Instigator / Pro
7
1500
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#5641
Free Speech Includes Hate Speech
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Random
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
4
1500
rating
12
debates
37.5%
won
Description
Pro believes that free speech does include hate speech while con doesn't. Also just because pro believes that free speech does include hate speech, doesn't mean they support it. This is not a debate about whether hate speech is ok or not, it is about whether free speech INCLUDES hate speech or not.
Debate Structure:
Round 1
Note:Pro always starts the round with their arguments and rebuttals.
Pro lays down ground rules for the debate (and maybe even introduction) and then proposes arguments that back up their position.
Con proposes introduction and the arguments that back up their position. Then they say their rebuttals to pro's arguments.
And then from round 2-round 4, pro says their arguments and rebuttals and then con and the order goes on.
In round 5, pro says their final rebuttals and arguments and their conclusion, and then con does the same.
You can use these rules to judge for the conduct of pro and con when voting. Please do not judge our spelling or grammar mistakes if it is not important. Do not use that for the voting.
If you have nothing to say more or any other arguments/rebuttals, please do not forfeit, instead say it in your argument why you want to stop.
Please do not use any swear words or words that are mean to the opposite side other than if quoted from a source.
Round 1
I set a very small character amount per argument for this debate (5000) accidently. I tried to edit but it said that I can't edit once I have stated debating. So maybe I could forfeit and then create the same debate but with a larger character amount per argument and then you can be my opponent again? The problem is this is my first debate on the debateart (I usually debate with friends in real life) so I am not sure how I forfeit. What do you think?
First off, read my comment.
Second, you didn’t define what ‘hate speech’ is. You’re using the logic of the liberals who say “Since I can’t define what a woman is, a man (who calls himself a woman) henceforth becomes a woman and therefore can use their bathroom and crush them in sports.” Essentially what you are saying is that since you can’t define what it is, anyone who claims that something is ‘hate speech’ automatically makes it ‘hate speech”. It is an absurd argument, mainly due to the lack of definition.
Third, It’s pretty obvious that you can say what you want under the First Amendment. However, your lack of definition gives me the room necessary to create a theoretical point: threats always or almost always include a form of hateful speech. No one makes a threat unless they are angry or upset at that person (e.g. “Timmy, clean up this filthy room or I’ll spank you. The Mother is upset with Timmy so she threatens to spank him) The problem though, is that now threats become a form of hate speech, entailing that you are also arguing that threats (since they are also hate speech) are protected under the First Amendment, which we know is not true. Of course, there are other forms of hate speech, like shaming and bullying, neither of which are threats, so I suppose your answer is now half-accepted, but half isn’t good enough, especially when you can’t even define what ‘hate speech’ you are talking about.
Round 2
Structure of my Full Argument:
Since I do not have enough space, in this argument I will define some terms and give you rebuttals on your points that are important, since I don't have space. In the next round, I will say some important rebuttals to con argument 1 that I missed in this argument, 1-2 supporting arguments that support my argument, and the important rebuttals to con's 2nd argument.
Rebuttals
Since I do not have enough space, in this argument I will define some terms and give you rebuttals on your points that are important, since I don't have space. In the next round, I will say some important rebuttals to con argument 1 that I missed in this argument, 1-2 supporting arguments that support my argument, and the important rebuttals to con's 2nd argument.
Rebuttals
1.''Second, you didn't define what 'hate speech' is.''
After you accepted the debate, due to late timing, I was writing down some terms and their definitions for the debate in the long description, yet since you had accepted the debate already, I could not edit. Here are the terms for this debate:
Note:These definitions are from the Oxford English Dictionary, one of the most accurate dictionaries out there.
Free Speech-
the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.
For this debate we are talking about free speech in general, not the freedom of speech law in the US. This debate although focusing on free speech more generally, we are going to focus on the dictionary definition more.
Hate Speech-
abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.
For this debate, to avoid vagueness and unclearity, something will classify as hate speech if it has any one of these things:
Note: These criteria points are all for people of a certain group distinguished for something or some identity factor they have such as race, ethnicity, gender, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc.
-Involves swear words like f*ck, sh*t, b*tch, a**hole, etc, when talking about a gender, to people of a certain gender, religion, to people of a certain religion, a certain ethnicity, to people of a certain ethnicity, a sexual orientation, to people of a certain sexual orientation, or any other group of people distinguished for something.
