Instigator / Pro
18
1442
rating
47
debates
55.32%
won
Topic
#5543
Trolling should be considered a crime in the United States
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
Americandebater24
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
8
1485
rating
18
debates
41.67%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Introduction:
Trolling, defined as the act of provoking and harassing others for personal amusement, has become a prevalent practice online. While originally conceived as a form of entertainment, trolling has evolved into a toxic behavior that fosters bullying and inflicts psychological harm. This can escalate to tragic outcomes, including suicide. Consequently, I will argue that trolling is not merely unethical but should also be considered a criminal offense.
First argument:
There is no moral justification for trolling others. If someone can bully others or cause them emotional distress while claiming to be justified, then it's impossible to argue a reasonable defense against such bullying or any form of attack on one's character or emotional state. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. Either trolling others is wrong because harassing others and negatively affecting their mental state is immoral, or trolling is not wrong, and the feelings and mental well-being of others are irrelevant. I challenge Con to deny the immoral implications of trolling and to somehow prove it can be seen in a moral and positive light.
Second argument:
Having recognized the immoral implications of trolling, it's pertinent to consider its legal aspects. The legality of trolling is not black and white; it largely hinges on the nature and method of the trolling. For instance, trolling by engaging in nonsensical arguments during a serious conversation may be deemed foolish and disrespectful, yet it typically falls under protected speech. Conversely, engaging in more malicious forms of trolling, such as attacking someone's character or persistently bothering them for amusement, can be classified as harassment.
Understanding that trolling is both illegal and, regrettably, legal under certain conditions, as well as recognizing its harmful effects, we should not permit trolling under any circumstances. It is hypocritical to claim we are a society that expects its members to be moral and law-abiding, yet allow these same individuals to inflict psychological harm on themselves just because they own a cellphone or laptop. Moreover, trolling offers no benefits to society or individuals; it merely serves as a pretext for engaging in immoral and sometimes illegal behavior.
Conclusion:
Trolling should be made illegal as it lacks any justifiable grounds. It's not universally accepted and can be considered a crime in certain contexts. Its quasi-legal status contradicts the values we aspire to uphold in society: discipline, rationality, and compassion. Trolling and its toxic influences undermine these ideals. Most importantly, there is no moral justification for inflicting psychological harm on others for amusement or any other purpose.
I agree trolling is usually wrong. But it’s free speech and as far as I’m concerned, not hate speech, and not plotting to commit a crime. So I don’t care if it’s mean.
Round 2
Firs argument:
Con argues that trolling is a part of free speech, and I acknowledge that this may be true in certain cases. Nevertheless, as I highlighted in the first round, trolling is not entirely legal. Legally, bullying is not permissible, and if someone takes their own life due to excessive trolling, the perpetrator can face imprisonment. Therefore, claiming that trolling is a part of free speech is not entirely accurate. Moreover, Con has acknowledged my argument that trolling is morally reprehensible and unjustifiable.
Second argument:
Con argues that trolling does not constitute "hate speech" or a "plot to commit a crime." However, this defense is tenuous. While it's true that the US may not categorize any act as hate speech due to the First Amendment, plotting to bully someone through trolling, thereby causing psychological harm, could indeed be considered a criminal plot. Con could contend that there is no criminal intent in the act itself, but as the law states, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Third argument:
Con has failed to present a case against classifying trolling as a crime. I have highlighted the moral reprehensibility of trolling, its criminal status under specific conditions, the contradiction in tolerating such behavior, and its detrimental consequences. In response, Con merely contends that it constitutes free speech and is not recognized as a criminal conspiracy, which is a flawed argument.
Moreover, I would argue that my opponent has displayed a lack of empathy towards victims of online harassment, even going as far as to state, "I do not care if it's mean." Therefore, I pose this question to Con: Do you permit others to bully you without restraint? If not, it seems hypocritical to claim that trolling is acceptable because you state, "I don't care," yet expect others to show you respect or kindness that you do not exhibit yourself.
Conclusion:
The opposition has hardly made any argument, aside from misrepresenting the law and expressing indifference. They have not yet advocated for trolling and have conceded that they cannot morally justify it. I challenge them to provide a substantial argument demonstrating that trolling is never illegal or to explain why it should not be completely prohibited.
Actually, wrong. It states in the First Amendment that the only speech not protected by the idea of free speech is hate speech. Hate speech = “obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, true threats, speech integral to criminal conduct, and child pornography.”
This all has nothing to do with what you said:
“Causing psychological harm, could indeed be considered a criminal plot."
