Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

RFD for free speech debate

tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 3:00:33 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
== RFD ==

Resolved: On balance, the US" approach to free speech is preferable to the EU"s approach.

http://www.debate.org...

Preview: Airmax wins

(Procedural matters)

The resolution states that the United States" model of free speech is, on balance, better than the model of free speech followed by the European Union. It is very unclear as to what exactly the differences in the model are. In R1, while providing the context, there is no clear elucidation of what the differences between the models are. The debaters directly move into addressing the arguments, without clearly specifying the differences.

I"d also like to make a short note on the burdens. As agreed on by the debaters, the burdens are shared evenly: each debater has an individual positive burden they have to fulfill. Pro"s burden is to show why the USM is better than the EUM, while Con"s is to show that the EUM is better than the USM. How are these burdens to be achieved? The debaters have to elucidate the differences between each of the models, and explain how those differences link to their burden. Failing to do this is failing to fulfill their burdens.

(Differences)

The first link is what the differences betweeen the EUM and the USM are. In none of the rounds do the debaters clearly engage as to what the differences are. Pro"s sole contention that addresses this is hate speech laws, which is the clearest difference I could gain between the EUM and the USM. I agree with Con that there are differences based on legal methodology, legal structure, et cetera, and Con"s first argument in R2 is based on establishing that, but Con doesn"t explain how legal methodology and legal structure factor into the debate or successfully fulfill their burden. So Con"s primary argument regarding this is the argument from "levels of freedom," and the argument from surveillance and privacy intrusions.

As can be seen in Pro"s R1 case, it is clear that Pro believes the differences between the EUM and the USM to be that the EUM is more restrictive of, for instance, hate speech. It is also clear that Pro expected this debate to be on hate speech laws and restrictions on free speech. As such, Pro jumps straight into the link that free speech should not be restricted, without actually establishing the link that the EUM is more restrictive of free speech. But Con contests this with their contention on the levels of freedom. Con brings up the Press Freedom Index, the Human Freedoms Index Report, and similar indexes where countries from the EU scored better than the United States with regards to how free they are.

The problem with this argument is that it isn"t articulated clearly enough for me to weigh it significantly. A judge shouldn"t weigh significantly an argument that is insufficiently explained. However "interventionist" this might seem, and I have heard accusations similar, it is necessary, because I really don"t know what the differences between the USM and the EUM are. All Con is able to bring up is the mere idea that there is a difference between the USM and the EUM in statistical ratings; he doesn"t outline *what* the difference is, which is definitely of importance. So in that sense, Pro is correct that the argument is "too abstract," in that it isn"t explained clearly enough. This doesn"t mean I don"t weigh this argument at all -- it only means I weigh it as a less important impact since it doesn"t clearly elucidate the differences between the USM and the EUM.

On the other hand, Pro clearly explains one difference between the two models: hate speech laws. Pro brings up four examples. The first example is that of two singers charged with violating their criminal code due to public criticism of Christianity in Poland. He then talks about Bob Dylan, a singer who could face prosecution due to his comparison of the relationship between the Croats and the Serbs to the Jews and the Nazis. The next example is that of the conviction of people for homophobic speech. Finally, he talks about Germany criminalizing Holocaust denial.

Con adequately refutes the first example, showing that the Polish laws don"t necessarily comply with the European laws there. He then tries to refute the example of Bob Dylan by saying the charges against him were dropped, which mitigates the impact, but the impact is saved from complete refutation by Pro"s argument that the EU model *encourages* such charges taking place in the first place. Con might, once more, claim that this is a new argument -- but that"s what Pro meant all along, and I don"t buy that it is a new argument. But even if it was a new argument, it doesn"t significantly factor into my decision. The third example is refuted since the example took place in a *school* which was the primary reason for prosecution. But Con"s problem lies in conceding the fourth example, that essentially dooms his case for more reasons than one.

Con brings up his own examples to show cases where the EU upholded free speech. I think those examples doom his own side. He argues the case of Lehideux and Isoni v. France, where the authors were convicted of defending the war crimes of a person, and then had the charges against them dropped. But Con"s reason for that dooms it: the reason was the *historical value* of their analysis. Not because the EU law doesn"t allow conviction. If the analysis didn"t have historical value, they would have been prosecuted. The same problem lies in Pro"s fourth example: if it *can* be done in Europe, that means the law allows it to be done as so, which means the law actually *is* more restrictive of free speech than America"s.

Now, I have to weigh the hate speech argument against the argument from levels of freedom. I"m weighing the hate speech argument more by default because the levels of freedom argument is too insufficiently explained -- it doesn"t clearly show what the differences are that change these "levels of freedom." In contrast, Pro clearly explains what the differences between the two models are via the hate speech argument. Con doesn"t justify these rankings or warrant anything: he just asserts them via sources, which makes them *appeals to authority.* I might be accused of interventionist judging here, but this isn"t interventionist judging. Debaters should warrant their arguments clearly. Judges -- under their obligation to act as blank slates -- shouldn"t significantly weigh arguments that are insufficiently warranted. Mere sources don"t form warrants. A warrant is an explanation for why a certain link is true. I"m getting much better explanation from the hate speech argument. This is *not* to say that I completely discredited the levels of freedom argument; I did consider it because "insufficient warrant" isn"t a reason to discard an argument. But the magnitude of hate speech laws clearly outweighs because the warrant is *better* in showing a difference.

