Trolling should be considered a crime in the United States
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
No information
“Trolling, defined as the act of provoking and harassing others for personal amusement”
CON did not challenge that definition by PRO so I will go by it.
CON did not challenge the morality argument or the consequences trolling might lead to which is equal to conceding to everything PRO claims.
CON argues that trolling is part of free speech but by the definition he accepted PRO shows that its against the law with minor objections by CON. The problem here is that CON didn’t challenge the definition of trolling and it was very easy for PRO to show bullying/harassment is not legal.
“My mother caused me harm when she told me the tooth fairy wasn’t real.” This is not your mother harassing you for her amusement (so by the definition not trolling and the example is irrelevant)
The debate goes on a little off topic talking about personal character and then gets back on track talking about “Hate speech is not mentioned in the First Amendment itself. “
PRO provides sources and explains what is not included in the first amendment which CON agrees to and just says that PRO is pro-censorship and wants a dictatorship. Not a great way to end the debate for CON.
Both agree hate speech is not in the first amendment and hate speech is not protected. CON thinks trolling should not be included in hate speech but he never challenged the definition of trolling so bullying and harassment is easily defined as illegal therefore trolling is illegal too. PRO shows many forms bullying can occur online (stalking etc..) and cause psychological harm which is illegal.
PRO won the legal knowledge battle by utilizing sources and explaining them. CON provided no sources for his claims.
My argument points are the same as itsnotago's.
I had an easier time reading Cons, it was just shorter and simpler.
The personal insults were still present on con's arguments, but were stronger in Pros. Honestly, both of you could have done a far better job keeping conversation civil.
The debate starts by Pro explaining that trolling is harassment and in some cases illegal, showing that trolling can lead to suicide and mental damage and that it's immoral. Con agrees it's immoral, yet believes that trolling also referred to as bullying falls under the category "free speech", so it can't be illegal and the proceeds to say that we shouldn't care if it's mean. Pro then shows it could be considered a crime because psychological harm could be considered criminal plot. Con refutes this, bringing up the first amendment. However, con then proceeds to bring up an irrelevant example of the psychological harm his mother caused hm when telling him the tooth fairy isn't real. We can all agree this doesn't correlate to the type of mental harm brought up by Pro. Con then says that trolling is something that's simply "not nice" and we can't make everything that's not nice illegal accusing pro of dictatorship and censorship, providing no evidence for this statement. Pro shows for the second time that it isn't simply " not nice" and that it is very serious. Pro explains that trolling is harassment and harassment includes a lot of things including stalking... and is in some cases illegal, providing some sources too. Pro can't disprove that trolling is immoral so just drops the whole thing and the debate becomes a fight of legal knowledge, which pro wins because he both explains how it is illegal even though it isn't technically through the first amendment con brought up, utilising sources which was nice for a change. Then, the debate takes a turn for the worse because pro calls con a liar, to which con responds in a not so nice way again so the last part of the 4th round is why it is a tie on conduct. Both pro and con insulted each other so that justifies my call on conduct. Pro wins on arguments and legibility because he not only had two arguments,namely trolling being immoral and in some cases illegal, whereas con had 1 which was later rebuttled , he provided sources in the final rounds and provided all the legal background to deconstruct con's argument, namely infringement on free speech (censorship). It was an interesting debate nonetheless, if we can just erase the last part of the final round with the insults
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.