Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
1
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#5819
the citizens of U.S.A and European countries have no right to call any random Muslim a terrorist
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Okay, I think I'll start simple. It is ridiculous... On all levels in fact. I can understand if a traumatizing event hit a nation (or a particular person himself) then for a period of time, they will be wary around the people they associate with the event. That is understandable, what is not accepted is to become rude, aggressive or even hostile against an entire group of people, just because a minority in them did something bad. I am not stating that it only happens in the U.S.A or in European countries, it happens a lot around the world in fact, but I only have knowledge of these two areas so I'll stick to them. I can also tell that it's not something everyone do (I am not generalizing) but it is still much more socially acceptable than a lot of other act of hostility against different groups. So, even if you hate the ideology or religion or race or anything, one must realize people are more than just ethnicity or religion, making the act of being hostile against them morally wrong. What do you think, friend? I'd love to hear your view!
My view and position is that u.s. citizens have a right or entitlement to free speech. As long as it doesn't bring about harm or manifest such malicious effects.
Really bottom line right there in all sufficiency.
People have a right or legally entitled or empowered by law to say what they say.
With the absence of Communism, you can say things that are aggressive, passive, rude, hurtful to feelings, disrespectful, etc.
In spite of politically correct culture, the old adage, stick and stones may break my bones .
That's the point of that maliciousness. You can use whatever words you use because language is ineffectual to physically damage except if proven to be a catalyst to warfare, attack and depletion of life via suffering or torture.
Even if it's hateful language or prejudice language. This is how different artistry is developed with music, film, literature and comedic strips and skits.
You can call anybody any word you will. You can call me anything. It doesn't warrant me to respond unless my life is being threatened with non empty non idle communication.
Round 2
Alright! thank you for participating in my debate! It was interesting reading your reasoning, so let me get through it:
First, you're being too specific, I didn't only mention U.S citizens, I also included European countries, which you didn't include in your argument...But I will respond to your points anyway.
I guess I should start by asking, what do you mean by sufficiency? Do you mean a limit? If so, what is it? Yes, I agree, the first amendment of the U.S law states clearly that all citizens have free speech, the law protects them fully, that's true. But to what limit? You said as long as it don't manifest a malicious effect....But what do you define as malicious? I will try to address these questions more later on, but the best thing I can say about your response is that it's very....Vague. For now, I invite you to reflect on these questions a little.
One of the strange things I noticed while reading your arguments is that brought up communism, which strike me as odd. If I understand your argument correctly (given that you exclusively speak of the U.S) then since the U.S is a capitalist country, it does push for absolute freedom of speech no matter how disrespectful it is, while communism is totally against that? I will be honest, I find your argument to be lacking....On many aspects. This argument doesn't work for a couple reasons. For starters, if my research don't fail me, then what you said is not entirely true. My first problem with your argument is that by writing that simple sentence, you opened an entire debate, closed it, and pretended everything is fine! You really put me in a cruel position, either I take your words at face value ( since you provided no evidence for your claim) and accept that I lost that part of the argument, or I go and do research to check your claim (which I did to the best of my ability, hence why this answer is coming late). This was a poor choice on your side, it took as it's proof the stereotypes shared about communism, and just pretended the existence of communism itself is against freedom. That circles back to the issue, when you talk about communism, do you speak of it's ideas and theory, or of the regimes that practiced it. Do you see how much you left out in that simple sentence? But let's not get out of topic. According to my research, Communism as a theory does favor collective benefit over individual one, thus, one might assume that it's against freedom of speech since this is an individual type of freedom. However, there is nothing in the theory of Communism that states freedom of speech is forbidden. Now I know what you might say, and you'll be kind of right, this is not what was exactly practiced in the communist regimes. I will be clear, I have no intention of going through this debate, I did not state anything about communism in my invitation, thus, I won't go through it further. Nonetheless, I will address something before moving on, if you were speaking about communist regimes in your argument, then you just brought up my second problem. You....Talked of topic. This debate started fully on the moral implications of negative speech between communities. If you look into the communist regimes, they most likely practiced oppression against speeches that spoke against them, not just speeches. To clear things out, I am not defending these regimes, I am just pointing out how the vagueness of this argument makes it fails to be a suitable one, and I hoped I did a good job at that.