My mother caused me harm when she told me the tooth fairy wasn’t real. And yes, she got pleasure out of seeing my six-year-old dreams die. Is she a malicious person who is guilty of a crime? no.
Then, you insulted my character by highlighting me as a rather awful person. This is false. I'm simply indifferent to the softness of some “keyboard warriors" on the internet. As you said:
“My opponent has displayed a lack of empathy towards victims of online harassment”
Anyways, back to my point – that point being the truth instead of your hyperbole — So calling somebody a bozo or a loser or a retard on the Internet is not the nicest thing to do per se; we can agree on that. But where we differ is the actual facts:
In other words, the truth of the matter is that for it to be considered a crime, it has to either be True hate, threatening, or illegal porn. Saying something not nice is not illegal at all.
So, now that we both know that it is not illegal, let's get to your argument, why should it be illegal?
If you're going to say that every not-nice thing in this world should be illegal — because that is your argument — it’s not that it is illegal but that it should be illegal, Well that is extremely dumb.
For example, if I went up to an awful person and criticized him, Do you think that should be illegal?
Or if there is a 10-year-old bully in the 4th grade, should he be arrested?
While I will concede that these behaviors aren't necessarily nice or kind or virtuous in any way, it doesn't mean that you should outlaw everything that you don't like. Because if that's what you’re advocating for, then you are pro-censorship and pro-dictatorship.
Round 3
Actually, wrong. It states in the First Amendment that the only speech not protected by the idea of free speech is hate speech. Hate speech = “obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, true threats, speech integral to criminal conduct, and child pornography.”
You are clearly not informed. So, I will explain. The United States First Amendment Clearly states: "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
Hate speech is not mentioned in the First Amendment itself. The subject of hate speech was brought up to the Supreme Court that ruled the following in Matal v. Tam where the court stated: "Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate". United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting).[14]"
Obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, true threats, and child pornography are absolutely not protected by the First Amendment and are therefore not related to the first Amendment. So, when you claim there is hate speech in America, this is a falsehood born from a lack legal study.
My mother caused me harm when she told me the tooth fairy wasn’t real. And yes, she got pleasure out of seeing my six-year-old dreams die. Is she a malicious person who is guilty of a crime? no. Then, you insulted my character by highlighting me as a rather awful person. This is false. I'm simply indifferent to the softness of some “keyboard warriors" on the internet. As you said:
Not only does this absurd argument do nothing to counter nor address what I said, but at this point you are making fictitious arguments. I never called you an "rather awful person." I only pointed out that you were unsympathetic to the suffering of others which you affirm. If that comes across as a bad person in your own point of view than you should consider reevaluating your own conduct rather than get offended and make up falsehoods to justify it.
Anyways, back to my point – that point being the truth instead of your hyperbole — So calling somebody a bozo or a loser or a retard on the Internet is not the nicest thing to do per se; we can agree on that. But where we differ is the actual facts:In other words, the truth of the matter is that for it to be considered a crime, it has to either be True hate, threatening, or illegal porn. Saying something not nice is not illegal at all.So, now that we both know that it is not illegal, let's get to your argument, why should it be illegal?
Again, you highlight your lack of legal knowledge. Online harassments are not limited to threats or illegal porn. And while saying not nice itself is not illegal, it becomes illegal when it crosses the borders of or intent to bully another. For example, while there is currently no federal law for trolling, many states still have laws against it. For instance, trolling can cross into bullying, stalking and harassment. and much more Is Trolling People Online Illegal in the United States? (howbailbondswork.com)
There is a profound difference between saying something not nice, like me calling you ignorant about the law, and trolling which typically entails bullying, sexual harassment, and can induce psychological trauma.
If you're going to say that every not-nice thing in this world should be illegal — because that is your argument — it’s not that it is illegal but that it should be illegal, Well that is extremely dumb.For example, if I went up to an awful person and criticized him, Do you think that should be illegal?Or if there is a 10-year-old bully in the 4th grade, should he be arrested?While I will concede that these behaviors aren't necessarily nice or kind or virtuous in any way, it doesn't mean that you should outlaw everything that you don't like. Because if that's what you’re advocating for, then you are pro-censorship and pro-dictatorship.
I trust you realize that misrepresenting my words will be futile. You won't find a quote from me stating, "everything unpleasant should be illegal." Moreover, I have substantiated with sources that trolling is not entirely lawful and its legality can vary based on the extent of the act. If you suggest that you cannot discern between criticism and trolling, which are distinctly different in their form and intention, then kindly provide a statute that deems harassment and bullying as permissible forms of "criticism." I shall await your response.
