Instigator / Pro
Hate speech should be legal
The voting period has ended
After 1 vote the winner is ...
Time for argument
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
I will start by saying that I am not arguing in the context of U.S. law--my opponent has indicated in the comments he was happy to host the debate like this. I am arguing in a general sense.
I will hold all my arguments back until my opponent tenders his opening arguments, as he should have already done. However, I will state--for the sake of getting an argument on the board--that complete freedom of speech, that may encompass hate speech, in private conversation is not what I am arguing against. We all have a right to our opinions, no matter how socially unacceptable they may be. However, hate speech in the public realm can, and many times has, incited tensions and violence that result in the injury, displacement or even death of innocent people who are just trying to live their lives in peace. If your son or daughter was killed in a riot that was stirred up by a public preacher of hate would you defend the notion of total freedom of speech in public?
Hope my opponent is well, and all readers are too.
What if for example being pro life was considered hate speech because it was deemed, "too offensive to women". If you think it's slippery slope, it's not. This kid got in trouble for saying something pro life. I sympathize with him. The left starts out by saying that hate speech should be illegal, and then says any speech that they disagree with is hate speech. It happened with "Robert". If being pro life is hate speech, then what would be free speech?
"Ok but hate speech is still illegal in the US"
No it isn't. The US doesn't have hate speech laws.
I am not the kind of guy who is egotistical enough to fall for a trap like your rap battle where you promise you have never rapped before or a debate where you promise when I have no way out to outline something key to me winning.
Ok but hate speech is still illegal in the US and in my opinion the US constitution is mostly just an ill-defined list of largely vacuous privileges. We can still do this in a non-US context though if you want, I'll just clarify that in the first round so I don't have to remake the whole debate. I don't see any way to edit it.
Make the resolution specific to a non-US nation where there is no first amendment and I'll take this.
|Better arguments||✗||✗||✔||3 points|
|Better sources||✗||✔||✗||2 points|
|Better spelling and grammar||✗||✔||✗||1 point|
|Better conduct||✗||✔||✗||1 point|
FF, pro never met bop by default.