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

You Shouldn't Tolerate the Intolerable

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
TheHorseNamedWumbo 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: 8/3/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 428 times Debate No: 117225
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

TheHorseNamedWumbo

Pro

Throughout this debate, I will be arguing that in a society you should not tolerate the intolerant. I came up with this idea after watching a Destiny video in which he discusses this topic. The opposition will argue that you should tolerate the intolerant and/or you should tolerate everyone.

I will begin the debate in round two after the opposition's acceptance in round 1.
LucciDamus

Con

By what do we mean, Tolerate?

Coexist, Please, Understand.

I am always up for a challenge so to deem someone intolerable would be too general.

In what sense are the intolerable being intolerable.
Debate Round No. 1
TheHorseNamedWumbo

Pro

The con asks very important questions. For the definition of "Tolerate, " I will use the google definition which states:
- to allow the existence, Occurrence, Or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.
And the intolerable in this case can be those who do not tolerate individuals of different race, Religion, And/or sexual orientation

My argument is that in a society, Individuals should not tolerate the intolerable. I do not believe that we should allow the intolerable to abuse the right to free speech in order to hijack government and spread bigotry and hate. We have seen throughout history that by allowing these destructive ideas and beliefs to spread it can cause the downfall of civilization. A significant example of this would be during the Holocaust wherein Nazi Germany, Citizens decided to stay silent as the Nazi movement's beliefs spread throughout their neighborhoods acting as bystanders as their Jewish German neighbors were persecuted. Whether or not they contributed directly to this or took part in the Nazi regime is irrelevant it is the fact that these individuals took no action against this hateful group is the issue. Inaction is action. By refusing to stand against the intolerable destroying your community as you know it, You are contributing to their cause.
LucciDamus

Con

I argue that by that definition we must tolerate or allow any practice to continue to happen, With in the confines of its law for 3 reasons. Free choice, Survival of the fittest and change.

1. Free choice is the key to human innovation in both technology and spiritual growth because history shows the greatest innovations happen in the presence of necessity, Mostly by struggle.

2. As different nations form different governments, Some nations will thrive while others won't. Each nation has its own right to deem whats intolerable, And what to do with people actively do said things.

3. Change can only truly come if we acknoedge the previous 2 points. To get rid of the murderers because one hates murder, Said person would have murderes after him. But if said person tolerates it long enough for the due process to convict saod murderer, Positive change can come from making consequences clear when actions are intolerable.
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
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by darkwolf 3 years ago
darkwolf
But in being intolerant to the intolerant you yourself are being intolerant. Its vicious cycle and in my opinion we should respect the diversity of opinion, So long as that opinion doesn't directly and tracibly lead to wide spread violence. I'm not talking about radicals I'm talking about ww2 era Germany style of wide spread hate, If and only if and idea or opinion takes root in that fashion and has similar results then the idea should be quelled.
This debate has 4 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.