Instigator / Con
21
1575
rating
5
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#789
Free Speech on Campus
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 3 points ahead, the winner is...
vsp2019
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
18
1495
rating
47
debates
48.94%
won
Description
My position is that most subjects can be discussed within the proper academic framework. However, it is a net negative for universities to allow certain speakers, who push for bigotry, to have a platform on campus. I would like to debate anyone who is against this form of censorship and someone who considers themselves a free speech absolutist. This is not a law debate(The point of the debate is about whether universities should uphold free speech, not what the law says about free speech).
Round 1
I am fine with free speech on these areas:
>I am fine with a Political Science class having an objective discussion on Nazism(Its messages, impacts, etc...), a literature class where they talk about a book where rape is the main focus, etc...
>I am also fine with a political/religious group booking a room to have a private discussion on their political views/religion(even have a private room to pray).
What I believe a university should do is to ensure that all students can feel as safe and be as free as possible(within reasonable grounds).
If I was a black student, I would feel unsafe if Richard Spencer was to be able to come on stage at my university to explain how he would like me to be kicked out of this country so he can have his white ethnostate.
If I was an lgbt member, I would feel unsafe if my university were to give a platform to an anti gay activist who then gets to freely proselytise their hatred among a group of their supporters.
For a more specific example, Milo Yiannopoulos was invited to speak on a university campus. Even though I still oppose the violent reaction that some people had towards attendees, I understand why Milo should not have been platformed in the first place. He is not an intellectual, he does not bring forward good arguments. He is simply a troll. On December 13th, 2016, Milo spoke at the University of Milwaukee, he doxxed a transgender student, video of him doxxing the student sourced below(1) and giving his name out publicly so now opening the guy up to all kinds of bullying and harrassment from his fans.
The Nobel Prize winning scientist, James Watson got stripped of his honors for making statements over race that were out of his field of expertise and highly derogatory and untrue(2). I provide a link where you can read the vile remarks he made about black people. I would be fine with him not getting a platform in a university to spew his racist rhetoric. There can be a serious, intellectual discussion on the differences between race and IQ(Are they genetics, environmental, to what degree, etc...) among actual experts within a specific academic discussion but a university should be able to refuse to platform Watson's views as he is simply making racist remarks, completely unfounded and outside his area of study.
I am fine with a Liberal/Conservative/Libertarian speaker coming to a university campus to discuss their policies etc. However, I would be very uncomfortable having a Black Supremacist get a platform to say vile things about white people.
So yeah, I am fine with most views being discussed on a university platform.
>As long as they are not racist/sexist/homophobic/etc propaganda meant to vilify a whole group of people sharing an identity.
I am fine also with people coming to campus to have a speech titled "Atheism/Christianity/Islam/etc is wrong/evil/stupid/deserves to die" so long as it is only a critique of an ideology and not "Atheists/Muslims/Christians/etc... deserve to die".
Source:
Your positions are very reasonable and I more or less agree with you, but the funny thing is you are not even arguing against free speech on campus. Almost everything you said is literally in support of free speech on campus, what you are really arguing is that the university should have the freedom to not provide a platform for speech which is deemed harmful and wrong. There is a huge difference between banning speech and not providing a platform for speech, especially when it's not even about speech. For instance, in the case of Milo doxxing a transgender student, this is not even an issue of banning him from expressing his viewpoints, but simply denying him a platform due to his own abuse of the platform. Banning him for doxxing a student is not about banning him from stating his opinions, it is about harm and humiliation intentionally being brought upon the person being doxxed, he is not having his free speech limited on campus, he is simply not being given a platform (which no one owes him in the first place) just so he can bully people.
No one is obligated to provide a platform for racists or anti-gay activists or anyone else for that matter,and since you appear to be in support of letting people discuss pretty much whatever they want as long as they aren't going around spouting hate speech in everyone's face like a lunatic there really is nothing anti-free speech about your position. De-platforming bullies and trolls or stripping someone of honors is not anti-free speech, no one is entitled to a platform or honors, these things are granted to people. As long as you aren't outright banning speech itself there is no problem, because there is a huge difference between simply saying something and abusing a platform that an institution granted you to bully people and spread bigotry.
Round 2
I am arguing for censorship of individuals with certain views and I think you seem to agree with censorship. The Universities, where Milo got banned from, are public universities so banning him from speaking there is anti free speech(aka you are not a free speech absolutist then). Free Speech Absolutists usually argue for platforming even the most heinous views and I wanted to debate with them on that. If you agree with censorship of certain views(bigotry/sexism/racism/etc...), then we are on the same page. I don't think you are a free speech absolutist then
Free Speech Absolutists usually argue for platforming even the most heinous views
I am a free speech absolutist in the sense that I think everyone has a right to express their views. This does not mean public OR private institutions are obligated to provide them with a platform to express those views, or even tolerate them. As long as they aren't being legally prevented from creating their own platform to express them, or they aren't censoring them where they are actually wanted it is not truly an infringement of free speech rights.
If I were to go to a university and start randomly spouting hate speech, it would not be anti-free speech to remove me from the property because at that point I would be harassing people, not merely expressing my views. If the university provided me with a platform to speak publicly and I said things which were deemed offensive and/or objectively wrong and they took away the platform they provided it would not be anti free speech, Think about it, can you just go into a grocery store and start screaming swear-words at little kids? can you go into a library with a mega-phone and start screaming Nazi rhetoric? Free speech does not mean you can go to public places and force people to listen to you no matter how vile you are. You are not even arguing against free speech, you are simply arguing against giving a platform to people no one wants to hear, while still allowing people to express any view as long as they aren't abusing a public platform or harassing/disrupting people.