I am not sure I understood your sentence about bones, I believe it's connected to your next sentence? Anyway, I'll skip it....Uhhh, moving on!
Now, your next argument is a headache. You did claim that language (unless clear about it's desire to warfare) is....Ineffectual to physical damage? I disagree, kind of. I wanted at first to speak about mental or moral damage, but I don't think you believe in them, so just let this sentence here as proof I mentioned them. Every speech has message, every word has a meaning. Unless you're insane, there is little chance you speak with no messages behind your words, even if it's not intentional. I will argue that speech damages more than you think, words are far more danger than weapons are. You will never control someone unless you control their thoughts, and speech does just that. Many wars started simply because of miscommunication ( I invite you to read about the Austro-Prussian War (1866), also known as the Seven Weeks' War, just an example of many), words can cause physical damage, even intentional ones, let alone ones spoken purposefully. I'd say words are more dangerous, as they are wounds that stay hidden, and they are what spark hatred and fuel it
Again, you went out of topic. What do art and similar stuff have to do with the topic addressed? Are you mentioning things similar to caricatures? I suppose it's a form of expression, thus, a form of speech? Alright, if that's what you meant, let's address it. To be fair, I have no problem with this....Sort of. Expression of one self is a right, creating a critique through comedy or any form of art is a right as well. My problem can be summoned in one simple question, what is the limit? If I make a kid's show, where every Muslim character is a terrorist that our heroes punish in the end, and 10 years later or so, the number of aggressions against Muslims increase, does that make me part of the reason or no? I went through this more in the comments, but the point is, where could we say speech or media don't influence real life actions? what is our proof that they are not connected? What is the limit on how much can we express ourselves at the price of other? What should be the limit? do you get my point? There is a famous saying that goes "my freedom ends at another's freedom's beginning" (I did not translate it well, I know), speech is difficult to deal with because it plays with the lines of this concept. When I am insulting someone, making fun of them based only on a part of their identity that has nothing to do with them as a person, you may say I am practicing my right, but isn't that at the price of another's right? Don't I have, as a citizen ( I am not a citizen of the U.S, just an example) the right to live peacefully? To not get attacked simply for the way I wear? For my religion? isn't your "expression" of freedom in it's way, an aggression to mine? This is a point in itself, even with no clear intention for warfare or so, absolute freedom of speech is impossible, unless you assume everyone's freedom is non-existent. And you know, there is a solution, it to be balanced. It's (at least in terms of media) to have some of all. Don't get me wrong, I don't people to portray Muslims for example as angels, let us not head in the other extreme. But how about to make the joke about the characters, not the ideas? To make the bad character bad, but just because they are a bad person, not because they are simply a Muslim. Or maybe to have a bad character that is a Muslim, and have a good one? There are many ways to ensure one's freedom of speech exist, without taking others right of simple dignity and respect. The point is not in restricting freedom, it's simply in assuring that everyone has a share of it!
And that was half of what I wanted to say. Thank you so much for making it here! I hope I got my point across. I'd love to read what you have to say!
In closing let's see what you had to say:
"First, you're being too specific, I didn't only mention U.S citizens, I also included European countries, which you didn't include in your argument...But I will respond to your points anyway."
Oh the same applies to them. You didn't show us where their laws are completely different on freedom of speech.
" I guess I should start by asking, what do you mean by sufficiency? Do you mean a limit? If so, what is it?"
Sufficiency means substantial, enough of an argument or explanation in this context .
"Yes, I agree, the first amendment of the U.S law states clearly that all citizens have free speech, the law protects them fully, that's true. "
There you go so you agree people do have a right to say what they say even according to the topic. Your position says they don't.
