Instigator / Pro
0
1485
rating
19
debates
44.74%
won
Topic
#5705
We should be (and are, in the US, btw) able to say “Nigger”.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
0
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1389
rating
413
debates
44.55%
won
Description
In the US, under the 1st Amendment, we have protected free speech, being able to say anything except DIRECT incitement to violence. (e.g. you can’t say “fire” in a crowded theater) But offending someone is not a DIRECT incitement to violence.
All this to say, I DON'T believe that you SHOULD say “Nigger” if it is offensive. You should not slur at all. But honestly, it’s all about how you use it. And why do Blacks get a special pass to say it but not other races?
Round 1
Pro
#1
I am not saying I necessarily support it...
but it’s free speech.
Like it or leave it big boy.
Con
#2
Thank you.
Many of us want a productive and constructive society ultimately.
I understand about the free speech. We really have to revisit the point of it .
I believe many realize that it opens the flood gates just having free speech. It's more of an illusion that it really exists like being in the land of the "free".
You're not completely free to do whatever you want. There is restraint and there is censorship.
Hate speech, offensive language and even in some circumstances profanity are restrained.
So with the aspiration of being "free" , saying what you will as doing, it becomes a double edged sword.
As I've said we're looking at to be a flourishing society that could stand much more improvement.
This is why we have government, law enforcement, order, court system, voting, elections, voting in better policies to make improvements. Making changes to laws, making new policies to clean up issues, fix stagnant issues, recurring problems and all.
We do many things to actually have a civilization. Getting away from "racism", being divided, fighting discrimination, socially bias attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, all sorts of supremacy.
Leaving the gateway for the language to stay the same keeps or perpetuates the link.
Freedom of speech. Is it good? Is it innately constructive? No.
People want peace, no conflict, no turbulence, no "race" wars or wars. There are people pushing towards universalism. No black man no white man just universal man. No injustice, no race because race is racism.
For people arguing freedom this, freedom that, just squash it. Freedom is not innately good. That's why we extend it as well as deny it for the good.
So should we just say anything like nigger, cracker, faggot, chink, spick?
Is it constructive? The record shows what it shows. Being it is what it has been, why should we continue?
"Oh just for the sake of freedom and freedom is good." It's counterintuitive in all historical and present day record.
Round 2
Pro
#3
I’ll start with this: there is NEVER, EVER a viable reason, that in the United States of America, we need to censor a person who is not directly causing harm or inciting violence. (e.g. you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater) But other than that, or saying something like “behead this person!” or causing virile harm (emotions do not qualify), there is no reason ever for censorship. PERIOD.
I will even go so far as to say this: I am not a Kamala Harris supporter (ironically enough, a big reason is because she is anti- 1st and 2nd amendment. She tried to censor Trump’s Twitter account after J6 and also supports a mandatory gun buyback program. (confiscation, essentially) Same thing with Tim Walz, he hates the 1st amendment especially, saying “there is no right to free speech on misinformation or hate speech”, but I digress.) BUT, Kamala and Tim should not be censored just b/c I disagree with them. In the US, they have a right to speak against Trump and vice versa. That is how a free and fair country works. I don’t care if Kamala calls Trump a blonde bitch or an orange asshole (which is true, btw. His face is pretty orange and he can certainly be an asshole.) I also don’t care if Trump calls Kamala a shameless slut (which is true, btw — she could only run for senate and AG after her prostitution with Willie Brown) or a stupid cunt (she failed her BAR exam and can not put together coherent sentences without a teleprompter).
It’s called Free Speech and is a constitutional founding principle.
"Many of us want a productive and constructive society ultimately."
My main focal point is on liberty. Liberty is freedom. A society cannot be successful without freedom. Thus, if some retard on the street calls someone else a nigger, it would still be a more "productive and constructive society” than if he did not have that option since liberty breeds success, and that success breeds more success. Unfortunately, that is the cost of a free society. Be more virile and set your emotions to the side, in the focus of real principles.
"There is censorship."
Yes, this is a sad reality depending on where you live.
"Getting away from "racism", being divided, fighting discrimination, socially bias attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, all sorts of supremacy."
