Instigator / Pro

Americandebater24

1442

rating

debates

58.65%

won

Topic

#4404

America does not have hate speech laws and never should.

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

Americandebater24

Tags

Politics

Law

freedom of speech

Parameters

Publication date: 04.17.2023 11:45PM
Last updated date: 04.28.2023 09:20PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 4
Time for argument: One day
Max argument characters: 30,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

DeeezNutz

1500

rating

debates

0.0%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

Americandebater24

04.18.2023 12:42AM

Pro

First I would like to thank Con for participating in this debate. I am sure this debate will be very enlighten for all involved.

Starting argument: In my role as Pro, I must demonstrate that the USA has no limits to freedom of speech and justify its continuation. My primary evidence is found in the United States Constitution's First Amendment, which supports the notion of unrestricted freedom of speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. U.S. Constitution - First Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The term "abridging" is crucial, as it specifically means to shorten. According to the First Amendment's language, it is unlawful to limit freedom of speech under the US Constitution. Furthermore, the First Amendment is one of the ten amendments comprising the American Bill of Rights, making freedom of speech not only unlimited but also the foremost and most important civil right enjoyed by Americans.

2nd argument: My initial argument establishes that the Constitution protects freedom of speech and prohibits its limitation. I will now justify why America must maintain its unrestricted approach to freedom of speech. Opponents of unlimited freedom of speech often cite acts of violence or bullying as reasons for censorship, aiming to prevent potential discrimination based on race, sex, religion, etc. Although bullying and related issues exist, and racists may use speech to express their views and gain support, these problems are neither caused by freedom of expression nor solved by censoring speech.

Conflicts in society are inevitable, regardless of whether speech is regulated or not. Therefore, advocating for hate speech laws under the pretext of combating hateful or discriminatory behavior not only fails to achieve its intended results but also serves as propaganda designed to persuade individuals to relinquish their ability to speak freely and influence societal viewpoints beyond a controlled narrative.

ending statement: In conclusion, freedom of speech is not only unlimited under American law, but it must remain so. Allowing speech to be limited by hate speech laws is wrong because. controlling the speech of others, regardless of intentions, is an act of oppression that supersedes any other oppressive acts that censorship supporters may claim to oppose or fight against.

DeeezNutz

04.19.2023 12:42AM

Con

Forfeited

Round 2

Americandebater24

04.19.2023 01:57AM

Pro

Since Con forfeited the first round without a rebuttal, my previous argument will remain unchanged until Con addresses it rather than forfeiting.

DeeezNutz

04.20.2023 01:57AM

Con

Forfeited

Round 3

Americandebater24

04.20.2023 02:02AM

Pro

It appears that Con is uninterested in this debate. Nevertheless, I have presented constitutional law and a well-structured argument supporting the unlimited nature of free speech in the USA and the necessity for it to remain so.

Vote Pro.

DeeezNutz

04.20.2023 08:55PM

Con

In the United States, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. This means that people are free to express their opinions and ideas, even if those opinions and ideas are offensive or unpopular. However, there are limits to this protection. For example it is illegal to use language that is intended to cite violence or discrimination against a group of people.

Round 4

Americandebater24

04.20.2023 09:20PM

Pro

In the United States, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. This means that people are free to express their opinions and ideas, even if those opinions and ideas are offensive or unpopular. However, there are limits to this protection. For example it is illegal to use language that is intended to cite violence or discrimination against a group of people.

Con asserts that hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. Although many statements considered hate speech in other countries may not be legally recognized as such in the US, it is incorrect to claim that the First Amendment protects hate speech. For this to be true, the Constitution would need to differentiate between freedom of speech and hate speech and explicitly protect both. However, as the Constitution does not make this distinction, it is more accurate to say that hate speech is simply not recognized under US law, rather than being protected by the First Amendment.

Additionally Con is right that it is illegal to incite violence against others they are incorrect in asserting that the language itself is punishable or that you can not use discriminatory language under the first Amendment. According to the definition of incitement, incitement is defined as

The action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully incitement - Search (bing.com)

Incitement refers to the act of provoking or urging unlawful behavior. Although your words could be used as evidence for incitement, the determining factor lies in your actions rather than the usage of prohibited speech. Discriminating against a group is not illegal unless it escalates from mere words to actual threats of violence. Discrimination, like incitement, is based on someone's behavior and not the manner of speech they use, even if that speech can later be proven as evidence against you in a trial.

Overall, Con's argument is flawed as they falsely claim that hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, which in reality does not exist under the First Amendment. They follow a common but untrue belief that incitement and discrimination are not protected by the Constitution. In truth, speech intended to discriminate or cause violence is not unprotected, as there are no words prohibited under US law. Instead, they are considered actions, and while speech can be used as evidence, it cannot be used to convict someone solely on the basis of unprotected speech.

Vote Pro.

DeeezNutz

04.21.2023 09:20PM

Con

Forfeited

Americandebater24

04.20.2023 01:44PM

-->

@Slainte

okay sounds good.

Slainte

04.20.2023 12:30PM

-->

@Americandebater24

Redo this debate, and I will take it on. Change the time to the argument to 3 days please.

Slainte

04.21.2023 10:19PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Forfeited without grace

Barney

04.21.2023 10:06PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Forfeiture.