-A personal attack on a gender, people of a certain gender, religion, people of a certain religion, a certain ethnicity, people of a certain ethnicity, a sexual orientation, people of a certain sexual orientation, or any other group of people distinguished for something. This does not include just criticising some idea or argument. This can also be ad hominem. Ad hominem is a personal attack on someone or a group of people, not attacking their ideas, arguments, ideologies or beliefs. This sort of attack is driven more by emotion than logic and reason.
-Using any other harsh words such as stupid, dumb, ugly, idiotic, pig, cow, witch, loser, etc when talking about a gender, to people of a certain gender, religion, to people of a certain religion, a certain ethnicity, to people of a certain ethnicity, a sexual orientation, to people of a certain sexual orientation, a certain race, to people of a certain race, or any other group of people distinguished for something. Words/phrases such as, bad, not good, irrelevant, unimaginable, unrealistic, not okay, wrong, etc, are not to be considered hate speech, since we can criticise stuff still.
-Mocking people of a gender, people of a certain gender, religion, people of a certain religion, a certain ethnicity, people of a certain ethnicity, a sexual orientation, people of a certain sexual orientation, or any other group of people distinguished for something.
-Giving threats to people or a group of people because of their gender, sex, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, race, or any other group of people distinguished for something.
2.''You're using the logic of the liberals who say ''Since I can't define what a woman is, a man (who calls himself a woman) henceforth becomes a woman and therefore can use their bathroom and crush them in sports.'''Essentially what you are saying is that since you can’t define what it is, anyone who claims that something is ‘hate speech’ automatically makes it ‘hate speech”.''
I don't even agree with the liberals who say this. I have now provided the definition and what fits under 'hate speech'. Also, not every liberal follows that logic and I do not hope to follow that logic that you said.
3.''However, your lack of definition gives me the room necessary to create a theoretical point: threats always or almost always include a form of hateful speech.''
Yes, I agree. Though if the threat is irrelevant to someone's identity factor/group they belong to distinguished for something, such as race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, age, gender, etc, it would not be classified as hate speech in this debate.
Conclusion
Can we not focus too much on Freedom of Speech and Hate Speech laws in America in the upcoming arguments other than rebuttals? Can we focus more on what free speech consists of, its meaning, general free speech, etc?
Also, I did not have enough space, so I will propose more rebuttals to con's first argument and provide supporting arguments that support my claim.
Sources in the Comments
Hate speech does not exist. Hateful speech does, but this has nothing to do with free speech.
Round 3
MORE Important Rebuttals To Con's Argument 1
’’Third,It’s pretty obvious that you can say what you want under the First Amendment.‘’
We can say anything we want?We cannot say anything,such as threats because they are not protected in the First Amendment.You clearly said:‘’The problem though,is that now threats become a form of hate speech,entailing that you are also arguing that threats(since they are also hate speech)are protected under the First Amendment,which we know is not true.''.We know that you cannot threaten someone under the law in US,so why did you say we can say anything we want under the First Amendment?Contradiction.
’’The problem though,is that now threats become a form of hate speech,entailing that you are also arguing that threats(since they are also hate speech)are protected under the First Amendment,which we know is not true.’’
Not talking about the First Amendment,but if were,you are saying that a threat,a part of hate speech,not the whole part of hate speech,is not a protected right,but what about the rest of hate speech,that does not have threats?There is no rule in the law that hate speech,other than the 4 types of hate speech that are illegal,is illegal.Therefore,if the argument was about the law aspect, some part of hate speech would not be allowed,while others would be.If debating about the law aspect of it in the US,then that would be my stance.Yet we are not.
Rebuttals to Con's Argument 2
''Hate speech does not exist.''
Changed your whole argument.You said something inaccurate and contradicting your own argument,because my argument was too good and you dropped arguments.Faults in this:
- If hate speech didn't exist,why were you talking about it in your argument,why didn't you say it earlier that it didn't exist?For example,you said in your first argument,''However, your lack of definition gives me the room necessary to create a theoretical point:threats always or almost always include a form of hateful speech.''and''The problem though,is that now threats become a form of hate speech'',so hate speech does exist,since you said that''threats become a form of hate speech.'',clearly meaning that hate speech exists and that threats are a part of them.Threats exist,and they are a part of hate speech,which we agreed upon,so that must mean hate speech,does exist.You even confirmed this with the quote,''entailing that you are also arguing that threats (since they ARE also hate speech)''.The same technique can be applied to shaming and bullying and this quote,''Of course,there ARE other forms of hate speech, like shaming and bullying,''.You also said ''what ‘hate speech’ you are talking about.'',meaning you believed that hate speech existed and were asking for a definition of what is considered hate speech.So what you are saying is that you believed that hate speech existed,and then some hours later your whole viewpoint apparentlychanged because you didn't know how to win against my argument,is that it?