I completely agree. I am against any form of vicious racial discrimination. But, if we the people don’t have the right to express ourselves freely without fear of the bloated and ever-growing government, then what do we have other than am authoritarian dictatorship?
Freedom of speech. Is it good? Is it innately constructive? No.
Look, in China, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, etc., the citizens do not have the freedoms we do. The citizens live either in fear, decay, or like most, would kill you to take your spot as an American.
Take a look at what has happened to X in Brazil. Their new leftist President decided it would be a good idea to criminalize X all b/c Elon would not censor something. When you put a constraint on liberty, you rock the entire boat. The leaders like the power rush they feel and do more of it. More censorship. More mandatory gun confiscation. More this. More that.
You can also draw a conclusion from Prohibition. Woodrow Wilson thought it to be a good idea to ban alcohol. How well did that work out?
There are people pushing towards universalism. No black man no white man just universal man. No injustice, no race because race is racism.
As the great MLK said, “I have a dream, that a man is judged not on the color of his skin, but on the content of his character.”
In his time, he was cheered and applauded. When someone says that today, he is smeared as a racist, and, as you suggest, is sometimes even censored.
For people arguing freedom this, freedom that, just squash it. Freedom is not innately good.
You are expressing principles that are anti-american and anti-constitutional. You are admittedly against “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Liberty = freedom, and you say that
Freedom = “not innately good"
(Also, just curious, who do you support in this election?)
Con
#4
"I’ll start with this: there is NEVER, EVER a viable reason, that in the United States of America, we need to censor a person who is not directly causing harm or inciting violence. (e.g. you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater) But other than that, or saying something like “behead this person!” or causing virile harm (emotions do not qualify), there is no reason ever for censorship. PERIOD."
The opposing side here is admitting free speech alone in and of itself is the opposite of being civil and that there must be restraints which we can call censorship and tamed language. Thus speech is policed to keep civility and order.
The particular circumstances have been addressed here highlighting to put them aside saying aside from them, speak freely.
In any particular context, we can argue freedom is unharmful and we argue vice versa in the opposite.
"My main focal point is on liberty. Liberty is freedom. A society cannot be successful without freedom."
The same way just saying "freedom", "freedom", "freedom" with no context with it. No good.
Freedom to do what?
A society cannot be successful in what by being free to do what?
It's being free to do whatever that success requires, whatever that is. Instead of just leaving it blank , like that, measure what the success is , what it's supposed to look like.
A society cannot be successful without the freedom to do what it is to be successful.
Not just freedom period.
"Thus, if some retard on the street calls someone else a nigger, it would still be a more "productive and constructive society” than if he did not have that option since liberty breeds success, and that success breeds more success. Unfortunately, that is the cost of a free society. Be more virile and set your emotions to the side, in the focus of real principles."
I would believe that a drive-by or more started with calling somebody nigger. I don't just mean groups of people with the same color skin either .
My position is, what is supposed to be the constructive result?
People have the misnomer that just having freedom in and of itself is good , constructive, justified or virtuous.
It's like having a pie without filling or a book with a title with blank pages. You need substance and context to make this amount to a point, a means to an end .
To say to have freedom, freedom of speech for the sake of just having it is circular. Remember, society aims for civility, law and order. So I say again, freedom is extended for this reason at the same time denying it which includes language.
Definitely areas where you can't say nigger and if you're unordely , unruly about it, you will be apprehended for disturbing the peace, misconduct or not complying to platform rules .
So the topic statement " We should be (and are, in the US, btw) able to say “Nigger”.", well no.
On its face , no. Restrictions from select arenas will keep us from doing so on its face. We should be able to where there are no restrictions but not period.
Giving the track record of this language, taking it that society aims to be civil and constructive, albeit missing the mark, it's in their best interest that they should by all means avoid this language as well as idle vacuous verbosity.
I'll put context with success. For society to be successful in being socially advantageous , beneficial in flourishing in sustaining non hostility, harsh language and anything often associated with vile and violent means, it would have to shift from such a dialect to a virtuous, constructive, proverbial one .