"But to what limit? You said as long as it don't manifest a malicious effect....But what do you define as malicious? I will try to address these questions more later on, but the best thing I can say about your response is that it's very....Vague. For now, I invite you to reflect on these questions a little."
I made it clear. Let me quote what I've said.
"That's the point of that maliciousness. You can use whatever words you use because language is ineffectual to physically damage except if proven to be a catalyst to warfare, attack and depletion of life via suffering or torture."
It's like you stopped at the word "maliciousness" and didn't read any further, then calling what I said vague when you have an entire context here and elaboration to follow the words.
Are you reading all the words?
I don't know if you can't comprehend too well. Just like you asked me in a message about what side does Pro and Con take ?
It seemed like you couldn't understand Pro is yes and Con is no to a yes or no topic question.
I digress .
"But let's not get out of topic."
Yes you get back on topic and my position and I will close us out and take us home.
" My problem can be summoned in one simple question, what is the limit? If I make a kid's show, where every Muslim character is a terrorist that our heroes punish in the end, and 10 years later or so, the number of aggressions against Muslims increase, does that make me part of the reason or no? I went through this more in the comments, but the point is, where could we say speech or media don't influence real life actions? what is our proof that they are not connected? What is the limit on how much can we express ourselves at the price of other? What should be the limit? do you get my point? There is a famous saying that goes "my freedom ends at another's freedom's beginning" (I did not translate it well, I know), speech is difficult to deal with because it plays with the lines of this concept. When I am insulting someone, making fun of them based only on a part of their identity that has nothing to do with them as a person, you may say I am practicing my right, but isn't that at the price of another's right? Don't I have, as a citizen ( I am not a citizen of the U.S, just an example) the right to live peacefully? To not get attacked simply for the way I wear? For my religion? isn't your "expression" of freedom in it's way, an aggression to mine? This is a point in itself, even with no clear intention for warfare or so, absolute freedom of speech is impossible, unless you assume everyone's freedom is non-existent. And you know, there is a solution, it to be balanced. It's (at least in terms of media) to have some of all. Don't get me wrong, I don't people to portray Muslims for example as angels, let us not head in the other extreme. But how about to make the joke about the characters, not the ideas? To make the bad character bad, but just because they are a bad person, not because they are simply a Muslim. Or maybe to have a bad character that is a Muslim, and have a good one? There are many ways to ensure one's freedom of speech exist, without taking others right of simple dignity and respect. The point is not in restricting freedom, it's simply in assuring that everyone has a share of it!"
To all of this I have to say as repetitive as it is, I simply reiterate:
"That's the point of that maliciousness. You can use whatever words you use because language is ineffectual to physically damage except if proven to be a catalyst to warfare, attack and depletion of life via suffering or torture."
See it's like your missing what is being conveyed here. Your question from this part should of been, how is it proven?
Then we walk step by step. But due to the limitation of rounds, we can't really flush this out and you bogged down your last turn on misunderstanding of my last turn.
But hey, message me if you desire a continuation of this here in the debate arena or topic forums. Let me know.
"Yes, I agree, the first amendment of the U.S law states clearly that all citizens have free speech, the law protects them fully, that's true. "
Yes I agree with you that these people have a right to freedom of speech .
In spite of the topic: "the citizens of U.S.A and European countries have no right....."
Ok so we both agree they do have the right.
well, that was interesting to read! thank you for participating Mall, let's see who wins
I agree with you! my point is just to be a bit nuanced, to not be a jerk on the expanse of other's right of dignity, especially in mass media
I think you have a point,
And that people 'ought be more evenhanded with their criticism, praise, and satire.
But I also lean towards a lot of 'legal freedom, of people's rights to be jerks.
Short of events such as shouting Fire, in a packed theater.
