The Instigator
flyingtuna420
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
qwerty15ster
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

the U.S. should ban such talk as deneying the holocaust or supporting terrorism.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,236 times Debate No: 2357
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (9)

 

flyingtuna420

Con

"I do no agree with what you say but I will defend till death your right to say it"-

voltaire.

one of the wisest and most poinent quotes I have ever read. I am a jew and god knows that I believe whole heartedly that the holocaust indeed took place and was in fact as horrible as what is shown in pictures. but thsi does not and will never mean that anyone who disagrees with me should ever be punished for doing so. part of America is to allow people to say what they belive no matter how politically incorrect it is. That is one of the reasons I love America so much. Becasue it allows this.

If some one wants to vocally say that the terrorists were right and that we all deserve to die, unless he makes plans to carry out terroristn activities he/she can say what ever they want to who ever they want.
qwerty15ster

Pro

Before the actual debating begins.... I would like to ask a few things.... What do you mean by "ban"? As in make illegal, and if broken, criminal charges can be brought against? Also, you seem to be arguing free speech here, what benefit does free speech give us? Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
flyingtuna420

Con

I was reading about countries like Germany where it is forbidden to mention the holocaust. I believe that it is wrong to do so. some people in this country seem to believe that you can lock someone up for saying something that can remotely be tied to terrorism. to me it hearkens back to the red scare.

I simply believe that you can not make a belief illegal.
qwerty15ster

Pro

Ok, so first of all I would like to ask that people vote on better debating, not bias. Second, my arguments may not quite fit together very well or at times maybe even contradict, however my only job is to prove my opponent wrong, however I accomplish that. Also, I am a policy debater, and will use those type of tactics in this debate. I mean that in I will be arguing terminal impacts and net benefits.... With that, lets do this.

So first and foremost in the actual debate, what we need to see is that I gave up my first speech to ask my opponent questions. She didn't really answer the first one directly, but I am going to assume that she does intend to mean that people would be locked up. My second question went unanswered however. I asked my opponent what benefit does free speech give us. She had no reply. I will go on to prove in these to specific instances that denying the holocaust or supporting terrorism will cause bad things to happen. So much that they outweigh any good that the pro can bring.

"I simply believe that you can not make a belief illegal."

and

"If some one wants to vocally say that the terrorists were right and that we all deserve to die, unless he makes plans to carry out terrorist activities he/she can say what ever they want to who ever they want."

I believe these to phrases by my opponent are the most incorrect, and are wrong on the same level. I also believe this to be my strongest point. She states that beliefs cannot be illegal, and that a terrorist can wish death upon us if he/she so chooses. However, what my opponent fails to see is that this is already illegal. This is verbal abuse and is punishable by law. When a person says something that puts the other person in danger of their life or health, that is verbal abuse and can be punished by law. I may believe that person B over there should die, but when I say to him, "Hey person B, you're a jerk and I'm going to kill you," that is illegal because I have threatened him and now they can lock me up. My opponent is arguing against safety. This is already law and most (if not all) people think that it is a good thing.

My next argument deals with backlash. Post 9-11, there was a lot of backlash against arab-americans. Simply because they were of the same ethnicity as those who attacked us justified them being attacked back. If my opponent gets what she wants, and people start vocalizing how great the terrorists are, there will be massive backlash against them by those who despise terrorism, and the US will crawl into a quasi-civil war. If ethnicity started beatings, openly supporting surely will too.

My opponent's resolution has an OR in it. Thus I only need to win one side of it to win the debate.

My opponent states that people should be allowed to deny the holocaust if they so choose. This means anyone as the resolution was not limited to certain people. So now history teachers can start saying that the holocaust never happened. They will, as they should get fired, because they job is to teach history, not fabricate it. Less teachers = a bad thing.

Secondly, if people are now allowed to stand up and lie about a very well documented incident that took place, what else can they lie about? When will this lying stop? The denial of the holocaust will open the door to more and more lying, soon the US will not know what its history is because someone will make something up about it. The rewriting of our history is one of the worst things that could happen to America.

Thus, with safety being decreased on many levels, history being rewritten, and current and good laws being broken, my opponent argues for things that are far worse than any good she can bring.
Debate Round No. 2
flyingtuna420

Con

flyingtuna420 forfeited this round.
qwerty15ster

Pro

You can extend everything I said in round two about the negative parts of my opponents stance in todays debate.
Debate Round No. 3
flyingtuna420

Con

flyingtuna420 forfeited this round.
qwerty15ster

Pro

You can again extend everything I said. I ask that if my opponent does decided to post in the last round. He do it before Friday, as I will be leaving for a vacation on Friday to a place with no electricity. If my opponent does decide to respond after I leave, I ask the voters to not include in their decisions things that are new that I have no chance to respond to. With that, I thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
flyingtuna420

Con

flyingtuna420 forfeited this round.
qwerty15ster

Pro

Well, my opponent made this debate and chose for it to be this long and the topic of what we are debating. However, this person has not chosen to debate past round 2. So as said in all my previous rounds, just extend everything I said, because my opponent failed to debate, they failed to disagree, and thus I have won this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by qwerty15ster 9 years ago
qwerty15ster
I understand what you are saying, and I think you make some good points. I still disagree, your conception of what a judge should be and mine will always be different it appears. thanks for the input. :)
Posted by Einstein 9 years ago
Einstein
Consider the idea of presumption. In historical terms, presumption has always been towards the negative side because of the idea of the "hidden disadvantage." This means that in a world where neither debater has conclusively proven anything, presumption is towards the status quo because the status quo is inherently a good thing if the affirmative hasn't proved that it's a bad thing. In this case, it serves to work against you: your opponent advocates the status quo, and since you give no logical reason why the status quo is dangerous (as I noted, both of your arguments are inherently proved incorrect), I must default to the status quo being the superior alternative, as there is always the potential that your advocacy of banning either of those actions can have some negative.