Many people say there's nothing wrong with misusing and playing with derogatory language. It can be embracing, endearing and fun. Well that's why we have this cycle of highs and lows. There's never any true peace because what we use for synthetic happiness is the same to fuel malice and mayhem on one another.
"Yes, this is a sad reality depending on where you live."
I say censorship is often necessary. It's just the wrong things are being censored. A biting of the tongue can stand to be practiced more.
"I completely agree. I am against any form of vicious racial discrimination. But, if we the people don’t have the right to express ourselves freely without fear of the bloated and ever-growing government, then what do we have other than am authoritarian dictatorship?"
Well that's what the "white" supremacists and "racists" want. To be able to express themselves. Make them an argument easy to use. A dictatorship that is all about justice and no mistreatment, what's the problem?
I guess it depends on the type of dictator. I like how Mr. Neely Fuller Jr. put it. That is justice in just two parts. Number one, guarantee that no person is mistreated and number two, guaranteeing that the person that needs help the most gets the most constructive help.
See everything is circulating around constructive. Not just doing anything you want and just being free to do whatever. That's the opposite of civility. To actually eliminate harm and maintain civility, there actually has to be a restraint on freedom as well as extension in which you agree as you highlighted specific scenarios in your last turn.
The topic says we should be able to say nigger.
I noticed an individual in the comments mentioned that this should not be legal to say in certain cases changing the stance of we just being able to say it period.
I think we all agree with that but it does change the face of it from what the topic statement initially says.
"Woodrow Wilson thought it to be a good idea to ban alcohol.
How well did that work out?"
It worked out with many being "free" to drink and intoxicate themselves. As well as being free to demolish their health. At the same time not free to drink as much as they desire and drive or else their freedom will be found swiftly taken away. So again , freedom on its face is not the aim .
"As the great MLK said, “I have a dream, that a man is judged not on the color of his skin, but on the content of his character.”
In his time, he was cheered and applauded. When someone says that today, he is smeared as a racist, and, as you suggest, is sometimes even censored."
I doubt you'd find him agreeing with just freedom to do whatever because he was supposed to be a minister. When he said "free at last" , that wasn't freedom to do anything. He championed censorship if it meant being non violent. So if it's better to censor yourself, be silent to be non violent, then you disagree or oppose in silence.
"You are expressing principles that are anti-american and anti-constitutional. You are admittedly against “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
America , the people are in chaos and ruin and disarray no thanks to the constitution.
I never argued the position that I'm against those things. Each one of those things have to be in a context before just running with them as is. Do you champion those things for a life of a criminal that finds happiness within that deleterious lifestyle?
Get out of the cliche broad terms and put some framing around the concepts you're trying to argue.
"Liberty = freedom, and you say that
Freedom = “not innately good" "
If you hold the position that freedom in and of itself is good, you're contradicting your position.
"(Also, just curious, who do you support in this election?)"
I don't support any to be elected. I can support in other things like obeying the law, paying your taxes.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Freedom to do what?
In this context, we are talking about the freedom of speech. But also we shall be (and are, in the US) granted the freedoms of guns, of not having soldiers in your home, and all the other guaranteed liberties in the Bill of Rights.
Let me cite an example of how and where “freedom”, which you vehemently want to censor “censorship is often necessary”, but I will cite here how freedom leads to prosper:
Argentina. They elected Javier Milei, a President focused on the focal point of LIBERTY. He is against censorship and for liberty and citizens' freedoms Look what happened.
Inflation went down like crazy.
He is one of the best Presidents in history, based on objective ratings and policies.
Many people say there's nothing wrong with misusing and playing with derogatory language.
This is not what I said. What I said was that, of course, I condemn vicious racial discrimination, of any kind. But, it is not the job of a government to police language. I want a small a government as possible.
Sure, people should shut the fuck up sometimes and not call blacks niggers, Jews kikes, Muslims terrorists, Whites gringos, Mexicans beaners, etc. But the government should also shut the fuck up and not become a dictatorship that censors others’ speech.
A dictatorship that is all about justice and no mistreatment, what's the problem?