- Hateful Speech=hate speech (next rebuttal explains), and you said that hateful speech exists, so hate speech exists. Contradiction.
- You provided no proof.All you wrote in your argument were 2 sentences,that weren't even long enough to include enough information.If you make a claim,you have the burden of proof,so what proof do you have for your claim that hate speech does not exist?Two short sentences is not an argument,sorry.
- So all of the sources talking about hate speech are wrong?Websites can be wrong,but if information is the same on multiple websites,it likely is true,because it would be rare if all those sites lied about the same thing.I can list you more than 30 articles,journals,etc on hate speech.Even the UN talks about hate speech.Link in comments.
- Hate speech exists and is in most dictionaries,including Oxford English Dictionary,one of the most accurate/biggest dictionaries.
''Hateful speech does,but this has nothing to do with free speech.''
Faults in this:
- What do you mean that hate speech doesn't,but hateful speech does?That is like saying that the feeling joyful exists but joy doesn't.Hateful speech is the same as hate speech.The same way joyful is describing something as feeling joy.You just twisted everything to make it easier for you,because you knew you were failing.Just adding a 'ful' to a word does not change the debate totally.More Evidence Later
- If hateful speech has nothing to do with free speech,then why are there so many articles and papers talking about free speech and hateful speech(since hateful speech is the same as hate speech)?There clearly has been discussion on whether free speech includes hate speech or not,since saying hate speech IS saying your opinion,and free speech is saying any opinion.You see the connection?That is why there is a debate on this topic in the first place anyways.Also,hate speech and free speech both share the speech component.
Con dropped many arguments.
Sources in Comments
What do you mean that hate speech doesn’t, but hateful speech does?
The term is BS but it can happen. Not that complicated. Your legibility sucks by the way.
Round 4
More Rebuttals to Con's 2nd Argument
1.''Hateful speech does''
Con is saying is hate speech doesn't exist,but hateful speech does.These are the faults:
- In the context''Hate speech does not exist.Hateful speech does,but this has nothing to do with free speech.''you didn't specify the difference between hate speech and hateful speech and didn't define what hateful speech meant.If you can't define the difference between hate speech and hateful speech, then they are the same.Reason different words/terms exist for things is because the things are different and need a different identification,if there is no differing identification then the two are same.
- Hateful speech can't be found pretty much anywhere.Since they are the same,instead of hateful speech why not use hate speech?Biggest dictionaries like Oxford English Dictionary,which has thousands of words,do not have hateful speech as a term,but have hate speech.Also,Oxford English Dictionary is one of the most accurate dictionaries.
Rebuttals to Con's 3rd Argument
In response to''What do you mean that hate speech doesn’t,but hateful speech does?''Con wrote:
1.''The term is BS but it can happen.Not that complicated.''
- Used a swearword which is breaking the rules of this debate since I said:''Please do not use any swear words or words that are mean to the opposite side other than if quoted from a source.''I had written that before you accepted the debate,so you should know.Voters can minus point(s) from con for conduct.
- You mean that hate speech is BS or hateful speech?I am guessing hate speech.Since hate speech is hateful speech(I have proved already),do you mean both terms are BS?
- What proof do you have that hate speech is BS?You make a claim,you have the burden of proof.Yet you have said no proof.
- You said that it can happen.If hate speech can happen isn't it real then?Clearly contradicted own statement,''Hate speech does not exist.''What you meant was that hate speech is BS but it can happen.So just because you believed that hate speech didn't exist,after my rebuttals,you said it was BS, and you gave in and said it can happen telling us that hate speech exists and you were lying.If hate speech can happen,why did you say it doesn't exist?Your beliefs change fast.
