Instigator / Pro
15
1432
rating
8
debates
12.5%
won
Topic
#862
Is freedom of speech a right?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 11 votes and with 62 points ahead, the winner is...
RationalMadman
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
77
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
See below. Same reason for removal
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Risky112 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to con
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
************************************************************************
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Full forfeit by PRO
That's a good cover of mad world, but I do prefer the original.
My key contention would ultimately be that we're not asking the right question. Obviously, we have freedom of speech. That's a descriptive truth. People collectively want freedom of speech, even if it is subjective, and the law grants it to us as a right.
I think the best question to tackle this topic is "when should speech be free"
I think this line of reasoning would work with most moral/legal arguments.
Prisoners don't lose their freedom of speech. I think for a right to be inalienable, it would have to be such that there is no legal mechanism that is allowed to encroach upon it. I'm not convinced that any right should even have this status. I think every rule necessarily needs an exception.
Last comment wasn't for you, ignore it.
I agree that I like that standard for subjective and practical reasons. I don't think that gets you to an inalienable right though. I think that gets you roughly to moral particularism. Just about any right will have a point where it infringes upon another. So just abought any right would be inalienable under this definition.
Hmmm. Rude as usual, no matter.
I'd simply go by when the expression of your rights (or freedoms to be more precise) would infringe upon the rights of another.
No. I'm talking in present tense, like 'strike to the jaw' etc. No mistake, couldn't give a fuck what you think of it tbph.
Touche, but to be fair, you're accidental subjunctive use of the word "move" does make the sentence a tad choppy. ;)
Forth isn't the same word as fourth.
I'm from the USA as well.
Okay. We're on the same page then. So here's my contention.
If a right is inalienable simply because we "shouldn't violate it" then by what method do we determine whether or not it should be violated?
That's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely interested in the answer.
It was a question that would have defined my rebuttal tactic.
I live in the USA, where "certain inalienable rights" is a thing. ... Not that rights are never violated, but that the government is supposed to never violate them (and in general protect against their violation). Had pro agreed, I would have merely shown prisoners not being allowed to vote.
what makes a right inalienable? If you mean that people intrinsically can't violate it, then wouldn't the make the point of a right vacuous?
4th pawn? You mean the queen's pawn opening AKA the start of the Queen's gambit? (d4) or do you mean the iconic e4 move known as the king's pawn opening?
ohmigosh, are two weeks not already an eternity?
voting period six months? why?
Depends on the definition of right. If rights are inalienable, then it is of course not a right.