8

Pro

This means you support the topic. Freedom of expression should be boundless and no one has the right to stop or restrict it.
Yassine

Con

Case:


- Here is my argument:

1. That which brings more benefit than harm, ought to be rather than not.

2. Preserving the lives & self-determination of the people is fundamentally beneficial.

3. The lives & self-determination of the people ought to be preserved. [ follows from 1. & 2. ]

4. The state is responsible for preserving the lives & self-determination of the people.

5. The state ought to be preserved. [ follows from 3. & 4. ]

6. The state ought not to be endangered. [ follows from 5. ]

7. Releasing the secrets of the state to other states endangers the state.

8. Releasing the secrets of the state to other states ought not to be. [ follows from 6. & 7. ]

9. Releasing the secrets of the state to other states is a form of expression.

10. A form of expression ought not to be. [ follows from 8. & 9. ]

11. Boundless freedom of expression ought to be if & only if all forms of expression ought to be.

12. Not all forms of expression ought to be. [ follows from 10. ]

C. Boundless freedom of expression ought not to be. [ follows from 11. & 12. ]



Conclusion:


- As established above, freedom of expression should not be boundless. Thus, Pro’s case is refuted.

Debate Round No. 2
smya_8

Pro

The morality of those who use their right to freedom of expression to provoke or hurt others can undoubtedly be questioned but their right cannot be removed and many more people will agree with me because all of a sudden we each have our own shade of freedom which we feel is morally correct.Freedom of Expression helps the world to change. Without this expression, our problems would not reach to the government and we would be under a dictatorship... It is a powerful tool for development of social evolution.
Yassine

Con

Yassine forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: ssadi// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments), 1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Reasons are in comments (1st comment)! Feel free to message me (so that I was directly notified) if you have any objection. I can reconsider any point you object!

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote sufficiently explains both point allocations. Contrary to the report, only one side clearly forfeited in the debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by ssadi 9 months ago
ssadi
My RFD for my vote:

Con forfeited last round!

=> Conduct goes to Pro!

Neither of debaters provided any source!

=> S is a tie!

Pro argues that using "freedom of expression to provoke or hurt others can undoubtedly be questioned but their right (to freedom of expression) cannot be removed"" which is only about freedom of expression, not about it being BOUNDLESS or not. Recall that the question of the debate is not about removing of freedom of expression or not, rather it is about this freedom of expression to be boundless or not. BoP was on Pro to show that freedom of expression ought to be BOUNDLESS, to which they provided no convincing argument.

However, Con has convincingly shown that freedom of expression ought not to be BOUNDLESS. To do so, they demonstrated that boundless freedom of expression brings more harm than benefit; therefore freedom of expression ought not to be boundless. Con points out that releasing the secrets of the state endangers the state (which ought to be preserved for preservation of lives & self-determination of the people, which is fundamentally beneficial and ought to be), therefore it (i.e., releasing the secrets of the state) ought not to be. Since boundless freedom of expression ought to be if & only if all forms of expression ought to be and since there is at least one form of expression (i.e., releasing the secrets of the state to other states) which ought not to be, then the freedom of expression ought not to be BOUNDLESS. This is logically (and realistically) is true and Pro didn"t argue against any point Con presented.

=> A goes to Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ssadi 9 months ago
ssadi
smya_8YassineTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Reasons are in comments (1st comment)! Feel free to message me (so that I was directly notified) if you have any objection. I can reconsider any point you object!