- You said not that complicated,but it is getting complicated,because you keep lying and debates are supposed to be complicated,that is why debate arguments are long and why people pick controversial debates, and not straightforward and boring debates like 2+2=4.People who don't like complicated are not set to debate.If it was that easy there wouldn't be debates.I would say that free speech includes hate speech and you would just say that it wouldn't if you didn't want a complicated debate.At the bare minimum if you didn't want a complicated debate we would say 3 points each and that would be our argument.Doesn't sound like a good debate to me.
- What is complicated about a question?I asked ''What do you mean that hate speech doesn't,but hateful speech does?''on how hate speech doesn't exist and hateful speech does.Its confusing!Ofcourse Hateful speech and hate speech are the same! Anyone in their right mind would agree!
2.''Your legibility sucks by the way.''
- Legibility sucks because character limit is small(5000)and I have a lot to say so I have to cut words out and cut irrelevant spaces like the spaces after punctuation stops and stuff and point is you get the main idea.
- If my legibility sucks,can you give some examples so I can clear up everything and I can try phrase something like that better next time?You haven't given examples so I can clear up.If you make claim,you have burden of proof even though I know what you are talking about,you give proof for your claim.This is the evidence of why you should have given evidence for your claim.Have not given evidence for many of your claims and I have already pointed out in my points.
- If you had lot to write/good rebuttals and arguments you would also do the same,cut out irrelevant spaces,words,etc.You don't have much issue with legibility because you didn't write much.My legibility problem more acceptable.I am at least writing long/good arguments and character count was small and was trying to fit it all in,but you write 2-3 sentences.
- In this argument I am doing the same cutting down irrelevant words,spaces...
Conclusion
Pro still dropped many arguments/didn't reply to them.
If con/any readers can't understand something in my argument you can ask in comments so I can clear up stuff
There will be more rebuttals to con's 2nd argument in my next argument.
I don't think I will have space to provide any supporting arguments for my claim due to the long rebuttals even though I do have supporting arguments,but I hope that voters will still appreciate my rebuttals and give me points for them.This debate is mainly me rebutting con's arguments.
Sources in Comments
I respectfully disagree, but I can see your position.
Round 5
Will cut out irrelevant spaces/words and such due to small character limit so the text might be choppy.If con/readers do not understand ask in comments.
''Hateful speech does''
Con is saying that hate speech doesn't exist while hateful speech does.
- Words Hateful and Hate are almost the same.My evidence:
Meaning of Hate from Oxford English Dictionary(one of the most accurate dictionaries out there):
Hate(verb):
1.feel intense dislike for.
2.have a strong aversion to(something).
4.express strong dislike for; criticize or abuse.
Hate(Noun):
1.intense dislike.
Similar Words:
-despise
-feel aversion towards
-feel revulsion towards
-feel hostile towards
-be repelled by
-regard with disgust
-not be able to bear/stand
Meaning of Hateful from Oxford Learner's Dictionary(one of the most accurate dictionaries out there):
Hateful(adjective)
1.very unkind or unpleasant
2.a hateful person/place/face
3.hateful to somebody
How they are almost the same:
I said almost same because hateful has ful at the end/has slightly different meaning from hate.One of the meaning of hateful is ''a hateful person/place/face''and in one of the meaning of hate it says:
''feel intense dislike for.''
A person/place/face is hateful to you, you feel intense dislike for them.If someone is hateful to a person or a group of people based off of race,sexual orientation,gender,etc,they feeling intense dislike for them AS WELL.If hate/hateful are so connected and related then the two terms are kind of the same.Could give you many examples,due to small character limit(5000),can't include them all.Encourage con/readers try see connections for themself.Since ful when added end of a word,it means to be full of something(source and proof in link),so HATEFUL,is to be full of HATE.For you to be full of hate(hateful)you have to feel hate,since you feel hate/hatred towards someone or something.Hateful speech be full of hate speech.
- Since hateful speech is hate speech,I proved already,and hate speech is BS,and doesn’t exist,even though it does exist,which I have proved already,if it didn’t exist and is BS,then what term would we use instead for ‘’abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity,religion,sexual orientation,or similar grounds.’’?Not a term other than hate speech has that meaning.
''I respectfully disagree,but I can see your position.''
- Guess you disagree with my claim free speech includes hate speech.Say what you disagree because it can confuse people/opponent.If it is specific pointquote it and you say why you disagree/evidence to back up.Yet you haven't done that.
- You see my position because I said substantial evidence.I can't see your POSITION because you didn't say substantial EVIDENCE. That is whole point of this debate.
