The Instigator
rowey2000
Pro (for)
The Contender
Neuroguy23
Con (against)

That we should restrict free speech to combat the rise of right wing populism

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
Neuroguy23 has forfeited round #3.
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: 3/4/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 3,545 times Debate No: 110151
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

rowey2000

Pro

Right-wing populist parties, individuals, and activists worldwide are a threat to minorities and to democracies. Side government solves this problem. I think courts should decide if these are right-wing populists using five criteria:

1. Nativism (ie. the scapegoating of immigrants and ethnic minorities)
2. Hostility towards elites (especially institutions like the media and the courts)
3. An accessible or authoritarian approach to law and order
4. A disregard for political correctness and truth
5. A shallow policy agenda designed to appeal to as many people as possible in order to spread their coalition

What does it look like - Trump in the US, Duterte in the Philippines, the AFD in Germany.

To deal with these individuals and groups, this house would institute a range of restrictions on the free speech of political parties and practice. That goes from shutting down websites and individuals which advocate on their behalfs like Breitbart, not reporting on them in the media or allowing them to speak in town hall events, banning them from social media or in some cases being happy to ban them from contesting elections entirely. That's an extension of the precedent set in the banning of the neo-nazi party in Germany and of states around the world in banning hate speech. It is important to note that while the unique phenomenon of right-wing populism is a problem today were a similar problem to arise with left wing populism I would support this policy there.

I have two burdens in this debate:
1. To show you that this policy is justified
2. To show you that this is an effective way of dealing with the danger that right-wing populist present

With that in mind, here are my three arguments:
1. I combat the threat to minorities
2. This harms the development of solutions to the problems which lead to right-wing populists coming about at all
3. This is a fundamental affront to democracy

Before I move on to my first argument about how I actually combat the threat to minorities, there are two principal parameters within which this debate takes place:

1. That democracy necessitates a balance of Rights. The rights of individuals sometimes contradict each other. For example, my right to wave my wand in the air contradicts my friend's right not to get poked in the eye. I believe that protecting the most vulnerable from physical harm weighs up more than the ability of certain individuals to have freedom of speech. This will be principally dealt with in this argument

2. That democracy can only happen if it's truth led. When you have our anti-truth you forfeit your right to the protection of free speech. That will be dealt with principally in my second round.

My first argument which is about how I combat the threat to minority groups. Right-wing populism thrives on riling people up and channelling that anger. That's because right-wing populists are overwhelmingly problem and not solution oriented. This is strategic because it means these parties are able to appeal to diverse coalitions of individuals often with very little in common. For example, someone living in a trailer park in northern Florida has basically nothing in common with a soccer mom living in the Midwest, but they united by being broadly disaffected with the status quo. However. the policy demands of these people economically and socially are very different. Therefore, in order to maintain this populist coalition right-wing populist parties do two things:
Firstly, they promise very shallow things - they have very unspecific policies or unsubstantiated catch-all 'magic wand' policies.
Secondly, they focus on the problems that their followers face as opposed to the solutions which divide them. In an attempt to flatten the causes of these problems into something can easily be solved they often blame minority groups for all of these issues. That is drug dealers in the Philippines, Mexicans in the US, Moroccans in the Netherlands are blamed for all of the problems which the followers of populist parties face.
The reason that blaming minorities leads to increased violence is threefold. The first is that they take the anger that individuals have and they direct it at a minority for a political advantage. This anger goes beyond normal anger because the issues that these individuals are facing every single day suddenly becomes tied to minorities. Secondly, they change permission mechanisms because they make violent and racist views mainstream. That means people think it's okay to be or act racistly because views have been legitimized by others, whether in rallies or in votes. Thirdly, when these populist parties get in power - because they can't implement legitimate policies
without alienating a segment of their voter base, they're forced to use discriminatory policies to distract from their failure to solve problems. So Trump is forced to try and implement a Muslim ban to distract from the fact that he can't actually solve the problems that his voters are facing without alienating other parts of his voter base. What are the impacts of this - you create a society where minorities live in fear. Fear of
being attacked. Fear of being spat on on their way to school. Fear of not being able to get a job because they're discriminated against in interviews. In extreme cases, their freedom of movement is restricted when they're too afraid to leave their homes.
Look, I don't think it's surprising that in the aftermath of the brexit vote hate crimes went up 40%! That during the US presidential election, hate crimes against religious and ethnic minorities went up 41%! That's not surprising, and my policy solves this by reducing the ability of right-wing populist to spread their hatred.

