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

Should We have hate speech laws?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Anonymous 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: 2/12/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 521 times Debate No: 107908
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




I think hate speech laws are horrible and can easily be used to prevent people from having opinions, or expressing those opinions, and is a total violation of free speech.


My position in this debate is that hate speech laws should be in place.

Contention 1: Hate speech can cause psychological harm
Hate speech against kids especially is a terrible thing because unlike adults they do not know how to handle mean words being said to them. Things that are said to them when they are young, they will remember them for the rest of their life and ultimately change the person they become.

Contention 2: Hate speech has physical effects
I am sure you have heard the phrase, "sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me"
This is entirely incorrect. Hate speech has sometimes resulted in suicide for many kids and even adults. It can make them think in the moment that life is really not worth living if I am going to be treated poorly verbally. This is why we need hate speech laws. Without them, suicide rates will go up simply because of verbal harassment.

Hate speech laws should be in place because it has not only psychological effects, but physical effects which includes suicide.
Debate Round No. 1


I am against bullying of any kind but how do you think kids learn about the real world? You can't tell people what to think or say, freedom of speech is the right of expression and if you are forced to not say something that is a violation of that human right. If someone is going to commit suicide from some random stranger telling them to kill themselves it is not a problem that them saying things is going to solve. Coming from someone who had an environment as where people insulted each other often, it is only harming to those with problems left to a psychiatrist, or other treatment. Not forcing people to only be able to say this or that, but no these is way to authoritarian to be morally justifiable in modern society.
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
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
@missmedic inciting physical violence is not free speech, it is against the law and is an actual threat to someone's safety, verbal assault is complete nonsense, and if you are offended by someone insulting you to the point of wanting to kill yourself you should seek professional help, not suppress those who disagree with you.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
Hate speech is a non category. There is only speech. Any other standard, for example those claiming an act of speech is hatred because it offends them, are placing the onus on the speaker to read the minds of an entire audience. I am afraid if people feel bad about hearing stuff the onus is on them to toughen up and respond with their own valid arguments, not to silence a speaker. Silencing the speaker is a totalitarian act common on the left, because their arguments are vapid and do not stand up to criticism. To be prepared to tell the truth might offend, as for example Galileo found out to his cost.

Objectively there are few exceptions to this. Mainly speech only becomes harmful when it incites an immediate threat of physical harm or actively suborns physical violence. More subjectively some acts of sedition could also fall into this category, but that is also problematic.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
What if you walked in to a crowded theater and yelled "fire", your right to free speech would kill people.
Verbal assault and physical assault is still assault.
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.