- I know you disagree,that why you accepted debate as con.
- Hope voters will not focus much on my legibility issue.The short character limit(5000)and my long arguments made me cut out irrelevant words,spaces and such.At least I gave long/good arguments and con didn't.
- Con dropped many arguments/didn't reply to them because couldn't answer them/were too lazy to answer/or some other reason. Voters take note of this and minus point(s) from con for arguments for this.
- Con used swear-word(BS).Going against rules.I clearly stated in the description''Please do not use any swear words or words that are mean to the opposite side other than if quoted from a source.''before con accepted debate so should know better.Voters minus point(s) from con for conduct because of this.
- Con had extremely short arguments.Arguments 2,3 and 4 been 1-4 sentences.It isn't enough.Voters minus point(s) from con for arguments for this.
- Con didn't provide proof for many of their claims.When you claim something,you have the burden of proof.Voters should take note of this and minus point(s) from con for arguments for this.
- Con didn't use sources or didn't say links for them unlike me who said sources in comments.If con didn't use sources con could have said so.Voters minus point(s) from con for sources because of this.
- Couldn't say supporting arguments that support my claim due to long rebuttals though I do have supporting arguments but couldn't fit them all in due to short character limit(5000) but hope voters appreciate rebuttals to give me points for better argument.
- Next argument con says weaker since I have said in-depth rebuttals to con's points and have said evidence.The Argument con makes next,I would likely answered it in very good way if had argument round after con's next argument but since I don't I will not be able to answer but hope voters will look back at this debate and pick me winner.
Sources in Comments
OK. I disagree — free speech exists, and hate specch does not, even if one speaks hatefully.
Part 3 (Since I couldn't fit all the sources in one comment due to character limit) Sources for Pro's 3rd argument:
4.
Claim 4A:If hateful speech has nothing to do with free speech,then why are there so many articles and papers talking about free speech and hateful speech
Claim 4B:There clearly has been discussion on whether free speech includes hate speech or not
Claim 4C:free speech is saying any opinion
Context:
''Hateful speech does,but this has nothing to do with free speech.''
What do you mean that hate speech doesn't,but hateful speech does?That is like saying that the feeling joyful exists but joy doesn't.Hateful speech is the same as hate speech.The same way joyful is describing something as feeling joy.You just twisted everything to make it easier for you,because you knew you were failing.Just adding a 'ful' to a word does not change the debate totally.More Evidence Later
If hateful speech has nothing to do with free speech,then why are there so many articles and papers talking about free speech and hateful speech(since hateful speech is the same as hate speech)?There clearly has been discussion on whether free speech includes hate speech or not,since saying hate speech IS saying your opinion,and free speech is saying any opinion.You see the connection?That is why there is a debate on this topic in the first place anyways.Also,hate speech and free speech both share the speech component.
Sources for claim 4A:
(I will just include 2 to not make it long)
-https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/hate-speech-versus-freedom-of-speech
-https://uwm.edu/free-speech-rights-responsibilities/faqs/what-is-hate-speech-and-is-it-protected-by-the-first-amendment/
Sources for claim 4B:
(I will just include 2 to not make it long)
-https://www.stophateuk.org/about-hate-crime/what-is-online-hate-crime/online-hate-and-free-speech/
-https://www.amnesty.org.uk/free-speech-freedom-expression-human-right#:~:text=Freedom%20of%20speech%20and%20the,it%20can%20be%20legitimately%20restricted.