So, to that extent, Pro is the only one who actually shows a difference between the EUM and the USM that has a link to the resolution.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 3:00:46 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
(Values)

Con"s final attempt at a relevant difference that links to the debate is the privacy issue. He argues that the EUM better accomodates for privacy as a value, and justifies privacy. I agree with the justifications for privacy, but Con doesn"t attempt to link it to the resolution. How is privacy an actual difference between the USM and the EUM? What does privacy have to do with free *speech*? The argument from values doesn"t do much to advance Con"s BOP, because he doesn"t explain the link between privacy and the resolution. Con has reasons to support privacy, but he doesn"t explain how the right to be forgotten and the privacy protections are important to the debate. Con"s argument from privacy also doesn"t measure it to the US. He says "privacy is good, and the EU has it more than the US," but he doesn"t weigh the impact. He doesn"t explain *how relevant* it is to the debate. Con"s BOP is to explain how each argument links to the resolution. He doesn"t sufficiently link this because he doesn"t explain why this is a voting issue comparitively.

Pro doesn"t justify their values clearly either. But his justifications better link to the resolution. He argues that there is no harm coming from the USM except offending people and violating privacy, but he makes a clear case for why free speech outweighs privacy. He argues that acquiescing to these restrictions on free speech is either acknowledging that a certain group has a right not to be offended or doing it out of fear; the latter is essentially *accepting* that authoritarianism in our lives out of fear. It is acquiescing to "social bullying." Now bsh1 might think it"s a new argument in the final round, except it is not one, because airmax essentially brought the same impact in round 2: he argues that one can"t just accept a "right to not be offended" or something similar.

Con brings up an argument from violence, but Con is losing this for two reasons. First, as Con himself concedes earlier (e.g. crying "fire" in a crowded theater), the US *does* have security-based protections. Second, Con doesn"t explain how hate speech laws are good and fails to adequately refute Pro"s point about hate speech laws with the Bosnia example. I agree with Con that hate speech laws are necessary in Bosnia, but that still mitigates Con"s case because the US model of free speech is, on balance, *preferable.* The Bosnia example merely shows the necessity of hate speech laws in some places and doesn"t apply throughout the debate. Note: once again, I expect an accusation of interventionist judging here. But this isn"t interventionist judging, since the judge is required to understand each impact and weigh it, and analyze how each argument impacted the resolution. This argument doesn"t impact the resolution, so it"s my job to bring a resolutional analysis. I can discard irrelevant arguments, and this is one of them.

(Impact analysis)

Pro"s arguments are essentially that free speech is a necessary value and that the EU restricts free speech more than the US. Con"s argument is that the EU better accounts for values such as privacy, and that the levels of freedom in the EU are better. The argument from hate speech (i.e. restricting free speech more than the US) better elucidates the difference between the two models than the "levels of freedom," which is abstract and under-explained since it only presents sources without properly explaining them. Pro is winning the privacy issue because Con fails to clearly link it to the resolution. Pro"s argument that free speech is a necessary value still remains because he clearly explains the value of liberty. It isn"t a strong argument, but it outweighs Con"s arguments.

Pro wins all the relevant issues in the debate. There are only two relevant issues in this debate: the differences between the USM and EUM, and how they impact the debate. The latter isn"t clearly focused on, and neither side clearly explains how the differences they mention impact the debate. At best, both sides offer vague justifications and unclear reasons to support the impacts in the debate. But I think it"s Pro who *better* explains the reasons that he wins the debate. This is debatable, and I"m not making any assertion that it is "objective." I think it is Pro who better links their arguments to the resolution at hand and elucidates the impacts. The impacts aren"t clear and I don"t have much knowledge about the issue at all, but Pro"s impacts are better than Con"s. Since Pro better explains the differences between the two models and shows how those differences are relevant, I vote Pro.

This RFD may have sounded harsh, but I liked reading this debate and I think both sides made arguments that weren"t bad.

[Sidenote: this RFD is still subject to reconsideration, and *might* be temporary; I might change my decision before the debate is over, or at least my reasoning. But for now, my reasoning stands.]
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 3:34:40 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 3:00:33 PM, tejretics wrote:

If you feel uncomfortable with having this discussion, let me know, and I will stop whenever you'd like.

I agree with Con that there are differences based on legal methodology, legal structure, et cetera, and Con"s first argument in R2 is based on establishing that, but Con doesn"t explain how legal methodology and legal structure factor into the debate or successfully fulfill their burden.

In fact, I did explain how this impacted the round. Regarding legal methodology, I wrote: "The way the EUM has structured it's legal processes force it to balance various rights, social goods, and interests, and to do so unambiguously. This has various pedagogical benefits, in the sense that it reinforces and, in a sense, teaches, the importance of balancing rights within the legal system. It also is likely to impact the thinking behind legal rulings; rather than simply asking, does X pass test Y, justices can directly tackle the question of whether the values and interests trade-offs of X are worth it."

This has a fairly clear impact, in that it structurally is better suited to protect all rights, not just free speech rights. Max needed to prove, given his approach to the topic, that free speech was paramount to all other rights; if he failed to do this, then he also failed to affirm, because his system treats free speech as paramount to all other rights, neglecting other concerns like privacy and due process.

The problem with this argument is that it isn"t articulated clearly enough for me to weigh it significantly. A judge shouldn"t weigh significantly an argument that is insufficiently explained. However "interventionist" this might seem, and I have heard accusations similar, it is necessary, because I really don"t know what the differences between the USM and the EUM are. All Con is able to bring up is the mere idea that there is a difference between the USM and the EUM in statistical ratings; he doesn"t outline *what* the difference is, which is definitely of importance.