My second argument is about how this harms the development of solutions which affect the disaffected. Look, I think there's a legitimate debate to be had over some of these issues. I think disenfranchised people's concerns unquestionably should be listened to and there's a conversation that we should have about...for example, how
undocumented workers are able to undercut wages. Why does the free speech of right-wing populist actually undermine that debate? Two reasons - first, because it drags politics to the right-wing populist gutter. Right-wing populist try to take chunks out of the voters of centrist parties by doing things like scapegoating minorities. Those centrist parties are therefore forced to move to the right in order to try and keep hold of those voters. The DPP in Denmark was able to pull the Danish Liberal Party right
to the point when a party that previously was pro-immigration and asylum seekers ran on a platform of explicitly limiting the number of asylum seekers able to come into that country. The second way that right-wing populists distort politics is they harm the development of solutions. This is a lack of nuance in the language that these politicians use. Populist campaigners use charisma and shocking language to get free airtime and to show themselves to be saying what the people are thinking. Other parties, in order to compete, are forced to also use shock tactics. So One Nation in Australia was able to change the debate on immigration to the point when 'the yellow
peril' was a phrase that was actually commonly used. You can't have a proper political debate when the language that you're using is ominous - when you're conflating asylum seekers and refugees and immigrants in a way that only populist parties force politics to do.

On my side the house, we're able to escape the noise of populism. We're able to rise above the din, and we're able to have a conversation between centrist politicians which leads to actual, nuanced, legitimate solutions to these problems. In Canada, they were able to have a conversation about immigration free from the noise of populists, which means they were able to impose an immigration policy that is actually fair and that actually helps the individuals on the ground.
Neuroguy23

Con

First of all I would like to apologize for any mistakes I might make during this debate since this is my first debate on this website (I signed up a couple of hours ago). Feel free to let me know should I make any rookie mistakes.

I will start my counter-argument by stating that freedom of speech is the most important element in a democratic society. Without freedom of speech there is no democracy.

http://news.cornell.edu...

I will also talk about populism rather than right-wing populism because populism is the same whether it comes from the left or from the right. It is divisive, distractionary, and collectivist. Populism creates societal pressure by polarizing people into highly opposing groups, be it the elite vs the people (left wing populism) or the immigrants vs the natives (right wing populism).

https://www.theguardian.com...

Yes, populism is dangerous and it creates social tension. And yes there is a positive correlation between populism and crime rate. What you are advocating for, here, is that by imposing restrictions on free speech, populists would not find the avenues to communicate with the people and therefore they would never come to power and implement their dangerous agenda. This is a very 'the end justifies the means' approach which I am sure you will agree is not the way to go in a civilized society.

In your first argument you outline how populism maintains its heterogeneous following by having unspecific policies and by blaming minority groups which in turn leads to the rise of hate crimes. I find this argument flawed not because that populism does not positively correlate with a rise in crime rates but because it is just that -a correlation. The way you lay out your argument suggests that populism creates racism and xenophobia as if it was not there before. The matter of the fact is that racism in society is always there but finds its way into the mainstream through the rise of populist movements. The rise in hate crimes you mention is transient and subsides with time.

https://www.gov.uk...

While it is worrisome that the rise of populism creates an outlet for racism and 'legitimizes' peoples' actions, and spikes in hate crimes are observed, by eradicating populism you would only achieve the elimination of those spikes in hate crimes -not the baseline hate crime rate that is the bulk of the problem.

In your second argument you suggest that the free speech of populists undermines the debates that have to be had over socioeconomic issues that plague capitalist societies. You talk about central parties having to move to the right (or to the left I will have to add) in order to not lose voters to populist parties. Political parties are living organisms so to speak. They are comprised of representatives of the people and are a reflection of the people. Political parties move their position on the political compass all the time in order to gain or to not lose votes. Those moves however are instigated by shifts in societal thinking. It is the people who create pressures in the political system and make parties to adopt certain policies. Those societal shifts might create new populist parties that will then make other parties move to the left or the right but the instigation happens within the society. I am afraid that if politics is dragged to populist gutter that is because the electorate is of that level. A below average electorate explains the second point you make about populists using shocking language. When you have a below average electorate you can use charisma and shock tactics to appeal to their emotions and manipulate them because they lack a logical brain.

