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

Hate speech should be crimialized

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
AdolfMosley has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2021 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 498 times Debate No: 127163
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

billsands

Pro

Some thngs are so loathsome to say so hurtful inciteful so dangerous and toxic they must be criminalized and the villians who utter them should be jailed and treated for mental illness
AdolfMosley

Con

Oy vey, These goyim think they should be able to express their free speech. Why are the goyim questioning me.

You people are really awful. Why do you Jews always advocate for the abolition of free speech. The ADL has been going wild lately on partnering with social media sites and creating ai bots to detect and identify racism on various social media platforms.

. No more jew role play.

I find it strange how Jews love the idea of authoritarianism when it benefits them, But they petition against it when it exists in any form which does not directly benefit them.

Jew man, I don"t know what else you want, In most countries I already can"t speak out against the legitimacy of the holocaust, I can"t even provide a revised number without having to go to court. In most countries it would be illegal for me to discriminate against you in any way, Even just verbally on the basis of your race, Gender or religion.

Honestly Jew, You already won, What do you want now.

Before I can continue, I think I need to understand what you specifically interpret hate speech as, And what needs to be done to combat it
Debate Round No. 1
billsands

Pro

words can kill or get you killed oswald have a care they incite what do i mean i mean fighting words already a limitation Fighting words are, As first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942), Words which "by their very utterance, Inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

Fighting Words | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
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
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by billsands 5 months ago
billsands
google fighting words doctrine for an answer
Posted by Surgeon 5 months ago
Surgeon
Yes and it was Aristotle who showed us the any virtue taken to the extreme is a vice. So it is with "kindness". You are essentially advocating outlawing and imprisoning people for an emotion (hate), Where you or someone else gets to deem (from on high) what hate is or isn't. What right have you got, Or does anyone else have, Or worse still does the machinery of an all powerful state have, To legislate what is acceptable for the populace to think or say? It is race to the bottom where the whining resentful under-acheivers in society, Can attempt to silence others through rhetoric (this is the defining cultural quality of Socialism and Fascism).

Everyone should be allowed to say exactly what they think short of direct and immediate incitement to violence. If that speech encourages others to act upon their words, It is not the fault of the orator but the person comitting the act. I do not for example blame Obama for stirring up hatred against the police (using false rheotirc), For the subsequent police shootings that followed. There is no direct line. The people commiting these violent acts are doing that through their own free-will and autonomy and should be punished as such. To blame the orator, Is to rob humanity of its own autonomy. Hitlaer, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Min, Mao et al could not have had the impact they had, Without the autonomy of their followers backed by force and "speech laws". Lets us not forget the land in which speech laws and political correctness was born and promoted to the UN, Was the totalitarian Soviet Russia.

Under your schema there is a good argument to ban the works of Karl Marx because he promoted hate against a class in society. Whilst I would be opposed to everything in the demonstrably failed agenda of Marxism. I would NOT ban it given it is part of our tradition, Causes us to think, To challenge our own assumptions and debate. Socialists and Fascists alike do not want debate, Only compliance with their arbitrary whims.
Posted by billsands 5 months ago
billsands
wen iesnehower entered the camps he told his soldiers to fil meverything because he know nazi sympathizers would deny it ever hapend but thee is so much documentation, You hate us because we rule over you and rightfully so we are smart and good with money and science we beat you accept your inferiority and that you deserv to be ruled over by the superior jew, You should be hapy we give you any right at all, You get to whine and snivel here don't you? Face it we rule you because we beat you more or less fair and square
Posted by AdolfMosley 5 months ago
AdolfMosley
I love how just 30 minutes ago you were claiming that its possible that you are partially jewish and now youre fully embracing it.

No, I hate jews for a lot of different reasons and they do not include your marginal iq difference.

Is specifically saying that it was less than 6, 000, 000an example of hate speech or incitement of violence?
Posted by billsands 5 months ago
billsands
you know why you hate jews because we outsmart your traler trash butt the only speech i opose is that which incir=tes violence and the is precendet in fighting words constittuiona rulings
Posted by AdolfMosley 5 months ago
AdolfMosley
So you believe that people with non-conforming ideas should only be confronted with the power of the state if they refuse to argue their stated opinions or if they force their followers to refuse to argue. ?
I agree that logical conclusions should be made whenever possible in the form of a general consensus, However, What danger does a statement without a proceeding discussion/argument truly pose to a society?
Posted by AdolfMosley 5 months ago
AdolfMosley
I havent read paradox of freedom, Ive actually never heard of it. Ill try and find a pdf of it somewhere
Posted by billsands 5 months ago
billsands
"The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, Since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, In a slightly different form, And with very different tendency, Clearly expressed in Plato.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, If we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, Then the tolerant will be destroyed, And tolerance with them. " In this formulation, I do not imply, For instance, That we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, Suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, But begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, Because it is deceptive, And teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, In the name of tolerance, The right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, And we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, In the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, Or to kidnapping, Or to the revival of the slave trade, As criminal. "

R13; Karl Raimund Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies
Posted by billsands 5 months ago
billsands
well for the record i attended the church of the bethany covenant and became a methodist later, I am now agnostc never even been in synogue, There might be a iny bit of jew blood in me consideringwhere we came from was famous as a jewish centro of culture and leanring prolly why i have a 135 iq jews are smart
have you ever read the rradox of freedom by karl popper?
Posted by AdolfMosley 5 months ago
AdolfMosley
Jew: "hate speech and incitement of violence should not be allowe"
Also Jew: "i want you to die a terrible death thats what i want"

every time, Its always the jews
This debate has 2 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.