Instigator / Pro
0
1434
rating
12
debates
8.33%
won
Topic

Free speach is a lie, people do not speak their minds as they were told to.

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
9
Sources points
0
6
Spelling and grammar points
0
3
Conduct points
0
3

With 3 votes and 21 points ahead, the winner is ...

Benjamin
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
21
1740
rating
56
debates
73.21%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Pro
Forfeited
Con
RESOLUTION: Free speach is a lie, people do not speak their minds as they were told to.
BOP: Only on PRO as the instigator of the debate, unless stated otherwise in the description.
POSITION: CON



Definitions:
  • Freedom of speech: the right, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content. A modern legal test of the legitimacy of proposed restrictions on freedom of speech was stated in the opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. U.S. (1919): a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a “clear and present danger”—i.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent. Many cases involving freedom of speech and of the press also have concerned defamation, obscenity, and prior restraint (see Pentagon Papers). 
  • A lie: something untrue that is said or written to deceive someone

Framework and burden analysis
PRO has the burden to prove that the right to free speech is untrue and was written with the intention to deceive people. As an added part of the resolution, the statement "people do not speak their minds as they were told to" must be substantiated as well.  I must show his case is insufficient to support these claims.



CONSTRUCTIVE
Since PRO's case has not yet been revealed due to his forfeiture, I have nothing to adress. I will however point out how his case is self-refuting. Winning this debate would require PRO to utilize his right to free speech, thus defeating the first part of his resolution. Moreover, he couldn't possibly write arguments necesary to winning the debate, without speaking his mind in the process, thus defeating the second part of the resolution. The mere existence of this debate and this site in general disproves the resolution. Ignoring these obvious points still doesn't leave the resolution intact. Free speech is by definition a freedom granted citicens. You can lie about having granted this freedom, but that just means there is no such right. A nonexistent right cannot be "false", the only lie would be to claim it existed. The moment you actually grant freedom of speech by writing it down into the law, it exists, and claiming it does is by definition a truthful statement. If a government proceeds to violate these rights by oppressing the people and their expressions, the right to free speech must necesarily exist in order to be violated. Free speech (or any other right) can be granted or denied -- acknowledged or ignored -- violated or respected. But the right itself can never be a lie. You could only ever lie ABOUT free speech and its position in different parts of the world. I am now very curious about PRO's case.


Round 2
Pro
Forfeited
Con
Extend. Good thing PRO made this a five round debate.
Round 3
Pro
Forfeited
Con
Extend.
Round 4
Pro
Forfeited
Con
My opponent is still logged in in between these forfeits. I take that as a concession.
Round 5
Pro
Forfeited
Con
Easy win unfortunately.