Instigator / Pro
27
1500
rating
9
debates
61.11%
won
Topic
#6198
Right to speech must be limited
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 5 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
jonrohith
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
24
1500
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Welcome Mr:
I think this would be a beautiful debate, Let's Go,,
Rights:
What are rights ?, Rights are the basic ,fundamental gift given by democracy. We must praise our ancestral for bringing democracy.
Right to speech:
By this democracy, We got many rights including right to speech, All citizens are able to speak in public places, they have independence to express their opinions.
Why right to speech must be limited?,
Speech is a gift, god given it only to humans, so why we are in this place. speech is not just a voice any more, speech is a tool, a tool can be used for good and bad things, Right to speech must be curtailed.
Thiruvalluvar says in his poem;
"Wound made by arrow can be cured,
Wound made by tongue cannot be cured."
From above poem he says, speech has power and reaction than a arrow, so speech has a immense value . A man in stage has more speech value, anyone can die ,or escape with a speech . Even a single word can cause a war, fight. Religious speech is more danger. It can risk the safety of nation.
Speech is a tool:
Speech is a tool , attacking a person with tool must be punished. so the right of speech must be limited.
Questions to con:
- Whether you accept ,when someone talks bad about your religion?
- When someone misleads your citizens by cunning talks ,what you do ?
1. Right to Speech is not the Right to Harm – but that's no reason to shut it down.
My opponent says, "Speech is dangerous." So is electricity. So is the internet. So are cars. Do we ban them? No. We regulate their misuse, not their existence. Constitutions already limits speech that incites violence, spreads hate, or threatens national security. So why pretend that speech is unlimited?
You're not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. But that doesn’t mean we remove everyone’s voice box.
2. Misuse of Rights is not a reason to remove Rights.
One bad speech does not mean we ban speech. One criminal does not mean we shut down society. The solution is responsibility and legal consequences—not silencing voices. You don’t kill a forest because one tree is rotten.
Thiruvalluvar says speech can wound deeper than arrows. True. But we don't fear arrows—we learn to defend ourselves, to build shields. Education, critical thinking, debate—these are the shields, not censorship.
Silencing speech creates fear, not safety. Dictatorships silence speech. Democracies build strength by listening, debating, and then deciding.
4. Answer to your questions:
Q: Will I accept if someone insults my religion? No. But I will defeat their words with stronger words, not police raids. Laws forbid from insulting anyone's religion. That’s the power of democracy. If I am right, I don't fear speech.
Q: What if someone misleads citizens? Then I trust citizens to be educated, aware, and exposed to all sides. Limiting speech is how dictators survive—not democracies.
So, if we start limiting speech today for “public safety,” what stops future governments from banning criticism, protest, or whistleblowing? Should a student be jailed or punished for criticizing a political leader online? Where do you draw the line between dissent and danger?
In conclusion, speech is a tool—but so is a pen, and a sword. It's not about banning the tool—it’s about how we use it. If you silence a nation to protect it, you haven’t protected the nation—you’ve buried it alive.
Have a good one!
Round 2
Mr. CON,
I never said that speech is dangerous — I said that speech could be dangerous under certain circumstances.
Similarly, I never called for a ban on speech, but rather suggested that we must restrict the right to speech when it crosses certain ethical and social boundaries.
The Rising Problem with Unchecked Free Speech:
Let’s look at a very real and alarming issue. According to a credible study published on web, the number of hate speech incidents targeting religious minorities surged from 668 in 2023 to 1,165 in 2024 — that’s a 74.4% increase in just one year!
this shows that hate speech is on the rise, particularly against religious minorities in India.
Hate Speech: A Hidden Weapon of Chaos
Hate speech doesn’t come from ordinary citizens — it is often spread by anti-national elements with bad intentions. Such speech can give spark to
- Riots ,Religious tensions, Civil wars
In our country, hate speech is largely directed toward caste and religion — two of the most sensitive pillars of Indian society.
Earlier, hate speech was limited to public stages. But now, with the boom of social media, anyone can post inflammatory content — on YouTube, Instagram, WhatsApp, or Twitter — without fear, hiding behind fake names and profiles.