This misunderstands how the argument is being applied in a fundamental way. The purpose of this argument was to counter Pro's explicit claim that hate speech laws violated freedom. Notice where I said: "Pro also tries to use his hate speech claims to paint Europe as un-free or fascistic; yet my data from last round shows that freedom in Europe is, in many ways, better than in the US. So, what exactly is the negative impact of these hate speech restrictions on freedom writ large? Pro offers no meaningful analysis." Also, notice where I said: "That Europe outperforms the US in personal freedom may be explained by its unique and holistic approach to balancing rights; it treats all rights as valuable."

The point I made using this data, throughout my case, is simple. The EUM has more freedom because it treats all rights equally, and because it doesn't sacrifice privacy and due process for the sake of free speech. This means, that Europe protects a wider variety of personal liberties than Pro does, and it means that Europe is thus freer. Pro focused on one area, and could not show that hate speech significantly harmed freedom on a statistical level--all Pro could do was advance anecdotes.

On the other hand, Pro clearly explains one difference between the two models: hate speech laws. Pro brings up four examples. The first example is that of two singers charged with violating their criminal code due to public criticism of Christianity in Poland. He then talks about Bob Dylan, a singer who could face prosecution due to his comparison of the relationship between the Croats and the Serbs to the Jews and the Nazis. The next example is that of the conviction of people for homophobic speech. Finally, he talks about Germany criminalizing Holocaust denial.

Con adequately refutes the first example, showing that the Polish laws don"t necessarily comply with the European laws there. He then tries to refute the example of Bob Dylan by saying the charges against him were dropped, which mitigates the impact, but the impact is saved from complete refutation by Pro"s argument that the EU model *encourages* such charges taking place in the first place.

Actually, the same argument that applies to the polish law (the rebuttal you described as an "adequate refutation") applies to Bob Dylan as well. As I wrote: "his first regards a case that never went the the ECtHR." The law was never upheld by the ECtHR as legal, and I made that clear in that sentence.

Con might, once more, claim that this is a new argument -- but that"s what Pro meant all along, and I don"t buy that it is a new argument.

How do you know that is what Pro meant all along? Where did Max make this argument before his last speech?

You should not require debaters to refute the intent of the other person's argument--only what the opponent actually said. Intent is necessarily speculative.

But Con"s problem lies in conceding the fourth example, that essentially dooms his case for more reasons than one.

I don't really see how, since Pro never brought that example up again, essentially conceding my argument that it's impact was small.

Con brings up his own examples to show cases where the EU upholded free speech. I think those examples doom his own side. He argues the case of Lehideux and Isoni v. France, where the authors were convicted of defending the war crimes of a person, and then had the charges against them dropped. But Con"s reason for that dooms it: the reason was the *historical value* of their analysis. Not because the EU law doesn"t allow conviction. If the analysis didn"t have historical value, they would have been prosecuted.

What you are basically saying in the above anaylsis is that my example dooms my case because it shows that I limit speech. This begs the question: is free speech inviolate, or not? In this way, your analysis presupposes that speech should be inviolate.

Max did not do enough work in the debate to show that free speech was inviolate. Please tell me where in the debate Max provides arguments (not mere statements or bare assertions) that explain why free speech is the paramount value among all values.

Additionally, my example, the one you mention here, specifically disproves Max's claim regarding this: "you have speech possibly intended to offend, to deny historical claims, or to equivocate historical events." I was using this example to rebut a specific argument Max had advanced.

The same problem lies in Pro"s fourth example: if it *can* be done in Europe, that means the law allows it to be done as so, which means the law actually *is* more restrictive of free speech than America"s.

Again, this analysis begs the question of whether it is a bad thing to be more restrictive of free speech. If Max failed to prove then that free speech must be virtually unrestricted, your analysis here fails.

And this example was brought up to show that the EUM respected the freedom of the press to report on things, even if those things involved hate speech. Arresting journalists for reporting on things like that CANNOT be done.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 4:00:34 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 3:00:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
Con doesn"t justify these rankings or warrant anything: he just asserts them via sources, which makes them *appeals to authority.*

Tej, this is where you become unjustifiably interventionist in your analysis. Where did Max make these arguments? He never once critiqued my data in any way, shape, or form. He never once posed any methodological questions or objections regarding them. Max never talked about an "appeal to authority" either.

I, as the opposing debater, am expected to defend my arguments against attacks from my opponent. But I cannot (in the round) defend my arguments against attacks from the readers. It is absolutely abusive and unfair, therefore, for you to make arguments on Max's behalf against my data.

Max dropped the evidence. A drop--in all standard conventions of debate--equates to a concession. You may have personal qualms with the data, and it is clear that you do, but to be fair, you must set these aside an judge only on what was said inside the round.

Debaters should warrant their arguments clearly.

And I did, Tej. I provided sources that completely backed up my claim. What you are asking for goes beyond a warrant. If you logic applied to every time someone cited statistical data on this site, they would have to provide detailed methodological information in the text of the speech. Not only would such a standard discourage the use of data, but this standard strong defies DDO convention. Great debaters cite statistical data from sources all the time without mentioning their methodology in the text of the round. This is an accepted norm on the site.

If Max wanted to critique the methodology, he had every opportunity to do so. But he chose not to. Drops = concessions. Insofar as my opponent conceded to the data in this way, why is it okay for the judge to argue with the data? This is interventionist, abusive, and categorically unfair. It changes you from a blank slate to a slate that is willing to selectively decide when drops count as drops.

So, to that extent, Pro is the only one who actually shows a difference between the EUM and the USM that has a link to the resolution.

How is this true? Not only did I advance my structural arguments, but I advanced also my privacy and due process arguments.

