We should ban certain topics

I would propose banning certain topics such as what follows.

1. Nuclear war is good

2. Murder is good

3. Rape is good

4. Women are inferior to men

5. Some races are superior to others

If people never hear extremist arguments, they will never be able to be persuaded to be extremists. 

sed on level of disgustingness but the impact of that ideal gaining a foothold in the mind of large numbers of youth. The argument may even be correct in some of those instances but should be banned anyway. For example some races of people do have higher IQs than others, but if it is argued that race a has a lower IQ than race b in the debate than the deba

3 and 5 I'd support outright banning.

The first extremist was Cain

I am opposed to the idea of banning any discussion of any topic for the simple reason that we should not be afraid that the discussion may incite someone else to action,

1. Nuclear war is good

2. Murder is good

3. Rape is good

4. Women are inferior to men

5. Some races are superior to others

1. Threat of nuclear war maintains peace

2. Vigilante justice is a human right

3. Credible threat of torture can be an effective interrogation technique

4. Some individuals are better suited to particular tasks than other individuals

5. Some individuals are better suited to particular tasks than other individuals

1  - Threat of Nuclear War is fundamentally different from Nuclear War - this is sad 3RU7AL

2. A better argument than the first one - however vigilante justice does not necessarily equate to murder - furthermore this is only using the legal definition of murder

3. This should be a simple simple ethics impact check - is information more important or bodily agency, long-term physical and mental condition, the possibility of death. Information will rarely if ever be worth that - this is absurd.

4 & 5: SOME INDIVIDUALS do not equate to EVERY INDIVIDUAL AS PART OF A GROUP - this is the saddest argument - stop.

1  - Threat of Nuclear War is fundamentally different from Nuclear War - this is sad 3RU7AL

It is impossible to have a nuclear war without the capability and credible threat of a nuclear war.

It is impossible to have a nuclear war without the capability and credible threat of a nuclear war.

AND while maintaining  the capability and credible threat of a nuclear war it is impossible to simultaneously fully mitigate the risk of an ACTUAL nuclear war.

The threat (and the benefits of a threat) are inextricably linked to the likelihood of actual nuclear war.

AND nuclear war is NOT somehow either more or less moral than any other type of war.

(IFF) any war is justifiable (THEN) nuclear war is justifiable

It is impossible to have a nuclear war without the capability and credible threat of a nuclear war.

AND while maintaining  the capability and credible threat of a nuclear war it is impossible to simultaneously fully mitigate the risk of an ACTUAL nuclear war.

The threat (and the benefits of a threat) are inextricably linked to the likelihood of actual nuclear war

AND nuclear war is NOT somehow either more or less moral than any other type of war.IFF) any war is justifiable (THEN) nuclear war is justifiable

2. A better argument than the first one - however vigilante justice does not necessarily equate to murder - furthermore this is only using the legal definition of murder

Vigilante justice often includes (de facto) murder.  For example, "self-defense" is (de facto) murder UNLESS magical "motive" can be "proved" ("self-defense" is vigilante justice).

3. This should be a simple simple ethics impact check - is information more important or bodily agency, long-term physical and mental condition, the possibility of death. Information will rarely if ever be worth that - this is absurd.

It would be nice if everyone agreed with you, but unfortunately, the people extracting information do not maintain the slightest concern for individual sovereignty.

4 & 5: SOME INDIVIDUALS do not equate to EVERY INDIVIDUAL AS PART OF A GROUP - this is the saddest argument - stop.

The most common counter-argument to individualism is that ALL CLASSES OF HUMANS ARE EQUALLY CAPABLE OF ALL TASKS (and this equalism claim is demonstrably false).

AND nuclear war is NOT somehow either more or less moral than any other type of war.IFF) any war is justifiable (THEN) nuclear war is justifiable

Demonstrate that claim, and this is begging the question of course if "ANY TYPE OF WAR" is justifiable then nuclear war is justifiable, nuclear war is a part of "any type of war", any type of war is what I don't accept - this is a sad collection of non-sequiturs and false equivalences.