And let’s be real — a viral comment on social media can reach millions in minutes. It has more power than a microphone on stage. This is exactly why we need to update our thinking.
Yes, our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. But it was written in a time when technology was not this advanced. The environment has changed — now the Constitution must evolve too.
We need to bring in fresh, modern laws that:
- Regulate speech on social media
- Track hate speech patterns using AI
And this has to be done fast. Every delay leads to more victims and more divisions in society.
Questions for Mr. Con:
- Haven’t you personally seen hate-filled or abusive comments on social media — maybe even targeting you or someone you know?
- If someone trolls you publicly and damages your reputation, would you still defend that as a “right to speech”?
Thank you.
Mr. PRO, allow me to clarify why your entire foundation is cracked — not from emotion, but from logic.
You say you never called for a ban — only a "restriction" on speech that crosses “ethical and social boundaries.” But who defines those boundaries? You? The government? Trolls on Twitter? The moment you allow “boundaries” without universal definitions, you’re not protecting society — you’re building the stage for dictatorship.
You raise hate speech as the problem — but here’s the trap you’re falling into: equating free speech with hate speech.
They are not the same.
Constitutional Article 19(2) already allows reasonable restrictions on speech — hate speech, threats, incitement to violence — all of this is already punishable under law (IPC 153A, 295A, etc.).
So why are you acting like India is an unmoderated jungle? Are you asking for extra censorship beyond the law?
That’s not democracy. That’s thought-policing.
Data Doesn’t Prove Your Point, It Proves Mine: The rise in hate speech, according to your own stats, happened despite existing speech laws. That doesn’t mean speech should be restricted more — it means implementation and education are failing.
So, let’s be clear — the solution is not censorship. The solution is accountability, awareness, and stronger civil institutions.
From Arab Spring to farmers’ protests, from MeToo to human rights exposés — social media has been the only voice for the voiceless.
Who decides what’s “too inflammatory”?
Dr. Ambedkar was considered inflammatory in his time. So was Bhagat Singh. So was Mahua Moitra last week.
If you limit speech to what’s “acceptable,” you kill every social movement before it’s born.
Your Questions: "Have you ever seen abusive speech online?" Yes. And I reported it. Because speech should be fought with more speech, not silenced by fear.
"If someone trolls me?" If someone trolls me, I fight with facts. I don’t beg for a digital babysitter. The cost of free speech is sometimes discomfort — but the cost of censorship is dictatorship.
Your argument comes from fear. Mine comes from freedom. You want to curb speech because some use it badly.
Mr. Pro, you’re calling for limits on free speech — but let’s talk about what you’re not saying.
You’ve built your entire argument on the assumption that limiting speech is the best way to ensure peace. Limiting speech is the best way to ensure silence — not justice.
Let’s look at some questions you forgot to ask — and the ones you’ll now have to answer.
Let’s say someone says something that offends a political group. Is it hate speech?
What if it offends a religious group — but it’s based on historical facts?
Is truth punishable if it makes people uncomfortable?
The moment we limit speech based on "hurt sentiments," every truth-teller becomes a criminal.
So tell me, who decides the boundary between hate and truth — and who watches the watcher?
You want AI tools to track hate speech? Sounds great — until the algorithm decides your opinion is the problem.
In 1975, India had Emergency.
In 2020, we saw protest bans.
Do you think those in power will use “speech restriction” tools to protect you — or to shut you up?
So tell me, Mr. Pro, if a government tomorrow decides that your opinion is “divisive,” how will you defend yourself when you’ve already agreed to restrict speech?
I want to protect speech because the best of humanity has always come from those who dared to speak when it was unsafe to do so.
So Mr. Pro — restrict hate, yes. But protect speech. Always.
Let the audience decide who really protects democracy.
Thanks.
Round 3
My final argument:
Right to speech must be limited to a boundary, why people are thinking politics and political people and their decisions as terrorism, Such democratic leaders are elected by people ,but why they consider new law produced by such leaders as danger, new laws are produced by leaders, leaders are produced by citizen, so we want to consider law produced by citizens. Not all laws are danger. This answer for con's question.