How is privacy an actual difference between the USM and the EUM?

So, I explained this via example. The USM does not allow the kind of strict reporting restrictions that have been protected by the EUM. The USM would not find RTBF constitutional, while the EUM viewed it as a right. The USM violates digital security more broadly, while the EUM has strong protections of it.

What does privacy have to do with free *speech*?

This sentence just misunderstands what the debate was about.

The resolution was about "which approach to free speech was better." The resolution was NOT about "which approach to free speech was better for free speech."

Our impacts did not have to rely on free speech to be topical, insofar as we showed that our approaches to free speech created better or worse worlds than our opponent. In other words, this debate did not require Max or I to show that we upheld free speech best; it just required us to show that our approach to free speech led to outcomes more desirable (these outcomes did not have to relate to free speech itself) than our opponent's approach.

The argument from values doesn"t do much to advance Con"s BOP, because he doesn"t explain the link between privacy and the resolution.

This is false for all the reasons I just explained.

Con has reasons to support privacy, but he doesn"t explain how the right to be forgotten and the privacy protections are important to the debate.

They are important to the debate because, let me quote Max quoting me: "'"The winner of this debate, therefore, will be the one who can show that their rights-model best situates and balances free speech among a pantheon of other rights and social goods.' This breaks it down perfectly."

The EUM protects privacy and due process better than the USM, because it is willing to limit a small slice of the total world of free speech to ensure that these goals--which are extremely important, as I explained in my Values section and which Max dropped--are protected.

Moreover, these arguments go to show that my world, that the effect of the EUM on society and freedom writ large--is more desirable, on balance, because it protects more rights than just free speech.

Max never proved that free speech should be the paramount value, over things like privacy and due process. He never even once gave a justification (beyond mere bare assertion) for why free speech was good. Because of that, he cannot prove that his world is better, because he cannot prove that a world that sacrifices other values for the sake of free speech is worth those sacrifices.

Con"s argument from privacy also doesn"t measure it to the US. He says "privacy is good, and the EU has it more than the US," but he doesn"t weigh the impact.

I weigh the impact of my values as much as Max weighs the impact of his hate speech arguments. Max selected examples that contrasted the EUM and USM, and then said, "see, we protect free speech better." I selected examples that contrasted the EUM and USM and said, "see, I protect more rights better."

Con"s BOP is to explain how each argument links to the resolution. He doesn"t sufficiently link this because he doesn"t explain why this is a voting issue comparitively.

Tej, please take a moment to reread the debate. I did this constantly. I think you simple misunderstood my arguments. I said things like: "I better uphold the full pantheon of rights we as people need to live fulfilling and enjoyable lives." And, "Pro has not once in this debate given a reason why free speech should not be restricted in the face of safety, privacy, or due process concerns. His failure to do this necessarily dooms his case, because it is predicated on the notion, as he put it, that 'there is nothing worth silencing speech for.' Pro has failed to prove this core claim." And, "Our rights--not just free speech, but ALL of our rights--are necessary tools to take charge of our lives and to create meaning within them. The pearls we seek can only be obtained if we have all the rights needed to cultivate them." And "Moreover, my system can better balance all rights; it does not take the approach of 'free speech above all else' that Pro supports. This approach both (a) harms other rights, which, as I showed in round one, are important for us as individuals, and (b), paradoxically, undermines free speech itself in the long-run."
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 4:08:00 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Upon reading this thread, Tej's RFD was correct, substantively and effectively. He not onl got the right answer, but for mostly the right reasons.
Tsar of DDO
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 4:12:38 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
@bsh1

I'll address your other points later, but I want to -- in a short version -- address three issues:

(1) I'll weigh the legal methodology argument soon.

(2) You're wrong about my weighing the EU argument less as being "interventionist." I think we just have to agree to disagree, because a source without explanation is useless. Judges should be "blank slates," i.e. they should pretend like they don"t have any outside knowledge of the topic. I really don't even understand what you"re trying to convey via the "levels of freedom" argument or how it is even important. These statistics say the EU has more freedom in freedom of speech. But you don't justify it. You just have a source with a number assigned to this. Airmax *explains* how there is less liberty to the US free speech by outlining a clear difference, i.e. hate speech laws. This argument doesn't even show how the two models are different. Just rating the two models doesn"t establish the differences, or *why* these "levels of freedom" are considered.

(3) As for privacy, what does "privacy" have to do with free speech? You didn't even link the two in your entire argument. Your argument doesn't detail how speech infringes on privacy. I agree that there are relations, but they aren't outlined in your arguments.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 4:12:56 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 3:00:46 PM, tejretics wrote:
Con brings up an argument from violence, but Con is losing this for two reasons. First, as Con himself concedes earlier (e.g. crying "fire" in a crowded theater), the US *does* have security-based protections.

This first point fails to understand how this protection works.

Let's look at my example: "We should also keep in mind that in countries with recent and deep-seated ethnic conflicts, e.g. Bosnia, hate speech laws may be essential for keeping the peace; hate speech in such countries could spark real violence."

The fire in the crowded theater example does not prohibit people from saying things that may incite others to violence. That example merely prohibits people from using speech to directly cause violence (e.g. creating a stampede). If it prevented people from inciting others to violence, than hate speech would be illegal in the USM, just as it is in the EUM. In fact, the EUM uses "inciting violence" as its justification for limiting hate speech, while the USM affirms a right to engage in hate speech.

So, this protection does not even protect what you say it does. This protection clearly would not prevent violence in Bosnia in the way the EUM rules would.

Plus, you are again making an argument Max never made. The problem with intervening like this is that you may misunderstand the very arguments you're inserting into the round, as I think I've shown.

