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).
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