Unrated: Censorship is evidence a person is wrong
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
This is unrated because I want to set some standards on Con that can be deemed unfair, though given the flaws in my logic it shouldn't be too hard to overcome this.
Rules for con
1. You cannot make counter arguments. You are only allowed to address my premises and explain why they are either wrong or why my premises don't necessitate my conclusion being true.
Premise 1 - the only legitimate reason to censor an argument is if you know that people seeing both views would know the one you disagree with is right.
The reason you don't censor opinions like "the world is shaped like a penis", is because you could easily show that person's logic making the argument is stupid.
Premise 2 - By censoring content, you acknowledge that when your argument and that argument is side by side, your argument loses. Otherwise, why wouldn't you just embarrass them.
Conclusion- censoring an argument is basically a confession you would lose.
This will be like a one hit technique in a fight.
You indicate there's only one legitimate reason to censor, well here's another legitimate reason .
I will censor anybody's argument whether it's right or wrong if it contains inappropriate content for my children.
By the way, just as a side note, there are more substance filled things to do then taking time to embarrass folks.
I rest my case.
You really didn't say how inappropriate content for your kid contradicts my case. If you can't argue against the inappropriate view points of an opinion than perhaps that opinion was correct and never inappropriate to start with.
Sad, despite me forfeiting a round I still win
So how does what I said contradict or invalidate your view point?
Your view point is there is only one legitimate reason. I have given you a second one thus debunking or refuting what you just said about there only being one .
I'll say this again if you didn't get it. Regardless of somebody being right or wrong, even if they are wrong, why censor their point?
Let's say I'm in a barbershop. My offspring is at an age not suitable for a controversial discussion. As a progenitor I have the accountability and entitlement to act as guardian to filter the ears of the minor.
You can't get no more legitimate than that.
Let me give you another example unnecessary as just providing one besides another showcases the point.
Now for this example we're debating on a platform where copyrighted music can be heard at a portion of your talking points.
It has to be censored due to copyright laws and rules of the platform.
Things online this web are removed for that legitimate reason.
It's not always about this escape to hear the truth,aim to shutdown a message or silence freedom of speech.
When you have a pre-seated bias, you can think and assume for one so called legitimate reason alone.
But when you don't have a bias, you're open minded to other possibilities and circumstances you may have not thought of and you may have not thought of what I've presented to you.
But you'd be willing to add these other scenarios in as explanations if you're impartial because you wouldn't be partial to one stand alone basis.
The final round has new arguments from con
Mall actually played it clever. So clever actually.
xD! Enjoy vsing Mall, I genuinely don't know who will annoy who more.
I am willing to adjust the character count to what a person arguing con feels like they need. I thought 2500 would make it so I could keep this a low effort debate
I see the irony in the character count and rule for Con.
I see what you did.