The only way to have an electorate that is above average, intellectual, and has a logical brain is by educating it. And the only way to educate it is through free speech. You have to be willing to challenge views, to go to the gutter and rise above it in order to show to people that the alternatives are magic thinking. By curtailing free speech you create echo chambers that relax the "muscle" of logic. All policies should always be debated and challenged if we want progression in society. By restricting free speech you also create a slippery slope. If we start restricting what we find inconvenient now, who is to say that 10 years down the line more and more restrictions start happening and lead to individuals not being free.

I feel that the argument you make assumes a very passive electorate that is a victim to the whims of politicians when in fact it is the exact opposite. The electorate is one of the driving forces between changes in the political landscape. Politicians do not shape the views of people (at least not to the extent that you make out they do) they merely act on them. In the end, if we restrict free speech in order to combat populism, we will end up disenfranchising people even more because they will not have the outlets they want. And disenfranchised people are the second worse enemy to democracy. The worst enemy? Restriction of free speech.
Debate Round No. 1
rowey2000

Pro

It is problematic for side opposition to deny the racist vitriol that is not only endemic when we look at actual examples of right wing populists on the ground " the Front National in France, Trump in the US, Duterte in the Philippines, the list goes on"but is the cause of hate crime. But second of all, when I gave you three mechanisms as to why this kind of racist vitriol is not only endemic and the result of the fact that they have a very wide but very shallow coalition, but is almost inevitably transferred to minorities, they still denied it caused physical harm. That"s not good enough from side opposition.
In this round, I"m going to bring you an argument as to how right-wing populism constitutes a fundamental affront to democracy and the right of every else in a democracy who do not vote for these people. But before that, two pieces of rebuttal. They told you that free speech is an inherent part of democracy and without it we simply cannot function as a society, and the only evidence they give you for this is an article that says so. I have two responses to this:

1.Do you therefore support hate speech?
2.Freedom of speech is an American constitutional right, but it is not a right in all democracies. Australia for example has no clauses that protect free speech in their constitution. Considering this would be a global policy their argument that free speech is inherent is incorrect.

The second thing they bring us is idea of echo chambers and that these are voicing concerns that would otherwise be avoided. Three responses here:
1.They concede - in their very generic characterisation of freedom of speech - that there are circumstances under which we are happy to tell people that they cannot vote for an individual. That is if I can prove to you that there harms to the wider society " either democratic norms of that society or specific minority groups are undermined, I win this debate. Because that is why side opposition does not believe that people should be able to vote for the neo-Nazi party and in doing so they can see that democracy must operate within a range.
2.They give us no analysis as to why addressing the concerns of these people is unique to right-wing populists, and rather just right-wing movements.
3.This falls because they fundamentally must prove to you that the benefits afforded to these people are actually achieved. I gave you structured analysis in my first argument that has not been responded to, which is how the shallowness of the coalition of right wing parties means you do not help the people that fundamentally give you their democratic mandate.

Okay now onto my argument that right-wing populism affronts democracy. I think right-wing populism undermines the integrity of democracy and is therefore a threat to the democratic rights of all because it poisons real democratic debate. There is some context we need to understand for this argument to make sense. First, right-wing populists abuse the truth and shift their stances. That is of their broad but shallow coalitions, brought together by conflicting vague promises (i.e. they promise simultaneously to slash Obamacare but also to provide welfare to those in need). We put the example of Duterte as someone who literally has a team of 20 people hired to act as internet trolls and spread misinformation on the Internet. Second of all, they dress up their opponents as conspiratorial elites and fundamentally use that as a tool to not engage with them. They demonize their opponents and consequently when you try and challenge someone like Duterte or Trump, the response you get is "see, see! This is exactly what the liberal media is doing time and time again". They play the victim of legitimate sources of news. Third thing is that they rely on propagating fear and prejudice, again because they cannot unite tech coalition through legitimate policy, because the people they draw together are drawn on vague and conflicting terms. The take away from this argument is that the key tenant the key appeal of lots of these individuals is inherently irrational. They rely on the propagation of a fear that probably should not exist. All of these fundamentally undermine the debate necessary to productive competitive electoral politics. Why? First, because when you twist and muddy the truth of a debate you challenge the reality in response to which that debate existed in the first place. When fake news and alternative facts are placed on the same pedestal as actual factual realities you can't have a functional discussion about certain issues. You cannot have a functional discussion about undocumented workers in the United States when it is a fact that Mexicans are rapists in the same way that is a fact that Nieto is the President of Mexico. Second of all, likewise you also cannot have a debate between two reasonable sites that engage with each other and provide for the voter fundamentally - that is which of these two options is probably better for your interests - when one of those sites systematically fails to engage with the other. This is because they use literally who those other people are as a way of attacking these individuals rather than attacking policies and secondly, they have terrorized the people that support them and struck fear into their hearts to the extent that they will not hear logical reason.