Source for Claim 4C:
This is the Oxford English Dictionary Definiton and it is really long because I can't see the Oxford English Dictionary definition of this word without paying, and if I went to the site of the definition, the URL would be much shorter:
https://www.google.com/searchq=free+speech+meaning&sca_esv=6201dd4f446f43b2&rlz=1CAOUAQ_enGB1114&biw=1300&bih=561&ei=6aW0ZsunCK6uhbIPpbC5wQM&ved=0ahUKEwiLwOLEn-WHAxUuV0EAHSVYLjgQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=free+speech+meaning&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiE2ZyZWUgc3BlZWNoIG1lYW5pbmcyChAAGIAEGEYY-QEyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIIEAAYFhgeGA8yJBAAGIAEGEYY-QEYlwUYjAUY3QQYRhj5ARj0Axj1Axj2A9gBBEj8vAFQnoYBWLy7AXAGeAGQAQWYAYoHoAG4S6oBDTAuNS45LjMuNC4zLjK4AQPIAQD4AQGYAhugAr1CqAIKwgITEAAYgAQYQxi0AhiKBRjqAtgBAcICFBAAGIAEGOMEGLQCGOkEGOoC2AEBwgIWEAAYAxi0AhjlAhjqAhiMAxiPAdgBAsICFhAuGAMYtAIY5QIY6gIYjAMYjwHYAQLCAgsQABiABBiRAhiKBcICChAAGIAEGEMYigXCAgoQLhiABBhDGIoFwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAggQABiABBixA8ICCBAuGIAEGLEDwgIFEC4YgATCAhEQLhiABBiRAhixAxiDARiKBcICDRAuGIAEGLEDGEMYigXCAhAQABiABBixAxhDGIMBGIoFwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYigXCAg4QABiABBixAxiDARiKBcICERAuGIAEGLEDGNEDGIMBGMcBwgIgEC4YgAQYkQIYsQMYgwEYigUYlwUY3AQY3gQY3wTYAQPCAhYQLhiABBixAxjRAxhDGIMBGMcBGIoFwgINEC4YgAQYQxjUAhiKBcICERAAGIAEGJECGLEDGIMBGIoFwgIQEC4YgAQYsQMYQxiDARiKBcICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgILEC4YgAQYxwEYrwHCAgsQABiABBiGAxiKBcICCBAAGIAEGKIEwgIkEAAYgAQYRhj5ARiXBRiMBRjdBBhGGPkBGPQDGPUDGPYD2AEEmAOjAboGBAgBGAe6BgQIAhgKugYGCAMQARgUugYGCAQQARgTkgcLNS4xLjcuNS43LjKgB4qyAg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp&surl=1&safe=active&ssui=on
Part 2 Sources (Since I couldn't fit all the sources in one comment due to character limit) for Pro's 3rd Argument:
3.
Claim 3A: I can list you more than 30 articles,journals,etc on hate speech.
Claim 3B: Even the UN talks about hate speech.
Claim 3C: Hate speech exists and is in most dictionaries,including Oxford English Dictionary,one of the most accurate/biggest dictionaries.
Context:
''Hate speech does not exist.''
Changed your whole argument.You said something inaccurate and contradicting your own argument,because my argument was too good and you dropped arguments.Faults in this:
If hate speech didn't exist,why were you talking about it in your argument,why didn't you say it earlier that it didn't exist?For example,you said in your first argument,''However, your lack of definition gives me the room necessary to create a theoretical point:threats always or almost always include a form of hateful speech.''and''The problem though,is that now threats become a form of hate speech'',so hate speech does exist,since you said that''threats become a form of hate speech.'',clearly meaning that hate speech exists and that threats are a part of them.Threats exist,and they are a part of hate speech,which we agreed upon,so that must mean hate speech,does exist.You even confirmed this with the quote,''entailing that you are also arguing that threats (since they ARE also hate speech)''.The same technique can be applied to shaming and bullying and this quote,''Of course,there ARE other forms of hate speech, like shaming and bullying,''.You also said ''what ‘hate speech’ you are talking about.'',meaning you believed that hate speech existed and were asking for a definition of what is considered hate speech.So what you are saying is that you believed that hate speech existed,and then some hours later your whole viewpoint apparentlychanged because you didn't know how to win against my argument,is that it?
Hateful Speech=hate speech (next rebuttal explains), and you said that hateful speech exists, so hate speech exists. Contradiction.
You provided no proof.All you wrote in your argument were 2 sentences,that weren't even long enough to include enough information.If you make a claim,you have the burden of proof,so what proof do you have for your claim that hate speech does not exist?Two short sentences is not an argument,sorry.
So all of the sources talking about hate speech are wrong?Websites can be wrong,but if information is the same on multiple websites,it likely is true,because it would be rare if all those sites lied about the same thing.I can list you more than 30 articles,journals,etc on hate speech.Even the UN talks about hate speech.Link in comments.
Hate speech exists and is in most dictionaries,including Oxford English Dictionary,one of the most accurate/biggest dictionaries.
Sources For Claim 3A:
(Let's just include 3 articles, so this comment isn't too long)
-https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/hate#:~:text=Generally%2C%20however%2C%20hate%20speech%20is,%2C%20disability%2C%20or%20national%20origin.