RPI is great; I had a few qualms about coming here, like that they have no debate program, but I'm a science major, and there are few better places to go than here for something like that.
Posted by Einstein 9 years ago
Einstein
1. I disagree - there is often never a right side; there are many examples where what is "correct" is often highly subjective. Look at recent situations for examples, like the debate about whether torture in Guantanamo is justified. Both sides have reasonable arguments and neither are "right," because both start with different assumptions that are all correct (i.e. one side believes that civil liberties are important, perhaps more important than defending life, the other believes that life is important, even if we have to sacrifice civil liberties - both are correct, or to say it differently, both are legitimate arguments).

2 - 4. I suppose this defends on your definition of a tab judge. In theory tabula rasa means, of course, that the judge has absolutely no preconceptions; so if you say murder is good and the opponent doesn't respond, they've conceded this, and murder is, in fact, good. However, I don't believe any judge is purely tab in such a way - no rational judge will let you win on murder is good, because to any reasonable human being this is indefensible. This isn't the best example, though, because of course saying murder is good can be logically justified through the point that it's simply based on morality that is determined through the tyranny of the majority; a better example is science, where, for instance, the existence of gravity has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you say gravity does not exist in a round and your opponent does not argue this, then in principle you have won that gravity does not exist. But voting for you on this is rewarding incorrect research/information. To be honest I would rather vote for no information than incorrect information; from the point of view of an unbiased judge I agree, you ought to win that debate. However, your opponent did not really say nothing, he did make a couple of arguments, which also inclines me to lean for him. (Continued)
Posted by qwerty15ster 9 years ago
qwerty15ster
Btw, Einstein.... I see you go to RPI, how is it there? I hear a lot of good things. :)
Posted by qwerty15ster 9 years ago
qwerty15ster
Shorack, although it is a decent idea that voting should be disabled if the debate isn't finished, that has a lot of potential to be abused. Say I started a debate, and my opponent responds with a very good argument. I see that I'm going to owned in the debate, so I just give up so it doesnt hurt my record, it also doesnt help his. That would be bad, so although a decent idea, I think the potential of abuse outweighs the good.

And Einstein, true that saying things that are false does not make you a good debater, however....

1. There can only be one right side (for the most part) to an argument, so someone is usually saying at least something that is false.

2. At least the person saying something that is false is saying something. My opponent didn't debate, how can someone who didn't debate get voted for?

3. When a debate happens, you don't vote for the good debater, you vote for who did the better job of debating. Both of the debaters may totally suck, but one of them did do a better job. Granted it may suck to vote for someone who sucks, but the other person somehow sucked more than the one you voted for.

4. I think tab ross is the only way to judge, at the point that one intervenes in a round, and picks what to vote for, and why, they start to debate for one side or the other. And that is completely unfair. Debaters should tell the judges where to vote, why to vote there, and everything else the judge needs to know in order to vote.
Posted by Einstein 9 years ago
Einstein
qwerty15ster, not being tabula rasa while judging doesn't necessarily mean you didn't vote based on who debated better. If you are saying things that are simply not true, then you are not a good debater.
Posted by Shorack 9 years ago
Shorack
Not correct: i did not vote.
There was no full debate.

Not that i mean that you wouldn't be the best, but it is just a bit too easy to get credit due to the opposing party not turning up any longer. (note that i don't blame you :D You can't help that either)

I'm just pointing at what i see here in the comments what i believe isn't correct.
Posted by qwerty15ster 9 years ago
qwerty15ster
But you are now voting on what you think is right or correct, not who did the better debating.... If I got into a debate and my opponent made an argument that gravity doesnt exist, and I never point that out, and somehow that point wins the round. I think people should be obligated to vote for him, it may not have been good debating, but is was less worse debating. People should vote on debate here, nothing else.
Posted by Shorack 9 years ago
Shorack
Not correct. He was arguing that the US shouldn't ban it.
In no way, that implies it was already banned.
Posted by Einstein 9 years ago
Einstein
Granted, he never did point that out; it's still true though so I don't really have any reason to vote for you... ultimately all your supporting arguments are nullified and all I'm left with are what he said in the beginning. I don't think he deserved to win though.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Cooperman88 9 years ago
Cooperman88
flyingtuna420qwerty15sterTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by ComradeJon1 9 years ago
ComradeJon1
flyingtuna420qwerty15sterTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Einstein 9 years ago
Einstein
flyingtuna420qwerty15sterTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by CP 9 years ago
CP
flyingtuna420qwerty15sterTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
flyingtuna420qwerty15sterTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
flyingtuna420qwerty15sterTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by tjzimmer 9 years ago
tjzimmer
flyingtuna420qwerty15sterTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by claypigeon 9 years ago
claypigeon
flyingtuna420qwerty15sterTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by qwerty15ster 9 years ago
qwerty15ster
flyingtuna420qwerty15sterTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03