The Instigator
Con (against)
6 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points


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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/15/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,338 times Debate No: 59014
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I will be taking the position Con of Censorship.

You may have to sign into youtube to watch this video, as it is rated MA.

My beginning argument on this case is that censorship is unconstitutional.

If you noticed my most recent debate (on Separation/Church/State), the First Amendment says that there is a right to freedom of speech, and the freedom of press.

Now, before I go into this, I want to talk about that. My father always argues with me on the meaning of this. He always says that the Constitution was written with the word of God in mind, so the Founding Fathers wouldn't protect profane words, because the Bible says to control your speech and don't speak profane things.
The reason I bring this up is for liability in my case. As I said, if you saw my recent debate, you'll notice how I went into the First Amendment's first clause in historical terms.
The freedom of speech and press, I do believe, was indeed written with the word of God in mind, as religion (I believe) was the sole basis of the revolt in Europe.

To say that the Founding Fathers would disapprove of "profane language" due to the Word of God while writing the First Amendment wouldn't make any sense, because they just assured that there would be no establishing of religion. So, to not protect profanity because of religious purposes would kick the First Amendment in the rear. (After all, in the fifth definition of "Profane" according to, is common or vulgar. And I'm sure our own Fathers weren't so perfect in their speech.)

So, back to the initial argument, censorship is prohibition of free speech and press, thus violates the Constitution.

In the way I see "press" is of course, and obviously, newspapers, but it can cover magazines and other forms of public communication.
And since the Fathers designed the Constitution with the ability to withstand times of change, it can only be ethical to say that "press" can constitute television, radio, movies, et cetera, et cetera.

I hope I will have fun, as well as whoever debates me.


Yes Censorship is unconstitutional, but do you know what else is? Not allowing me to bring an AK-47 to a Middle School class room (look at the 2nd Amendment). But just because its "unconstitutional" doesn't mean we should be allowed to do it. Do you think West Bureau Baptist Church should be allowed to protest peoples funerals holding signs saying "Your Son Deserved to Die" or "God Sends Gays to Hell"? it's unconstitutional to tell them not to, but should they really have the right. What about employers not hiring people because of their race or sex. Is it not their constitutional freedom to hire whoever they want? If you look in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they both state how the laws are suppose to be altered throughout the times so we passed laws saying that a kids show can't say "f### her in the a##" or "kill that mother f###" even if it has no sexual or violent content. Also censorship has become almost non existent thanks to rating systems that deem content for everyone to mature content.
And to comment on your arguments above, its not a religious or Christian debate for censorship. Its a debate to not show the bloodied corpse of a dead hooker on the day time news; a debate on whether a parent wants their kids to see some content and the privacy all of us deserve in life or death
Debate Round No. 1


No, it is not Constitutional not to bring an AK47 to school; it is illegal if you use that with bloodlust on small children.

Also, the only reason I brought up the whole religious argument was for liability reasons, as stated.

Whatever your expression is, it is your right to practice it, so long as it is peaceful. When churches protest "God Hates F*****s," it is completely constitutional for them to do so, as long as they are not pointing a gun at someone's head, saying, "This is true, right? I'll shoot you if you don't believe this is true." Their right is completely protected, and whether or not it should be is, as said, protected in the First Amendment.

On the concern of employment, I find that irrelevant. I'm not talking about the right to fire or not hire people, I'm talking about the right of expression. (However, I believe privately owned businesses have all the rights to; it would be trouble if you walk into a McDonald's wanting to get a job, but they won't hire you because your black, Asian, or gay.)

I also deem rating systems unconstitutional, because they're prohibiting, again, freedom of speech and expression.

When it comes to television, if you don't want your kid to see something, then don't let them watch it. You seem to know what they show on the news, so with that basis, if you don't approve of it, don't let your kid watch it.

My belief is that the FCC, and the MPAA are prohibiting the First Amendment.

Oh, and thank you for accepting my argument.


PresidentGator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


No further argument.


PresidentGator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FF

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.