Based on the way you debate, I think you’re a liberal, which is fine. Given that the left constantly calls Trump a dictator, which is objectively bad (I will explain why) and then censors him and others they disagree with, they are quite hypocritical. Also, it’s even more hypocritical when you say Trump is a dictator so we shouldn’t elect him, but then you support a dictatorship.
See, the problem with a dictatorship is that it is never about justice and proper treatment, it is always about, well, a stalin/mao-esque person dictating what other people can and can’t do.
I have discovered another sad revelation:
Not only do I believe in Freedom of speech, and you believe in Censorship, but also while I believe in freedom in general, you believe in a dictatorship, which is also presumably hypocritical since you hate Trump b/c he you think he is a dictator (If I think you’re liberal)
If you hold the position that freedom in and of itself is good, you're contradicting your position.
No, it’s not. In fact, my views go part and parcel with one another; if I say that we should be able to say Nigger, then that fits in with saying that we should have our god-given, guaranteed, unalienable freedoms. I think freedom IS innately good. (case in point, Javier Milei)
He (MLK) championed censorship if it meant being non violent.
This is a blatant lie. MLK was NOT for censorship.
It worked out with many being "free" to drink and intoxicate themselves. As well as being free to demolish their health. At the same time not free to drink as much as they desire and drive or else their freedom will be found swiftly taken away. So again , freedom on its face is not the aim .
Bro WTF are you talking about? Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, was AGAINST the freedom to intoxicate yourself at a bar. He Passed the 18th Amendment. Do some research and come prepared next time.
I don't support any to be elected. I can support in other things like obeying the law, paying your taxes.
Wait, so you think we should not have a leader? Or are you saying that we should not BE ABLE to elect a leader? Or are you saying you just don’t like the options for the election? Please clarify.
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
Anybody think I'm bluffing about what I said, challenge me.
“OK, here is where I disagree. Black people can absolutely use the word nigger as a slur against other black people. I’ve seen it before.”
No, I agree with you to some degree. My total opinion about this is that like you said, it should be legal if not an incitement to violence. But then we get into the morality aspect of it and not just the legal realm. I think Black people shouldn’t get a pass because as you said, they are perfectly capable of using it as a slur. I think morally speaking, you obviously shouldn’t use it as a slur, but it’s okay to say it in a normal setting if it’s not excessive. For example, don’t say it around kids and stuff. But if you keep using it too much, I think that can give other people the idea that it’s okay to use the word whenever, which it’s not. Overall, don’t say it as a slur, and when not using it as a slur, keep in mind that it is technically a slur. It’s important to give the word respect at least, because it is a very heavy word with lots of connotations.
"I'm glad I missed the last round. Topic was really getting flat in substance . End getting circular.”
If that was true, then you would have said that in the round itself. I think you just forfeited on purpose and this is your masked concession.
"I think you shouldn’t be able to legally say it if (like you said) it’s used as a direct incitement to violence, for instance if you were repeatedly hassling someone with the words.”
So then we agree! You can say the word if you’re using it as free speech, but you can’t use it if it is a direct incitement to violence.
"As for why Black people get a pass, I think it’s because people assume the word can only be used as a slur, and why would black people use as slur against themselves?”
OK, here is where I disagree. Black people can absolutely use the word nigger as a slur against other black people. I’ve seen it before.
"I mean, free speech and everything, but its extremely offensive and wouldnt go well depending where you are.”
I agree. But this debate is about what you should be ABLE to do, not what you SHOULD do.
I'm glad I missed the last round. Topic was really getting flat in substance . End getting circular.
This one seems interesting. I think you shouldn’t be able to legally say it if (like you said) it’s used as a direct incitement to violence, for instance if you were repeatedly hassling someone with the words.
As for why Black people get a pass, I think it’s because people assume the word can only be used as a slur, and why would black people use as slur against themselves? By that logic, anyone can say it as long as they aren’t using it as a slur.
I’d add one more thing to that. You can use it if it is not as a slur, it’s not repeated and not just to get attention. It is a slur so you should give respect to it, even if you’re not using it as such, but you can use it a few times if necessary.
I mean, free speech and everything, but its extremely offensive and wouldnt go well depending where you are.