-https://transparency.meta.com/en-gb/policies/community-standards/hate-speech/
-https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/racism-and-xenophobia/eu-code-conduct-countering-illegal-hate-speech-online_en
These are two scholarly journals talking about hate speech and we know that scholarly journals take a lot of thought into making, and are usually more accurate than articles.
-https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244020973022
-https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2882244
Source for Claim 3B:
https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/what-is-hate-speech
Sources for Claim 3C:
(I will just include 4 dictionaries to not make it too long)
Oxford English Dictionary:https://www.oed.com/dictionary/hate-speech_n?tl=true
Cambridge Dictionary:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hate-speech
Collins English Dictionary:https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hate-speech
Dictionary.com:https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hate-speech
Part 1 Sources (Can't fit into character limit) for Pro's 3rd Argument:
Notes:
1.For the source of claim 4C down below, I used the Oxford English Dictionary Definiton and it is really long because I can't see the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word 'free speech' without paying, and if I went to the site of the definition, the URL would be much shorter. The links below, they might not be in blue and be underlined, so if you want to visit them, perhaps for voting on who has better sources, you will have to copy and link the URL into the Google search bar. But trust me, they will work.
2.In the last comment I made, on pro's argument 2 sources, for the source of the definition of hate speech, the link does not work. But I think to access the definition you have to pay but the new link is:https://www.oed.com/dictionary/hate-speech_n?tl=true
This link is for the Oxford English Dictionary, but if you don't want to pay to see definition, you can just go to my second argument where I have included the definition of hate speech. Also, here are some other dictionary definitions of hate speech which you could also see:
Cambridge Dictionary:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hate-speech
Collins English Dictionary:https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hate-speech
Dictionary.com:https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hate-speech
1.We cannot say anything,such as threats because they are not protected in the First Amendment.We know that you cannot threaten someone under the law in US
Context:
’’Third,It’s pretty obvious that you can say what you want under the First Amendment.‘’
We can say anything we want?We cannot say anything,such as threats because they are not protected in the First Amendment.You clearly said:‘’The problem though,is that now threats become a form of hate speech,entailing that you are also arguing that threats(since they are also hate speech)are protected under the First Amendment,which we know is not true.''.We know that you cannot threaten someone under the law in US,so why did you say we can say anything we want under the First Amendment?Contradiction.
Source:https://www.freedomforum.org/is-hate-speech-illegal/
2.a threat,a part of hate speech,not the whole part of hate speech,is not a protected right,but what about the rest of hate speech,that does not have threats?There is no rule in the law that hate speech,other than the 4 types of hate speech that are illegal,is illegal.if the argument about law aspect, some part of hate speech would not be allowed,while others would be.If debating about the law aspect of it in the US,
Context:
’’The problem though,is that now threats become a form of hate speech,entailing that you are also arguing that threats(since they are also hate speech)are protected under the First Amendment,which we know is not true.’’
Not talking about the First Amendment,but if were,you are saying that a threat,a part of hate speech,not the whole part of hate speech,is not a protected right,but what about the rest of hate speech,that does not have threats?There is no rule in the law that hate speech,other than the 4 types of hate speech that are illegal,is illegal.Therefore,if the argument about the law aspect, some part of hate speech would not be allowed,while others would be.If debating about the law aspect of it in the US,then that would be my stance.Yet we are not.
Source:https://www.freedomforum.org/is-hate-speech-illegal/
These sources are for Pro's argument 2:
Note: I don't know how to shorten these links down below, and they might not be in blue and be underlined, so if you want to visit them, perhaps for voting on who has better sources, you will have to copy and link the URL into the Google search bar, so trust me, they will work.
Free Speech-noun
noun: free speech
the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.
Source:https://www.google.com/search?q=free+speech+meaning&sca_esv=6201dd4f446f43b2&rlz=1CAOUAQ_enGB1114&biw=1300&bih=561&ei=6aW0ZsunCK6uhbIPpbC5wQM&ved=0ahUKEwiLwOLEn-WHAxUuV0EAHSVYLjgQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=free+speech+meaning&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiE2ZyZWUgc3BlZWNoIG1lYW5pbmcyChAAGIAEGEYY-QEyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIIEAAYFhgeGA8yJBAAGIAEGEYY-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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp&surl=1&safe=active&ssui=on
Hate Speech-noun
noun: hate speech
abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.
