The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Hate Speech should be censored

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Knaveslayer99 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 616 times Debate No: 116614
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Hate Speech is defined as "speech that is intended to insult, offend, or intimidate a person because of some trait (as race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or disability)" according to Merriam-Webster. With the political left trying to censor speech they don't agree with as hate speech. What must be understood is that regardless of one's personal views on what is or is not insulting, offensive or intimidating so-called "Hate Speech" is still free speech and should not be censored.


I will happily accept this debate.

Hate Speech is nothing more then a fiendish way to abuse the ideal and belief of Free Speech in that sense to sneak in messages of hate and action to be carried out by a particular race, sex or religion. Hate Speech is created with the intent to radicalize people to a brutal belief that invites those under it to carry out acts of hate by attacking people. No one who advocates for Free Speech will go out of there way to hurt or harm someone in the name of Free Speech however those who believe in Hate Speech being Free Speech will happily abuse the system to spread messages of hate and action and we should not give a stage to those who believe in the genocide, racism or sexism.

Encouraging a system that can allow those who are filled with hatred to abuse it so they can spread messages of harming and harrassing others is not supporting a system that promotes Free Speech but rather Hate Speech.
Debate Round No. 1


Who gets to decide what is racist or sexist or pro-genocide? If abortion was seen as a genocide would that allow pro-choice people to be censored? Can data or research be racist or sexist, should certain fields of study be censored? People with terrible ideas can be dismissed through open discourse. When dissenting ideas are censored, one must wonder when their own ideas are no longer free. How can one objectively say what is or isn't hate speech, when hate speech itself is subjective. For example, the pedophiles would consider saying something like "Pedophiles are disgusting" to be hate speech because they consider themselves to be Minor-Attracted-People. Whether someone is hurt by words is subjective, one person could be called X and not care while another person feels upset by it. So is something always "Hate Speech" or when a certain type of person says it or if it is just said to a certain type of person? How does censoring someone's speech help society in any way?
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by iTziPocalyspe 3 years ago
@Phenenas Where is the strawman?
Posted by Phenenas 3 years ago
This strawman argument has more straw than all the goddamn fields of Iowa.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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