Second, Con doesn"t explain how hate speech laws are good and fails to adequately refute Pro"s point about hate speech laws with the Bosnia example. I agree with Con that hate speech laws are necessary in Bosnia, but that still mitigates Con"s case because the US model of free speech is, on balance, *preferable.*

I'll take the mitigation. But, Max hasn't shown the USM to be better "on balance." All he can show, is that the USM is better regarding hate speech, though this offense is diminished due to the Bosnia example. Max cannot make an "on balance" claim when he talks about just 1 issue.

=========================

Could you please tell me how these weighed, or did not, in your decision:

1. "Pro drops that his focus on hate speech is not an "on balance" consideration of the topic, thereby rendering it impossible for him to affirm. My structural arguments, which I extended last round, apply system-wide. Moreover, I offered multiple examples (reporting restrictions, RTBF, and data privacy) which impact both privacy and due process rights; Pro offered just one example."

2. That strong privacy rights were necessary prerequisites for meaningful free speech. As I said in the debate: "'[P]rivacy...promotes liberty of thought and action...Freedoms such as...freedom of expression lose much of their value if people do not first have the chance to learn to think for themselves.'" And, without privacy, "'persons may hesitate to act and to participate in social and public life, which...affects the development of democratic citizens.'" I also made arguments regarding self-censorship and data permanence which are relevant here.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 4:17:01 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
The central problem with your RFD is this:

Max argues that free speech should be virtually unrestricted. I argue that it should be restricted in the face of privacy, due process, and safety concerns.

Max never justifies or grounds free speech as a good. He never offers any explanation of why free speech is so important. Moreover, he DROPS my explanations of why privacy and due process are good.

I prove that my system promotes safety (Bosnia), due process (reporting restrictions), and privacy (RTBF, digital privacy). These gains all link to clearly established goods in the round.

If Max cannot explain why free speech should not be restricted for the sake of those goods I link to, then he loses. Plain and simple. Max had to prove not just that free speech was good, but that it was more important than all other rights mentioned in the debate. Max did not do that.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 4:23:06 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 4:17:01 PM, bsh1 wrote:
The central problem with your RFD is this:

Max argues that free speech should be virtually unrestricted. I argue that it should be restricted in the face of privacy, due process, and safety concerns.

Max never justifies or grounds free speech as a good. He never offers any explanation of why free speech is so important. Moreover, he DROPS my explanations of why privacy and due process are good.

I prove that my system promotes safety (Bosnia), due process (reporting restrictions), and privacy (RTBF, digital privacy). These gains all link to clearly established goods in the round.

If Max cannot explain why free speech should not be restricted for the sake of those goods I link to, then he loses. Plain and simple. Max had to prove not just that free speech was good, but that it was more important than all other rights mentioned in the debate. Max did not do that.

I clearly explained in the RFD how those rights were irrelevant or outweighed by free speech. The safety (Bosnia) example doesn't provide a clear consideration of the topic and doesn't account for "free speech" being better. Privacy is irrelevant, and I've explained that above.

Also, what this post is doing is exactly what you accused YYW of doing in the comments section of your debate. Let me quote you:

"But suggesting that Max was the objective winner, you imply, rather strongly, than anyone who makes the opposite decision is objectively wrong. You post on the debate and you write up your RFD to signal loud and clear who is the "correct" winner, and everyone who disagrees is just flatly wrong. You have gone so far in the past as to openly mock and deride RFDs that you disagreed with."

You're essentially doing the same thing with RFD's you disagree with. While I fully accept you engaging in direct criticism of my RFD like you did with the first few posts -- and I don't feel uncomfortable doing that -- this post is essentially saying every vote that isn't for you is wrong.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 4:25:02 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Also, a sidenote: none of this discussion is personal -- I hope we will resolve it soon :)
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 4:39:05 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 4:12:38 PM, tejretics wrote:
@bsh1

I'll address your other points later, but I want to -- in a short version -- address three issues:

Cool beans. And, as I said, if you want me to stop at any point, let me know and I shall.

(1) I'll weigh the legal methodology argument soon.

Cool.

(2) You're wrong about my weighing the EU argument less as being "interventionist." I think we just have to agree to disagree, because a source without explanation is useless. Judges should be "blank slates," i.e. they should pretend like they don"t have any outside knowledge of the topic. I really don't even understand what you"re trying to convey via the "levels of freedom" argument or how it is even important. These statistics say the EU has more freedom in freedom of speech.

So, if you buy Max's arguments about hate speech, that doesn't invalidate my data. He cites one area in which the EUM is more restrictive; the data is about broad trends. It is about free speech as a whole. So, Max's argument can't really invalidate those areas where I show that EUM and USM freedom of speech levels are comparable, if not divergent in favor of the former. My RWB data also was meant to show that on the specific issue of press freedoms, the EUM outperformed the USM; this was backed up with the Jersild example.

But, my data was doing a lot more than trying to show that the "EU has more freedom in free speech" than the US. I talk about "personal freedom" in a general sense, levels of democracy, etc.

You write:

I really don't even understand what you"re trying to convey via the "levels of freedom" argument or how it is even important.

I am talking about world's here. Pro has a world with slightly more freedom in speech (slightly more because I think I engaged in some mitigation). The mitigation comes in the form of comments like this: "Pro's hate speech impacts are small, as the EUM does clearly protect lots of offensive speech and as hate speech restrictions limit just a small slice of total speech." However, Pro's world comes with less privacy, less due process, and less safety.