The second strand of this argument is that these individuals attack the very framework of democracy. Part of their anti-establishment narrative on which they rely is to attack institutions like courts, like electoral processes. That is why we see individuals like Donald Trump not only threatening to punish the courts if they get into power but refusing to accept election results. Democracy relies on the balance of power. That is supported both by the fact you give a massive mandate to the individual that you give you a vote to, but also by the fact that there are some checks and balances by an independent body to stop that person abusing that power. Democracy is fundamentally perverted when justices and the courts are fundamentally too afraid to do their job.

The takeaway of this whole argument is twofold " first, if you weigh this debate based on democratic integrity and the rights of individuals, the very presence of right-wing populists makes it harder for people on the ground to come to terms with who they are voting for, why they are supporting that person, and ultimately what they should draw out of that. I would draw the analogy to perjury insofar as I"m happy to limit free speech in the short term if it ensures the integrity of a process that is vital to our society in the long run. So proud to propose.
Neuroguy23

Con

In response to Pro critiquing my explanation of the correlation between populism and hate crimes I will once again say the same thing: "In your first argument you outline how populism maintains its heterogeneous following by having unspecific policies and by blaming minority groups which in turn leads to the rise of hate crimes. I find this argument flawed not because that populism does not positively correlate with a rise in crime rates but because it is just that -a correlation. The way you lay out your argument suggests that populism creates racism and xenophobia as if it was not there before. The matter of the fact is that racism in society is always there but finds its way into the mainstream through the rise of populist movements. The rise in hate crimes you mention is transient and subsides with time."

Pro found the source I provided in support of my claim that free speech is an inherent part of democracy to be lacking. I therefore will provide a peer reviewed scientific article which supports my claim:

http://www.jstor.org...

"One of the fundamental principles of democracy is that everybody has to respect the political opinion of everybody else, since all are equal and free. Tolerance, minority rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of thought, so characteristic of democracy, have no place within a political system based on the belief in absolute values. This belief irresistibly leads ..... Solely because of this possibility, which only philosophical relativism can admit-that what is right today may be wrong tomorrow-the minority must have a chance to express freely their opinion and must have full opportunity of becoming the majority. Only if it is not possible to decide in an absolute way what is right and what is wrong is it advisable to discuss the issue and, after discussion, to submit to a compromise. This is the true meaning of the political system which we call democracy and which we may oppose to political absolutism only because it is political relativism." page 38

The burden of proof lies with Pro to make a logical case as to why free speech is not an inherent part of democracy.

Pro then goes on to ask the question of whether I support hate speech. While I am categorically against the contents of hate speech I find it very hard to justify and support the restriction of an individual's right to speak their mind. I do not support hate speech but I support the right of people to produce hate speech. To quote Evelyn Beatrice Hall in her illustration of Voltaire's beliefs "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Pro then suggest that freedom of speech is an American constitutional right and not a right in all democracies. This is grossly incorrect. For example all members of the European Union (EU) have signed the European Convention on Human Rights as well as their own national laws concerning Human Rights of which freedom of speech is a part. Also, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is a legally binding charter that has been signed by all EU members.

Elsewhere in the world, most democracies have freedom of speech in their bills of rights and/or constitutions. Australia is the exception to the rule.

Pro's first response to echo chambers is that they win that debate because I conceded that people can tell other people that they should not vote for an individual. Pro shows a lack of understanding between telling someone not to vote x or y and enforcing someone not to vote x or y.

I do not understand Pro's second response to echo chambers.

In their third response, Pro talks about my lack of response to their structured analysis in their first argument which talks about "how the shallowness of the coalition of right wing parties means you do not help the people that fundamentally give you their democratic mandate". I feel that this outside the scope of this debate. We are debating whether restriction of free speech is a prudent solution for combating the rise of populism. This debate is not about the failings of right wing populism policies.