I agree with you! Our subconscious is often time influenced by outsider factors than what we can actually realize. In the case of a recent event, it's easy to see why hatred can rise. But if a child grows watching shows that paints an image in his mind, with adults supporting it, and no proper guidance, then that child is more likely to act upon that image, don't you think? This is why I hate negative stereotypes, they can indirectly shape society's understanding, even if they don't mean to. I think, in this field of influence, especially for children, there should be a healthy mix. Don't glorify a community by only showing it's goods, but also don't go to the other extreme. Make the joke about the characters, not the concept. This way, you can make people laugh while keeping your hands clean of any future implications. Make good characters of this community and bad, only extremes will be against you, what do you think?
I think you have a point,
And it's 'easier for me to agree with your point when the cause and effect occur clearly and quickly.
More difficult is when it occurs vaguely and over a long period of time.
. . .
Someone inciting a mob, to kill X group of people within a day or a week,
Cause and Effect seem more obvious.
When there is a cartoon depicting X group as some stereotype or other, and 10 years later an innocent X of said group get's killed by an individual or mob.
The Cause and Effect is more hazy to me.
While I can't say the cartoon had no effect,
Especially if the culture is 'full of the cartoons,
Is the implication then, that one can't say 'anything exaggerated/negative/false/satire about any groups?
Again though,
I'm fairly on board with you on the short term Cause and Effect,
But sometimes the Cause has no Effect,
And we can't tell until the Effect is in Motion or Occurred.
People don't always expect their speeches to have effect.
. . .
And maybe it depends on the environment,
Suppose one makes the same inflammatory statements to two different groups,
Probably easier to incite a group of racists to mob an individual,
Than a group of non racists,
What was 'said, doesn't matter so much as who or when it was said to.
I see and understand your point! if you see my first argument on the matter, I discussed my problem. Speech, is normal, generalization is frustrating but bearable. My problem is when perception becomes reality, when speech turns into action. What do you think?
Well, it depends,
I 'think insulting people is legal. (In America)
But I don't think 'slandering people is legal.
Of course people seem to do it all the time, especially 'lately in America,
Though not all the people doing it 'know what they are saying is false.
. . .
Though when does an insult become slander?
If I call an Irishman a terrorist,
Sounds more an insult to me.
If I go around telling everyone that 'all Irish are terrorists,
Eh, still seems more like an insult to me,
Unless people then start trying to citizen arrest every Irish person they see, thinking they're all actually terrorists.
Of course, just saying all X people are thieves,
Can result in them being treated differently by society,
. . . But is one not allowed to stereotype groups based on one's knowledge?
Some groups 'are generally Xs.
Not that I think all Muslims or Irish are terrorists.
But I'm rambling.
I just not sure I care for controlled speech much, even if the law is made with the 'intention of keeping people 'truthful.
People disagree on a lot of 'truths.
I guess both? I much more stated it as being socially acceptable, it will be truly ridiculous if it was legal, no?
Well, it's 'rude, I suppose.
But I think I like Free Speech more than some Hate Laws.
Do you mean they should not have a legal right?
Or that morally it is wrong of them?
great point friend! I do believe people may contest that, (people who do this) the reason why I specified those regions is because I have knowledge on them, if the debate starts, I wouldn't know how to answer an argument related to Asia for example, if it still feels weird, I can change it!
I don't quite understand why anyone would try to contest this view. No one should ever be accused of being a terrorist without good reason. However, I do think you shouldn't just say the USA and Europe, you should just say "people" in general, because while some American citizens may be Islamophobic (mostly stemming from the 9/11 attacks), anyone can be Islamophobic, not just Americans and Europeans.
Very good point friend! No, I didn't forget those, they are infuriating as well. However, I possesses no knowledge of how Muslims live there ( I heard about the camps at China, but that is not a way for me to make assumptions about the entirety of Asia, same for the other nations I didn't mention) So you might say that it's more about me debating in an area I know more about, rather than me assuming that nothing happens there. It is still a very good point! I am sorry I didn't include it in the description, this is still new to me haha.
So what about for example Taiwan, China, Japan, Australia, Timbuktu, Nigeria, New Zealand, South Africa. Do they have the right to? Didn't think so, you clearly didn't think it through. Have a look at my username. xx