The Con world comes with more privacy, more due process, and more safety, and is structurally better suited to protecting these rights. While the Con world does have slightly less freedom in speech, the gains elsewhere (Pro conceded that these other rights are important) make the Con world better on balance. The Con world's "betterness" can be seen in part by the fact that it has more personal freedom overall than Pro's world. The data clearly shows this.

Let me repeat something I said earlier which is germane here: "The EUM has more freedom because it treats all rights equally, and because it doesn't sacrifice privacy and due process for the sake of free speech. This means, that Europe protects a wider variety of personal liberties than Pro does, and it means that Europe is thus freer. Pro focused on one area, and could not show that hate speech significantly harmed freedom on a statistical level--all Pro could do was advance anecdotes." Also, notice in the debate where I said: "That Europe outperforms the US in personal freedom may be explained by its unique and holistic approach to balancing rights; it treats all rights as valuable."

(3) As for privacy, what does "privacy" have to do with free speech? You didn't even link the two in your entire argument. Your argument doesn't detail how speech infringes on privacy. I agree that there are relations, but they aren't outlined in your arguments.

Tej, it didn't have to have anything to do with free speech. I think that is what you not getting in this debate.

As I said earlier: "The resolution was about 'which approach to free speech was better.' The resolution was NOT about 'which approach to free speech was better for free speech.'" If I could show the EUM was better because it promoted privacy and due process by limiting some speech, then I could win in that fashion.

And, how were they not linked? Let me go through and recap:

Data Collection - as I said in the debate: "insofar as access to information, and its distribution, is a free speech issue, this is topical."

Reporting Restrictions - the link here to free speech was obvious. Reporting restrictions stop people from divulging the names of accused persons. This is a form of (narrowly tailored) censorship.

RTBF - the link here was obvious in the same way the first two were. By deleting links to information, RTBF poses issues about access to and distribution of information. It is also a form of censorship--insofar as revenge porn (or any data about oneself put out online) is free speech, and RTBF removes it, RTBF is censorship.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 4:42:53 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 4:23:06 PM, tejretics wrote:
Also, what this post is doing is exactly what you accused YYW of doing in the comments section of your debate. Let me quote you:

Yes, which we knew would happen anyway.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 4:45:22 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 4:23:06 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/24/2016 4:17:01 PM, bsh1 wrote:
The central problem with your RFD is this:

Max argues that free speech should be virtually unrestricted. I argue that it should be restricted in the face of privacy, due process, and safety concerns.

Max never justifies or grounds free speech as a good. He never offers any explanation of why free speech is so important. Moreover, he DROPS my explanations of why privacy and due process are good.

I prove that my system promotes safety (Bosnia), due process (reporting restrictions), and privacy (RTBF, digital privacy). These gains all link to clearly established goods in the round.

If Max cannot explain why free speech should not be restricted for the sake of those goods I link to, then he loses. Plain and simple. Max had to prove not just that free speech was good, but that it was more important than all other rights mentioned in the debate. Max did not do that.

I clearly explained in the RFD how those rights were irrelevant or outweighed by free speech. The safety (Bosnia) example doesn't provide a clear consideration of the topic and doesn't account for "free speech" being better.

You didn't clearly explain how they were irrelevant. I don't even comprehend how you can think that they are not relevant. As for the Bosnia example, it goes to show that in some cases, the EUM is going to be better able to protect safety through it's limitations on hate speech.

Also, what this post is doing is exactly what you accused YYW of doing in the comments section of your debate.

Not really. I am trying to explain why I think you conception of the debate misses key points or themes. I do this by presenting arguments. These arguments may be presented in strong language (mostly for rhetorical effectiveness), but I allow for the possibility that I am not right.

YYW, however, purports to know "objective" winners. He doesn't do this for rhetorical reasons; he does this because he genuinely believes that there is an "objective" winner. Usually that objective winner is the person he dislikes least--in this case, he hates Airmax less than he hates me. He posts things like he posted to intimidate, or to signal to, people who are about to vote which way they should vote, lest they get in his bad book.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 4:46:11 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 4:25:02 PM, tejretics wrote:
Also, a sidenote: none of this discussion is personal -- I hope we will resolve it soon :)

Likewise :) Cool beans.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 4:48:48 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 4:45:22 PM, bsh1 wrote:
YYW, however, purports to know "objective" winners. He doesn't do this for rhetorical reasons; he does this because he genuinely believes that there is an "objective" winner. Usually that objective winner is the person he dislikes least--in this case, he hates Airmax less than he hates me. He posts things like he posted to intimidate, or to signal to, people who are about to vote which way they should vote, lest they get in his bad book.

I don't care what YYW does -- because it isn't relevant to me. He hasn't done that to me. But you're doing the same thing: "Airmax doesn't do X and I do X, so I win the debate," and that is the basis of your criticism of my RFD, which is essentially and rhetorically the same as "your RFD is wrong because I objectively won the debate."
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 4:49:51 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Also, I'm not denying you gave constructive criticism (which I will respond to soon), but the post I responded to was anything but constructive. It was an explanation of why you won the debate and why my decision was objectively wrong.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 4:53:13 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 4:48:48 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/24/2016 4:45:22 PM, bsh1 wrote:
YYW, however, purports to know "objective" winners. He doesn't do this for rhetorical reasons; he does this because he genuinely believes that there is an "objective" winner. Usually that objective winner is the person he dislikes least--in this case, he hates Airmax less than he hates me. He posts things like he posted to intimidate, or to signal to, people who are about to vote which way they should vote, lest they get in his bad book.