Indeed, if a 10-year-old bullies a fourth grader, they should face consequences. Whether this includes detention, or more serious repercussions depends on the severity of the bullying.
The fundamental flaw in your argument, among others, is that you are debating a stance I have never taken. I have never advocated for dictatorship or the outlawing of everything I dislike, as you suggest. My central argument is that trolling is immoral and contributes nothing positive to society. Even you have conceded that it cannot be defended on moral grounds. I have argued that it should be made illegal because it's hypocritical for a society to demand logical, compassionate, and disciplined behavior from its members while simultaneously permitting those same individuals to inflict psychological harm on one another for amusement.
Your response to this so far was to address none of my arguments, admit that trolling is morally wrong, and then do a complete, and complain that I am making you look bad because I pointed out that not caring about the mental well-being of others is hypocrisy unless you allow the same treatment being done to yourself. Moreover, your argument demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment law, by claiming hate speech is mentioned and the assertion that trolling is not illegal as long as it does not involve illegal pornography or genuine hate speech is incorrect.
I realize it's your first debate, but here's a piece of advice: don't resort to lying simply because you started with a flawed argument. It won't help you win the debate or earn respect.
Actually, if you understood what I was saying, then you would understand that we both agree that hate speech isn’t protected by the First Amendment. Clearly, my words are too big for you so I’ll ease them:
1st amendment = free speech but not hate speech. Hate speech = threats, illegal porn, etc.
"absurd…fictitious... unsympathetic to the suffering of others which you affirm"
And yet when I call you out in it, you lie— and say that I am lying! You mentioned me not being a pansy to the keyboard warriors, and it seems I must have triggered you, I’m truly so sorry, from the bottom of my heart. You’ve actually given no evidence to suggest that my comments are harming, and even if they are, it’s not hate speech, so it’s free speech.
if you’re looking to be pro-censorship, then you’re on the wrong platform homie.
A vote may reference the existence of other votes, but should never feel that those other votes are the reason for the allotments assigned.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content
This should intuitively be true due to fairness. Each debater should be finding just the other debater; if someone else makes a great point against either, it's firmly outside the field of battle, so it may be noted, but should not shift any weighing.
The points are random in my mind for lack of analysis (which I'm sure were in the other vote).
What point assignments seem random?
Thank you for letting me know. I didn't know I couldn't use other's opinion's in my vote. I did that in the attached debate as well, but all my others should be good.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/5484-r-kelly-should-be-remembered-for-his-artistic-triumphs-as-opposed-to-his-criminal-behavior
FYI,
Your vote falls short of the standards. Primarily for being a piggy-backed vote, but also for such issues as seemingly random point assignments. Were the debate ongoing, the vote would be removed.
good luck with iron bars
I must clarify that this is not the correct approach. Selectively using words to misrepresent someone's statements, either by taking them out of context or by creating a misleading narrative, constitutes manipulation, which is dishonesty. Furthermore, 'unsympathetic' is not equivalent to 'awful.' Being unsympathetic indicates a lack of compassion for others, which was exactly how you said you felt about others. In contrast, labeling someone as awful suggests a critique of their character. Inserting words into someone else's dialogue does not constitute a fact that they actually said what you insinuate, nor does it alter the facts.
>That’s why I put the … there. to show the adjectives but not connect them
Your education must be otherworldly because it's certainly not from this planet. Imagine strolling into an English class, declaring you'll quote Shakespeare, and then proclaiming, "To...Be...Macbeth...end." You'd be the day's entertainment!
That’s why I put the … there. to show the adjectives but not connect them. That’s how English grammar works. And “unsympathetic to the suffering” and “awful” are pretty similar. It’s not that I need a reframing, but simply that if you’re going to cook in the kitchen, you’ve got to take the heat. If someone says something on the internet, they have to be willing to accept and learn from the response, not call them “trolls” and get offended.
I hope you know that creating fake quotes makes you a liar. Because voters will see where you claim, I said, "absurd…fictitious... unsympathetic to the suffering of others which you affirm." They will read that I actually said, "Not only does this absurd argument do nothing to counter nor address what I said, but at this point you are making fictitious arguments. I never called you an "rather awful person." I only pointed out that you were unsympathetic to the suffering of others which you affirm. If that comes across as a bad person in your own point of view than you should consider reevaluating your own conduct rather than get offended and make up falsehoods to justify it. "
"So what are you in here for?"
- "Trolling"
Define trolling.