Pro then goes on to attempt and justify their willingness to limit and control free speech by listing everything that is bad with right-wing populism. To this I will once again state the following as in the first round: "Political parties are living organisms so to speak. They are comprised of representatives of the people and are a reflection of the people. Political parties move their position on the political compass all the time in order to gain or to not lose votes. Those moves however are instigated by shifts in societal thinking. It is the people who create pressures in the political system and make parties to adopt certain policies. Those societal shifts might create new populist parties that will then make other parties move to the left or the right but the instigation happens within the society. I am afraid that if politics is dragged to populist gutter that is because the electorate is of that level. A below average electorate explains the second point you make about populists using shocking language. When you have a below average electorate you can use charisma and shock tactics to appeal to their emotions and manipulate them because they lack a logical brain.

The only way to have an electorate that is above average, intellectual, and has a logical brain is by educating it. And the only way to educate it is through free speech. You have to be willing to challenge views, to go to the gutter and rise above it in order to show to people that the alternatives are magic thinking. By curtailing free speech you create echo chambers that relax the "muscle" of logic. All policies should always be debated and challenged if we want progression in society. By restricting free speech you also create a slippery slope. If we start restricting what we find inconvenient now, who is to say that 10 years down the line more and more restrictions start happening and lead to individuals not being free.

I feel that the argument you make assumes a very passive electorate that is a victim to the whims of politicians when in fact it is the exact opposite. The electorate is one of the driving forces between changes in the political landscape. Politicians do not shape the views of people (at least not to the extent that you make out they do) they merely act on them. In the end, if we restrict free speech in order to combat populism, we will end up disenfranchising people even more because they will not have the outlets they want. And disenfranchised people are the second worse enemy to democracy. The worst enemy? Restriction of free speech."

The way that Pro outlines their argument suggests that they are willing to curtail freedoms from groups of people if they deem them dangerous or if they dislike their views. That is a very dangerous stance, uncharacteristic of people with democratic values and closer to an authoritarian view of the world in which you can silence things and people you do not like. I believe that behind their argument lies the thought that their view of the world in the only truth in the world something that is false. Nobody holds the absolute truth. We try to reach absolute truth through debates and arguments between opposing views. Of course limiting free speech will make debate impossible and therefore strengthen the belief or people like Pro that they hold the absolute truth.
Debate Round No. 2
rowey2000