I don't care what YYW does -- because it isn't relevant to me. He hasn't done that to me. But you're doing the same thing: "Airmax doesn't do X and I do X, so I win the debate," and that is the basis of your criticism of my RFD, which is essentially and rhetorically the same as "your RFD is wrong because I objectively won the debate."

Tej, I could preface every one of those remarks with "It think I won because...," but you know that to be true. I admit, even when I do not explicitly say it, that these are my opinions and that they could be wrong. I do not hold to the notion that there are or are not objective winners or losers in debate.

I want to present my case for why I won, and to engage in that discussion with you. That is what I am doing. But, I am not so conceited as to believe that my case is objectively correct. Saying, "Airmax doesn't do X, and I do X, so I win" is me presenting my case. If it comes across badly, then I apologize. But the difference between YYW and I is one of intent and one of ego--YYW believes he is objectively right, while I don't believe the same of myself.

I would, however, be interested in your response to the substance of that post, instead of this tangential discussion.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2016 4:54:37 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 4:49:51 PM, tejretics wrote:
Also, I'm not denying you gave constructive criticism (which I will respond to soon), but the post I responded to was anything but constructive. It was an explanation of why you won the debate and why my decision was objectively wrong.

The post was supposed to be a summary of everything I had said up until that point, to succinctly frame my main argument. If it was presented as objective, I apologize. It was not meant that way.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 12:11:20 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Tej, I am going to ask you not to read YYW's RFD, so as not to unintentionally bias yourself in anyway, but I want to post this excerpt of my commentary of his RFD here, because it is extraordinarily relevant to something we're discussing regarding your RFD.

===============

4. "while he does *mention* rights like "due process," and "privacy," or "autonomy," he does nothing to connect them to free speech."

Insofar as I show how the USM's strict approach to free speech hurts due process, privacy, safety, and any other right or good I mentioned, I connected them to free speech.

If the USM's approach to free speech harms enough other rights that "personal freedom" as a whole is damaged, as I think my data likely shows that it is, then the Con world is better, even with restricted free speech.

===============

In fact, I would add further that if I can protect more rights better, then I am doing more work "on balance" than Pro in terms of rights protection.

Remember the weighing standard I initially proposed: "The winner of this debate, therefore, will be the one who can show that their rights-model best situates and balances free speech among a pantheon of other rights and social goods." By upholding privacy, due process, and safety better than Pro, without major losses in free speech, I do exactly what the weighing standard here calls for.

Unless Max was able to show that free speech was so inviolate that damaging all those other rights and goods was worth it, then I don't think he meets the standard. And, I don't think Max did enough work to show that free speech was inviolate.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 3:29:38 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
@bsh1

Once more, just a broad response:

1. I have to weigh hate speech against the "levels of freedom" argument. I had a tough time doing that, since you were winning on structure and were clearly the stronger debater at least in that sense--but the problem was, you didn't elucidate with the "levels of freedom" argument what the differences between the EUM and the USM are. At the start of the debate, I googled the definitions to each of the models because I literally had no position on the issue, et cetera, and couldn't find clear differences either--but the only differences articulated within the debate are "levels of freedom" and "hate speech." The former doesn't clearly elucidate what the difference is, only that there *is* a difference. Without that explanation, hate speech outweighs.

2. I really missed where you connected privacy, due process, et cetera to the free speech models. I don't see how any of them are relevant to free speech at all. I agree that privacy is important and you showed that (though I would certainly disagree you properly weighed it against free speech, or that Airmax failed to elucidate how free speech is important), but you didn't show how the model of free speech in the respective countries hinders privacy. You did explain how the EU had the right-to-be-forgotten and similar rights, but you didn't explain what that has to do with free speech at all.

Point #1 is a fundamental disagreement on how to judge debates--I think we're just going to go back and forth on that endlessly, so I'd appreciate if we could just agree to disagree on that point.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 3:33:40 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 3:29:38 AM, tejretics wrote:
@bsh1

Once more, just a broad response:

I would prefer a line-by-line reply if possible. If only because this makes sure nothing is overlooked.

1. but the only differences articulated within the debate are "levels of freedom" and "hate speech." The former doesn't clearly elucidate what the difference is, only that there *is* a difference. Without that explanation, hate speech outweighs.

This is false. ALL of my examples are differences. The free speech protections in the USM are so strong that they prohibit things like RTBF, data collection, and reporting restrictions. This is a tangible difference between the two system. Plus, the EUM has less red tape and is structurally designed to force balance.

2. I really missed where you connected privacy, due process, et cetera to the free speech models. I don't see how any of them are relevant to free speech at all. I agree that privacy is important and you showed that (though I would certainly disagree you properly weighed it against free speech, or that Airmax failed to elucidate how free speech is important), but you didn't show how the model of free speech in the respective countries hinders privacy. You did explain how the EU had the right-to-be-forgotten and similar rights, but you didn't explain what that has to do with free speech at all.

I did this, because--in EACH one of those examples (RTBF, data collection, and reporting restrictions)--I explained that these things were legal in the EUM, but illegal in the USM.

Point #1 is a fundamental disagreement on how to judge debates--I think we're just going to go back and forth on that endlessly, so I'd appreciate if we could just agree to disagree on that point.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 3:34:21 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
1. "Pro drops that his focus on hate speech is not an "on balance" consideration of the topic, thereby rendering it impossible for him to affirm. My structural arguments, which I extended last round, apply system-wide. Moreover, I offered multiple examples (reporting restrictions, RTBF, and data privacy) which impact both privacy and due process rights; Pro offered just one example."