Source:oogle.com/search?q=hate+speech+meaning&sca_esv=6201dd4f446f43b2&rlz=1CAOUAQ_enGB1114&biw=1300&bih=561&ei=FKa0ZsmeCb-zhbIP2qqgyQE&ved=0ahUKEwjJ-KPZnWHAxW_WUEAHVoVKBkQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=hate+speech+meaning&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiE2hhdGUgc3BlZWNoIG1lYW5pbmcyCxAAGIAEGJECGIoFMgoQABiABBhDGIoFMhAQABiABBixAxhDGIMBGIoFMg4QABiABBiRAhixAxiKBTILEAAYgAQYkQIYigUyERAAGIAEGJECGLEDGIMBGIoFMgoQABiABBhDGIoFMgoQABiABBhDGIoFMgoQABiABBhDGIoFMgoQABiABBhDGIoFSO4ZUNgLWK0XcAJ4AZABAJgBxgKgAYETqgEHMC4zLjYuMbgBA8gBAPgBAZgCA6AC0APCAgoQABiwAxjWBBhHwgINEAAYgAQYsAMYQxiKBZgDAIgGAZAGCpIHBzEuMS4wLjGgB8NI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp&surl=1&safe=active&ssui=on
ok then
I don’t want to start over and I don’t want you to forfeit. A forfeit happens when you don’t respond within the set timeframe. Ergo, it would take It would take multiple months to forfeit. Let’s just make the 5000 characters work.
This is my first debate on debatart, although i have debated before with friends in real life. Do you guys have any tips?
You dont need a source.
Just type definition in description and write that that definition must be used.
If you want source, click on the site which offers definition. Dont copy google search link
I am typing in the definition of the terms and their sources, but when I type the sources the URL is too big for each of them and they don't work. After typing and pressing the spacebar, they do not turn blue like a link. For example, this is the source link for one of the definitions:
https://www.google.com/search?q=free+speech+meaning&sca_esv=d3799be6f015f4e8&rlz=1CAOUAQ_enGB1114&ei=dIWyZt7JBt6Hxc8P3Nq1wAE&ved=0ahUKEwje09ummOGHAxXeQ_EDHVxtDRgQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=free+speech+meaning&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiE2ZyZWUgc3BlZWNoIG1lYW5pbmcyEBAAGIAEGJECGIoFGEYY-QEyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIIEAAYFhgeGA8yKhAAGIAEGJECGIoFGEYY-QEYlwUYjAUY3QQYRhj5ARj0Axj1Axj2A9gBA0jBK1D2A1jSJnABeACQAQCYAcoFoAH_M6oBDTAuMy42LjQuMi4zLjG4AQPIAQD4AQGYAhSgAr85qAIKwgIUEAAYgAQYkQIYtAIYigUY6gLYAQHCAhQQABiABBjjBBi0AhjpBBjqAtgBAcICFhAAGAMYtAIY5QIY6gIYjAMYjwHYAQLCAgoQABiABBhDGIoFwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAggQABiABBixA8ICDhAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGIoFwgIIEC4YgAQYsQPCAg4QABiABBixAxiDARiKBcICBRAuGIAEwgIQEAAYgAQYsQMYQxiDARiKBcICDRAAGIAEGLEDGEMYigXCAhEQABiABBiRAhixAxiDARiKBcICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgILEAAYgAQYkQIYigXCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAcICKhAAGIAEGJECGIoFGEYY-QEYlwUYjAUY3QQYRhj5ARj0Axj1Axj2A9gBA8ICCxAAGIAEGIYDGIoFmAM3ugYECAEYB7oGBAgCGAq6BgYIAxABGBOSBwsxLjEuNy41LjQuMqAH3KgB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp&surl=1&safe=active&ssui=on
Sooooo, any solutions?
Defining hate speech might be good to.
Ok...... I will definitely define some terms soon. Didn't think about it but will do. Thanks for the tips.
You should clarify if you mean free speech the principle, or free speech the law.
Free speech the law absolutely does not include threatening speech.
I actually agree with this statement. The First Amendment makes no mention of hate speech, and despite the efforts made by states to create hate speech laws, the Constitutional right to say what we want is indeed unlimited.
All conservative speech can be argued to be hate speech and it should all be legal.
You must define hate speech, otherwise you will lose the debate if opponent defines hate speech as any speech which results in hurting others and thus reducing actual free speech.