Instigator / Pro
7
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Topic
#2242

Resolved: We have the right to be offended… but what to do about it?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
0

After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

fauxlaw
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
12,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
3
1489
rating
19
debates
42.11%
won
Description

Resolved: We have the right to be offended… but what to do about it? In these times of over-indulged political correctness, there’s an idea that is lost in the cloud of discontent. It’s presence is felt in almost every conversation on every subject; not just politics. It’s a shame we allow p.c. in a non-political arena. It’s a shame we cannot distinguish anymore what is and is not politics. And, it’s a shame our society was ever saddled with this particular form of censorship.
What is it? Taking offense; as in, finding too many excuses to be offended by someone else’s this and that. Usually, it’s something they said. Sometimes it’s about what they do. Sometimes, it’s about what they said about what they did. Or, what we did, or said.
“You offend me” has taken the place of an old public sentiment that used to be funny: “Where’s the beef?” Perhaps the latter is an appropriate question for the former.

Definitions:

Right: n. Legal, moral, and natural entitlement

Offense: n. A breach of law, rules, proprietry, etiquette; transgeression, sin, wrong, misdeed [I add for purposes of this resolution: one’s feelings that another has committed offense against them, as in “taking offense.”]

Debate Protocol:
Shared BoP:
Pro: as resolved: we have the right to be offended, but what to do about it
Con: Against the proposal: we do not have the right to be offended, but what to do about it

3 total rounds:
R1, 2: Argument, rebuttal, defense
R3: No new argument, rebuttal, defense, conclusion
No waived or forfeited rounds. Waive or forfeiture will result in loss of debate.
Sourcing of declarative statements must be sourced by citation reference unless the statement is of obvious common knowledge.

RFD
You know, this debate is remarkably similar to Unnecessary Truisms, regardless, let's move on.

PRO: The offender is the cause of the problem and should stop; Golden Rule, control our reactions.
CON: A respected Indian offended someone who committed a grave crime; religion vs offend is vague, "offend" is generally too vague

PRO: each person receives offense differently [I anticipate, con should stress that criminals deserve less rights, and should not care about being offended as they made the mistake, if he is smart]; transgender is still too vague as it depends on looks, the Rugby player didn't exactly quote the bible, and the offender may not be aware so the "victim" should take responsibility
CON: individual or group crime is still crime, so group offense is still very relevant vs single; China stops those who offend it, and so we should value our ability to do so in US; mere talk vs law action; the mere ideas and implication vs the insult;

PRO: each person is still charged individually, giving offense irrelevant (?!), can't legislate to unknown beliefs, label identity is too vague to succeed, we should take the individuals' offense with being careful and orderly rather than emotionally

Here, in order for CON to win, he should've pressed even further. He has some ideas pushed that are nearly there, and he just needs to assert them stronger. Perhaps, "the serial killer who killed so many people should not have the right to be offended, why, if he loves killing people, then shouldn't he be proud of it instead?" along with the idea that insults can be extremely vague, especially The Bible's interpretation treated as a homosexual insult, and gone on to try proving that implicit insults make the line too vague. Finally, in my opinion he should've tried stressing humans' emotions being at play; it is extremely difficult to react civilized to an ad hominem argument, this is the way that humans are. They lose sense of self and start wanting a piece of the action. But his arguments are overall too roundabout and not direct enough. Pro's extremely subtle argument likely confused con to mixing up offending someone and being offended.

Since I am convinced by pro's argument, I shall allow him to take offense at con's forfeit and award him the conduct point (see what I did there?)

-->
@seldiora

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:0; 1 points to PRO.
>Reason for Decision: "forfeit last round"
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote... yikes

First, even if it were a good idea for this vote to be a solely conduct vote, it wouldn't hit the requirements at a measly 3 words.
"To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct."

That said, it isn't a good idea in this case. Voting solely on conduct is a good idea when there is horrendous conduct from one side in particular, overriding all other content in the debate. That was not the case in this debate (only a single forfeit from one side, which users such as Virtuoso have proven over and over mean very little when it comes to who "deserves" the win). This was a detailed debate with some good showings from both sides... that calls for some analysis. Even if the voter had hit all of the requirements to vote conduct, I feel that to maintain the quality of votes on the site I might have removed it anyway.

-->
@fauxlaw

If a person 'doesn't have the right to be offended, is there much they can do?
Usually if offended, a normal person would insult the person back, or say heck with you and avoid them.
Maybe in a workplace tell your supervisor and have them work something out, or have the supervisor put something in the persons file.
Low brow people, would respond with violence, though I suppose insults are low brow too.
And rich people would sue for slander, libel, or defamation.

But if you don't have the right to be offended, why would you do anything other than accept, and cope?

-->
@vector

Consider it in this vein: words may demonstrate our intentions, our potential, but only our actions demonstrate true character. Whether we believe we have the right to be offended, or not, [the set-up of the Pro/Con positions], what we will do about our relative positions will demonstrate the true character of our relative positions. The point is, we can believe whatever we wish, but only upon its action is the truth revealed. Yes, description of action, i.e., "what we will do about it" are just words, as well, but at least it will demonstrate that we have thought about consequences.

What's the point of having the "what to do about it" section? It is kind of confusing on what it means, could you clarify? If this section is shared for Pro and Con, why bring it up?

-->
@oromagi

As stated in description: for Con, there's no affirmative. The Con argument is that we do not have the right to be offended, but there still must be a description about what to do about not having the right to be offended.
It's a debate about what IO consider to be an unwritten right of the 1A; that because we have the right of freedom of speech, it naturally follows [to me] that we thereby have the right to be offended. The Con side would argue that this unwritten right does not exist. However, since we may still be offended by the words/actions of another, what do we do about it?

-->
@fauxlaw

What's the affirmative CON is expected to disprove? I cant tell.