Round 3
I see, there's not much else for me to say. We are on the same page.
Thank you for the debate, any questions?
Round 4
I need to look more what free speech absolutism means.
It seems that I considered myself against free speech absolutism(To a degree) while you consider yourself for free speech absolutism yet our views align. I'll do more research. I probably got the definitions wrong
I am a centrist, and I see free speech as something that leftists are not necessarily against and conservatives are not necessarily for. It has become popular for right wingers to conflate the left with being inherently anti free speech but in reality if their misrepresentation was taken seriously free speech would mean you have the right to force others to hear what you have to say. That is not what free speech is about and no one is obligated to provide someone with a platform or sit there and listen to things that offend them.
Round 5
If free speech absolutism means what you say it means, then I am one then. Do you mind if we delete this? It was just a semantic disagreement and we did not debate anything
I do not give consent to delete this debate. I am sorry if this seems greedy, but I want the points to increase my elo. I have proven that you are not actually against free speech on campus, thus you agree with my position that there should be free speech on campus, therefor you have conceded the debate for all intensive purposes.
lmao karma major backfire
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
Ok.
Exactly. Thank you for proving my point. Go do your dodgy tap dance while I watch little tiny dancer.
Its okay, have a good day buddy lol.
Oh is that so? Put your money where you mouth is. Explain to me how Hume's Guillotine doesn't apply to your statements. I'm waiting.
No its just that you are wrong on so many levels and I don't feel like explaining all that to you. So I'd rather just let you make a fool out of yourself here so everyone can see you falling on your face over and over again. As they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant after all.
I guess you like to talk smack about philosophy. But when I hit you with an actual philosophy from an actual philosopher, you just ignore it. I think you've revealed the fact that you don't know squat about philosophy and the word philosophy is just a throw away word that you use to sound like you know what you're talking about when in reality you don't even know something as basic as Hume's Guillotine. Sad.
Ok.
Yeah, I would say that too if I had no case like in your situation. :)
Ok. Have a good day buddy
Also, your case is not compelling. It moves in the wrong direction. You want to create a safe space for people. Which is fine to an extent. But the bigger you make one safe space the smaller you make someone else's. Yes, you'll make a few bigots say the "N" word slightly less in public. Bravo. In the mean time, you'll censor a bunch of other people's justified free speech and to make it worse, it will open the door for people to take legal action based on personal offense.
Once that happens. It will be chaos and everyone will lose.
Oh dear. You actually just put your entire foot in your mouth. Not only do I read philosophy. I breathe it.
Okay Mr. Philosopher. Have you ever heard of Hume's Guillotine? It's the argument that proves that your moral justification is not a justification at all. Maybe YOU should read some philosophy. you made an "is" statement (The "N" word "is" doing X) and then you made an ought statement (We ought to ban the "N" word) According to Hume's Guillotine, Is and Ought cannot connect. Therefore, your argument does not fit a valid logical structure.
You should have stuck with the legal end.
ok.
I have no idea who you are
im just a person
what you are talking about
if you stay and it becomes 2020 are you going to become vsp2020
I have no idea who you are and what you are talking about. I only recently have been trying out this website
idk what your talking about it was a actual question. idk im feeling board today
Your response makes you look like you've never read anything in philosophy. There is a difference between a moral justification of an action and the effectiveness of the action. Your questions are irrelevant since they are already answered within my first response. I would not actually support banning speech since it's ineffective. You said there is no compelling case against free speech. I provided you one(moral justification of banning speech not its effectiveness) and your rebuttal missed the mark on everything I said. I won't respond back to you cause you're not worth my time. Im tired of engaging in discussions with idiots.
stop trolling me
He needs to post it here himself.
IK he gave you consent i just consented on his behalf
lol u troll
are you going to change your name every year? just wondering
Only Sparrow can give his consent.
You have my consent on sparrow's behalf.
I'll humor you for a second.
So let's say we abolish hate speech.
1. How do we decide what is hate speech?
2. If we base it off of how people react to it, doesn't that mean that anybody can make anything hate speech?
3. If anything can be hate speech, how is it different than outright censorship?
4. If we allow outright censorship, how do we then even have any free speech at all?
5. I could say the word "ball" or "rock" or "spoon" and offend somebody to the point where it hurts them. Is that my fault? No.
6. Do I like hate speech? No.
7. Will making it illegal stop it? No.
8. Will making it illegal restrict it? Only when it's provable.
9. Will making it illegal restrict justified free speech as well? You bet your behind it will.
10. Does the ends justify the means?
Lets say you're a minority(eg a black person) in a society with a majority (eg white people). Everywhere you go, people call you the "n word" derogatorily. These words will have impacts on the emotional wellbeing of the minority individual. These can lead to individuals developping some mental illnesses and some may even end up causing harm to themselves as a result of thinking they are less worthy than others because of their identity(Something they cannot change or can only change with very drastic, physical changes).
These issues are faced by various minority groups(People of color, members of the lgbt, etc...). Someone, who values a society where the social wellbeing is maximised, can justify banning certain speech that will cause such emotional distress.
You may respond with: Well they need to toughen up.
But that's not easy to do when most people around you treat you this way. There are plenty of cases of people committing suicide, self harm, etc all because they develop insecurities due to being bullied for being different. Therefore, there is a serious moral justification for censorship of these videos that do end up causing harm.
In a university who thrive on having more students applying there, the university has everything to gain by ensuring a maximum wellbeing among their student population.
Vsp has asked for this debate to be deleted. May I have your consent to do so.
I'm in favor of universal application of free speech. As for limiting certain speech. I see no compelling case beside maybe inciting violence/crime.
Sorry I think I misunderstood what free speech absolutism meant