Instigator / Pro
0
1483
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

Unrated: Censorship is evidence a person is wrong

Status
Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Unrated
Characters per argument
2,500
Contender / Con
0
1412
rating
90
debates
25.0%
won
Description
~ 364 / 5,000

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.

Round 1
Pro
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.
Con
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.
Round 2
Pro
Forfeited
Con
I rest my case.
Round 3
Pro
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
Con
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.