I did make it an "on balance" consideration as a judge. The whole point of impact calculus is an "on balance" consideration; and my impact analysis weighed everything. I discarded whatever was irrelevant, or at least what wasn't explained to be relevant, and the proper weighing was between hate speech laws and levels of freedom; the former outweighed the latter for the reasons explained in my RFD.

2. That strong privacy rights were necessary prerequisites for meaningful free speech. As I said in the debate: "'[P]rivacy...promotes liberty of thought and action...Freedoms such as...freedom of expression lose much of their value if people do not first have the chance to learn to think for themselves.'" And, without privacy, "'persons may hesitate to act and to participate in social and public life, which...affects the development of democratic citizens.'" I also made arguments regarding self-censorship and data permanence which are relevant here.

I also weighed this; I agree that you showed privacy is important, but you didn't show that privacy is relevant.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 3:36:18 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 3:33:40 AM, bsh1 wrote:

What does RTBF have to do with free speech? What about data collection? Reporting restrictions?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 3:38:56 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 3:36:18 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/25/2016 3:33:40 AM, bsh1 wrote:

What does RTBF have to do with free speech? What about data collection? Reporting restrictions?

Data Collection - as I said in the debate: "insofar as access to information, and its distribution, is a free speech issue, this is topical."

Reporting Restrictions - the link here to free speech was obvious. Reporting restrictions stop people from divulging the names of accused persons. This is a form of (narrowly tailored) censorship.

RTBF - the link here was obvious in the same way the first two were. By deleting links to information, RTBF poses issues about access to and distribution of information. It is also a form of censorship--insofar as revenge porn (or any data about oneself put out online) is free speech, and RTBF removes it, RTBF is censorship.

===========

In other words, the USM's strong protections of free speech make these three things (in the versions that I argued them) entirely illegal in the US. They are not illegal in the EU.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 3:40:14 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 3:34:21 AM, tejretics wrote:
2. That strong privacy rights were necessary prerequisites for meaningful free speech. As I said in the debate: "'[P]rivacy...promotes liberty of thought and action...Freedoms such as...freedom of expression lose much of their value if people do not first have the chance to learn to think for themselves.'" And, without privacy, "'persons may hesitate to act and to participate in social and public life, which...affects the development of democratic citizens.'" I also made arguments regarding self-censorship and data permanence which are relevant here.

I also weighed this; I agree that you showed privacy is important, but you didn't show that privacy is relevant.

If privacy is necessary for meaningful free speech, and the USM damages privacy, how is this not relevant?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 3:40:59 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 3:40:14 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 3/25/2016 3:34:21 AM, tejretics wrote:
2. That strong privacy rights were necessary prerequisites for meaningful free speech. As I said in the debate: "'[P]rivacy...promotes liberty of thought and action...Freedoms such as...freedom of expression lose much of their value if people do not first have the chance to learn to think for themselves.'" And, without privacy, "'persons may hesitate to act and to participate in social and public life, which...affects the development of democratic citizens.'" I also made arguments regarding self-censorship and data permanence which are relevant here.

I also weighed this; I agree that you showed privacy is important, but you didn't show that privacy is relevant.

If privacy is necessary for meaningful free speech, and the USM damages privacy, how is this not relevant?

I think our disagreement is on the "USM damages privacy" point. I'll address your points soon.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 3:41:54 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/24/2016 4:00:34 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 3/24/2016 3:00:33 PM, tejretics wrote:

Repeating this because it's relevant.

What does privacy have to do with free *speech*?

This sentence just misunderstands what the debate was about.

The resolution was about "which approach to free speech was better." The resolution was NOT about "which approach to free speech was better for free speech."

Our impacts did not have to rely on free speech to be topical, insofar as we showed that our approaches to free speech created better or worse worlds than our opponent. In other words, this debate did not require Max or I to show that we upheld free speech best; it just required us to show that our approach to free speech led to outcomes more desirable (these outcomes did not have to relate to free speech itself) than our opponent's approach.

The argument from values doesn"t do much to advance Con"s BOP, because he doesn"t explain the link between privacy and the resolution.

This is false for all the reasons I just explained.

Con has reasons to support privacy, but he doesn"t explain how the right to be forgotten and the privacy protections are important to the debate.

They are important to the debate because, let me quote Max quoting me: "'"The winner of this debate, therefore, will be the one who can show that their rights-model best situates and balances free speech among a pantheon of other rights and social goods.' This breaks it down perfectly."

The EUM protects privacy and due process better than the USM, because it is willing to limit a small slice of the total world of free speech to ensure that these goals--which are extremely important, as I explained in my Values section and which Max dropped--are protected.

Moreover, these arguments go to show that my world, that the effect of the EUM on society and freedom writ large--is more desirable, on balance, because it protects more rights than just free speech.

Max never proved that free speech should be the paramount value, over things like privacy and due process. He never even once gave a justification (beyond mere bare assertion) for why free speech was good. Because of that, he cannot prove that his world is better, because he cannot prove that a world that sacrifices other values for the sake of free speech is worth those sacrifices.

Con"s argument from privacy also doesn"t measure it to the US. He says "privacy is good, and the EU has it more than the US," but he doesn"t weigh the impact.

I weigh the impact of my values as much as Max weighs the impact of his hate speech arguments. Max selected examples that contrasted the EUM and USM, and then said, "see, we protect free speech better." I selected examples that contrasted the EUM and USM and said, "see, I protect more rights better."
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 3:42:30 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Tej has asked that the discussion cease, and I will honor his request.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 3:42:51 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 3:37:50 AM, Hayd wrote:
I'll jump in on this in an hour or two

I'd rather keep this discussion between Bsh1 and me.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass