The Instigator
screenjack
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
AimPrime
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

free speech on the internet

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 644 times Debate No: 120141
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

screenjack

Pro

I'm sure that there are actual racists posing as trolls. I could even understand calling these people alt right. I guess my point is how casually you clump all of these different right leaning people into the same category I truly disagree with. Two people can use opposing epistemology to come to the same conclusion. I can truly believe in right leaning rhetoric and debate on that paltform without it being a joke.
If a racist is on the internet making racist remarks it should be pretty easy to prove them wrong. It should be pretty safe to prove a racist wrong because of that thick layer of anonymity. If they are hiding behind humor then getting them to admit, Or make obvious, Their a joke is a huge win. It essentially uncovers them through the anonymity. Not engaging in debate will only make more people think it's ok to be racist.
so in the spirit of good debate I'm posting a link to my debate. Org page. I promise to be well nuanced. I have a good track record on this site and I'm fairly well disciplined. I'll probably copy paste this as an opening statment. Please just accept the first round and we'll begin our debate on the 2nd. Feel free to make some opening statments if you like. If you find this debate from debate. Org I'll link the video I'm responding to in the comments.
AimPrime

Con

I believe free speech on the Internet is justified, And fair. Free speech online, Is essentially the same concept as having free speech in "real life". Typing your opinion online doesn't limit your connection to the First Amendment, Nor should it, In any way, Shape, Or form. Now there are limits to what you say online, Same as in "real life" but most of the time, The person does not get punished or disciplined based on what they said online, Versus what they said in "real life". As an example, Lets say I wrote on Facebook that "All Jews should've been killed in those camps" or "Hitler was a hero" as opposed to saying that in "real life". Most of the time you will be harassed or called names in the comment section, In contrast to getting beat up or killed. Another perfect example of this, Was when a Trump supporter said that Trump was a hero, And then getting beat up, And dragged alongside a moving vehicle. A lot of people write their opinions online, Due to the fear and indiscretion they may face in "real life". I do believe there are limits to what you can say, But I conclude that saying how you feel online, Is no different than saying how you feel in "real life". It does not make you unjustifiable, Nor does it make you evil, Nor does it make you irrational, And I postulate that you should have the same freedoms that you do online, In contrast to in "real life". That is my take on the topic.
Debate Round No. 1
screenjack

Pro

So I've read over your opening statement a few times and I'm not exactly sure that we have to debate. I mean I feel like my argument I was going to open with rehashes a lot of the things you're saying. The only point I feel I need to stress is that a trump supporter getting beaten up because of his political views is still illegal and He can take his case before a court. I've seen a great deal of violence online within the last few years over politics so I'd like very much if you could share that specific incident to talk about it. I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting about the fear of expressing opinions in public streets vs. The internet. So just for the sake of letting my opinion be more well known. I believe even trolls have the right to say stupid provocative stuff in real life and in the streets. My point isn't that you have to but I'm advocating for more people to engage "racist trolls". It's totally within peoples rights to ignore things on the internet but engaging and making them look dumb for saying dumb things should be encouraged. Unfortunately, Race can still be funny. I'm just saying there's nothing wrong with pointing out when it pops up.
AimPrime

Con

Well, Your side is there shouldn't be free speech on the internet correct? If so, Then we have every reason to debate. There's really nothing more for me to say at the moment, Since your previous statement didn't really leave a window open for further debate. We could finish the debate in Rounds 3 and 4 if you wish, But as of the moment, There is nothing for me to say.
Debate Round No. 2
screenjack

Pro

You didn't even read my first round or watch the link I left in the comments. It's in response to a video in which The video personality advocates not engaging in debate with anyone who is on the right which he also grossly categorizes as alt. Right. So the overarching subject is free speech and how to tackle people who abuse it. Not if it should be illegal. It's not a legal argument it's a social argument for how to approach people with different viewpoints. I'm advocating to debate people where as the video advocates ignoring people. On a personal note: please read the arguments all the way through instead of just quoting rhetoric.
AimPrime

Con

Are we going to debate? Because it seems you have been stalling for the past 3 rounds. If you are afraid to get refuted and debunked, That's understandable, But don't waste all our time, Because you have been letting your feelings get in the way of a factual debate. I'll be waiting on Round 4. I expect more than what your record states you have accomplished.
Debate Round No. 3
screenjack

Pro

What are you even talking about? I picked pro. I stated my argument and posted links to support it. You haven't done anything to refute my argument. I inquired about possible nuances and asked for articles and you never prompted them. You are the one who has no argument. You have no counter argument. You wasted my time by not reading what I was actually writing and trying to promote. You just sat around quoting rhetoric and then when you realized you messed up you tried to project your shortcomings onto me. Now this is a pivotal moment in your life. You can go back and re-read everything and understand a deeper point people are trying to make or you can sit in your echo chamber repeating things that sound good to you. I'd call you a time wasting troll and expose you for just trying to waste my time for a laugh. That would have some real circular momentum about how exposing people who troll, While an aggravating process, Can still bring light to deeper truths. However, I don't know you're intentions and you might come back with some actual worthwhile thoughts in this last round.
AimPrime

Con

Your trivial insults are meaningless. You claim my arguments as rhetoric, When they are not even correlated to each other. You are an hypocritical time-waster, That blames others for your own mistakes, Because you feel insecure about yourself. I came on this debate hoping for a challenge, But all I witnessed was a scared child who kept making excuses, Instead of actually debating. Your record must be fictitious or something, Because I have no idea how you have no losses and all those wins. I expected more from someone of your *record*. Hopefully you take this as a lesson in life, As you have just been embarrassing yourself for the past 4 ROUNDS. Good Luck to you, And I recommend you do some research before hand, So you are comfortable and confident to debate with someone. Never let feelings get in the way of facts, As that is a popular tactic used by many people, Such as yourself. I wish you the best of luck. -P
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by screenjack 3 years ago
screenjack
That moment when you notice your well thought out argument has a spelling error. . . . Lol oh weeeeel
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@screenjack

Find someone more relevant like Steven Crowder, Bernie etc.
Posted by screenjack 3 years ago
screenjack
I understand Omar. As you said It is a clear bias. I just find it strange that a following of people with such strong views wouldn't want to at least attempt to prove their points in debate. I mean with the number of views and likes I didn't think it'd take so long to find an opponent.
The title that's my fault.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@screenjack

I am getting the vibe that he dislikes conservatives because they are not part of his tribe. Also would like to note that it is titled the alt-right. Either he thinks conservatives are part of the alt right or is just padding out the length of the video.

By the way if you are ever going to source a video next time a time frame would be nice like 1:16-1:25. That would help the person on the other side what you actually have a problem with.

By the way I did not watch the entire video because you can tell his biases and his pandering instead of having a thoughtful conversation. I much prefer someone like Tim Pool. The only thing he panders to is the truth and yes he does like the Democrats but has stated he would not vote for any of them because of how divided and confusing the party position. Basically prefer centre left and centre right influences rather than anything further away.

Hopefully you find someone to debate this.
Posted by screenjack 3 years ago
screenjack
"the card reads moops" it's part of a video series he makes called the "alt right playbook. " innuendo studios
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
I can't actually acess the video even when I remove the spaces and make everything lowercase.
Can you provide the title of the video and the Youtuber who uploaded it?
Posted by screenjack 3 years ago
screenjack
I mean to counter the arguments in the video. Now the person in the video doesn't attack the free speech but rather he tries to categorize trolls and hate speech which is why I titled the debate free speech. To oversimplify, The video starts with this idea that because people have varying different opinions and sometimes use different logic to defend them. He claims these different lines of reasoning are due to a hidden racist agenda. My point being that because you might view and understand different ideas with different trains of thought doesn't make your motives malevolent.
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
Free speech is a verbal expression of idea without cost or self-value placed on them. The 1st amendment holds a common defense to the general welfare of basic principle and legal precedent by placing things found to be free in a united state with grievance those things not free in a united State.

Yes, I agree this is a way to hold all people as created equal.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
What are you for?
Posted by screenjack 3 years ago
screenjack
For some reason it's capslocking the link but if you delete the spaces it should work
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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