Pro

What side opposition has failed to prove in this debate is that the harms caused by right-wing populists are not great enough for us to enact a policy to protect people from these individuals/parties. A "correlation not causation" argument is all side opposition gives to three examples of right-wing populists encouraging crime and crime rising - to reiterate one, Duterte encouraging his army to rape women, and then rapes increasing. The opposition has no care for the harms caused to minorities in this debate. Considering the scale on which these harms happen, some sort of response was necessary for me to even consider side opposition as an engaging opponent. Because they did not respond at all, they lost this debate. The main flaw within this opposition's case is that aside from a shallowly analysed argument about the integral right to free speech, there is no evidence from opposition that right-wing populism provides no harms to people. They did not engage with my point on language and my model. Instead of actual substantive arguments, they have simply refuted everything I have said. Again opposition, not good enough for this debate.
In place of any structured factual analysis from the opposition as to why free speech must exist in democracies, they have cited another article. This shows their own lack of structured analysis as to why free speech needs to exist in democracies, probably because it's been a right to them since birth and they've never given any legitimate thought as to why it is so fundamental. Instead, they have relied on other sources to explain why it is necessary to have freedom of speech as if their opinions hold authority. Even worse, opposition had the audacity in their second argument to place the burden on my case to prove to you that free speech was not necessary. Free speech in all democratic countries is not the status quo, therefore it is not my burden. I don't need to prove to you that free speech isn't required in democracy because not only did I principally deal with that in my first argument about minority groups, but not every democratic country has free speech. Therefore, opposition has been grossly misinformed this entire debate. In fact, if the opposition thought so strongly that free speech was a fundamental right in democracy, it was their burden to prove this in a counter model as it deviates from the status quo. Unfortunately, at this point in the debate I would say it is too late for them to convince you and I win on this issue.
The failure of the opposition to engage with any material regarding the poisonous nature of right-wing populism not only highlights their inability to engage with the specifics of the topic, but also means that to an extent they concede. They have attempted to shift the topic of this debate to banning free speech by failing to address the five distinct reasons as to why individuals and parties are likely to fall into identifiable categories of being populist. But ultimately, opposition only wanted to engage with the extreme end of our scale (i.e. banning individuals from running on the ballot box, or individuals from speaking entirely). Remember all the other minor policies that I support, like not giving them platforms at universities or stopping their social media pages from operating. These are ways are which we can try and decrease the influence these populists are able to have before we ban them from running in election.
Ok so I saw three clashes in this debate: the legitimacy of the principle, the provision of solutions and harms to minorities, and the stability of democracy.
Onto the first of which: is this legitimate? They committed themselves to a principle that basically went: free speech is valuable and these individuals should be able to engage. This does not directly engage with the principle that I gave you about the balance of rights for individuals to be safe from fear. If you create an atmosphere of fear and are ignorant of the truth, you're ultimately far more likely to persecute vulnerable minorities. The response that they gave was racism is inherent and it is violence. Ladies and gentlemen, no - violence is violence. And given that they've done nothing to contend the fact that we've seen increased rates of attacks on minorities in the aftermath of the US election or the Law and Justice party's rise to power in Poland, or that of Brexit. Given that individuals no longer feel safe in their homes, streets or communities because they fear being attacked for who they are, they have no original argument as to why the status quo should not be changed. Secondly, they say people need to have a political choice, but I question how meaningful that choice is if politics is skewed from key issues. My case told you populist parties overwhelmingly cannot have specific policies because they have to please a broad coalition of voters. It's very hard to provide a policy that both says they provide welfare for people (i.e. Obamacare) but that also appeals those very acts. This means there are no tangible policies from these parties that protect people. And finally, opposition said we've got to give the people what they want from their political parties. Well, ultimately that is not the obligation of a democracy - a government still exists to regulate policy otherwise you have an anarchist society. We should have parameters within which the discussion occurs, that we do not allow anti-Semitism just because it's what some people want. That, dear opposition, is called a tyranny of the majority, that overwhelmingly harms the most vulnerable members of our society.
So secondly, let's look at the provisions of solutions and the effects on minorities. I gave you concrete reasons as to why these populist politicians are reliant on harms to minorities to get into power. Firstly, that they overwhelmingly scapegoat these people to hold a coalition as minorities are simple answers for complex questions. Side opposition gave absolutely no response to this, saying it wasn't relevant to the debate. By the "right-wing populists" in the title, it clearly is. Because we need to understand the harms these individuals begin to have on minorities before they get into power. Side opposition has given no reason as to why we shouldn't ban right-wing populists from campaigning and instead decided to focus on free speech. I argued that a permission mechanism with regards to harms to minorities is created by populists and thgere was no response to this analysis. If the orange man at the front of the room can stand up and say "well, it's okay for me to grab women by whatever" or "it's okay for me to decide that Mexicans are rapists" then people who are not predisposed to violence under the status quo are far more likely to engage in those very acts of violence. That's why we see what were tempered Americans now punching Black Lives Matter protesters in the face. That is a fundamental harm that arises from populism itself. Finally, they disregarded the idea that right-wing individuals (not populists) will step in to fill the void that is created under my side of the house. Because populists muddy political discussions and often simply attack their opponents, that individuals are less informed about actual political policy. The opposition is damaging the value of the vote of the people they claim to protect.
And finally, the stability of democracy. Opposition did not respond to my argument regarding elite institutions like the media and the courts being bullied by populist parties and individuals when they get into power. Not only that, their only response to my structured analysis on why democracy is truth led was...there is no truth? Ladies and gentlemen, I know that not all Mexicans are rapists. That is a truth. The opposition structures their analysis in a in a way that suggests they think Mexicans are rapists is as factual as the year is 2018.
Because I am the side that protects democracy I propose.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by rowey2000 3 years ago
rowey2000
WannaBePheonix

Three things wrong with that response. The first, the topic is about right-wing populism. Before Trump, the Republican Party in the US was merely right wing. I see no problem with their views when their electoral tactic is not populist. Second, I"m not removing free speech because unless you"re American it never existed in the first place. Most countries don"t have free speech because they understand that what you can say must operate within a range. It"s not surprising that the US is now dealing with a huge violent crime problem because people have decided to turn their violent words into violent actions. And the third thing, I told you we would ban parties and individuals who meet five criteria and are deemed by the courts (which are not scared of their President in my country) as being right-wing populist. So no, I won"t have anything taken away free me because I don"t believe Mexicans need to be characterised as rapists in order to have a discussion about immigration. Would you have your rights to free speech revoked?
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
You can't prevent free speech just because of your biased democratic views. If society deems republicanism as fit, then so be it. Protest if you have to. But removing free speech may remove your right to comment on this website, your right to have social media and phone service, your right to do well in school, etc.
Posted by rowey2000 3 years ago
rowey2000
This is my first debate too :) I also apologise for any mistakes
This debate has 0 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.