I already produced many reasons why speech must be limited, but he(con) thinking whether pro(I) said to ban or inhibit all speech . I said only to limit speech that causes hatred for general citizen, single person or family, wait I first tell wate is hate speech
"The Indian Supreme Court has not provided a specific, legally binding definition of hate speech, but has generally defined it as incitement to hatred, primarily against groups defined by race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or religious belief. This aligns with the definition provided by the Law Commission of India in its 267th Report."
Speech against a political party or any problems are not considered as hatred speech, as citizens of democracy we have right to speak against any problems and must not be limited as my view. hate speech alone limited.
Con is saying if anyone uses hate speech against him ,then he responds by Newton's law that he also use hate speech against him, It is joking. It is like if someone kills your relative then you also kill that killer, Con says this as right , this is a crime , Then why democracy is here and why here is law and order. We must limit some individuals right so that we can make law and order neat.
Our world is changing , we can't use same law produced a centuries ago ,that time there was no social media. People are saying a political leader want to sacrifice his personal life , if some leader builds a mansion for his family, people saying it in social media and trolling it, We can't sacrifice our family for profession like that politics also a profession, this speech also considered as hatred speech. To maintain justice India has more offline medias and social media, our supreme court has ability to even order our president .And cancel any laws.
We are in democratic India so governments cannot produce any law opposing basic rights of people, I again say we are democratic country leaders are produced by people. So laws also produced by people. Right to speech is not regulated in social media, so people are using hatred speech without any guilty and I , you, we all seeing it. Hatred speech can even result in loss of life of people, Not all people are like con who use hatred speech against a hatred speech.
We humans each have his/her brain, we not robots, we are not similar. Right to speech must be limited, It should not be banned or destroyed, we want to cut unwanted parts of a tool called speech, I again repeat speech is a tool, it is like soft stick for some people, for some people it is a sharpest knife, you can use hatred speech against anyone thinking it as a just stick but it can turn into knife and you know what knife can do.
Thats all.
Let me begin by appreciating the structure of your speech, but structure cannot save an argument built on contradiction, confusion, and oversimplification.
You say speech should be limited, not banned. But how do you define the “limit”? What is that magical line where speech becomes "too much"? You reference the Law Commission and Supreme Court’s vague definition of hate speech, but what you fail to mention is that lack of specificity in legal definition is exactly why we should be cautious about censorship. Ambiguity is the doorway to abuse.
You say hate speech is rising and that we need to act. Absolutely—we need to counter hate speech, but not by cutting off speech. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Censorship forces hate underground, where it becomes harder to track and far more dangerous.
Mr. Pro said he's only limiting speech, not banning it. That’s like saying, ‘I’m only putting a lion in a cage, not killing it.’ Either way — you’ve destroyed its power.
He said ‘laws are made by leaders, and leaders are made by citizens.’ Cute. But let me ask you this — when were citizens asked before demonetisation? Before CAA-NRC? Before internet shutdowns in Manipur and Kashmir? No one was asked — we were told. So don’t sugarcoat control as ‘democracy.’
Using arguments like- if someone kills your relative, do you kill theirs too- is immature and irrelevant in the context of this debate. The debate is about whether or not free speech should be limited, it's not about citing irrelevant examples to support your arguments.
He said if someone uses hate speech, don’t reply — treat it like murder and go to the cops. So he’s telling us to behave like saints while getting abused online — sorry, we’re in 2025, not some 16th-century ashram. If someone insults your religion, your identity, or your parents — what do you do? Meditate? Namaste and block them? That’s not justice — that’s weakness dressed as wisdom.
He said hate speech is like a knife. But forgot — knives also cook meals, perform surgery, save lives. Just because a few misuse it, we don’t ban every kitchen. Likewise, just because some people abuse speech doesn’t mean we limit everybody’s voice.
He talks like every tweet will cause riots, as if Indians are emotional bombs waiting to explode at a word. Excuse me — DON’T insult our public. Not everybody on social media is spreading hate speech. We’re not sheep. We think, question, joke, criticise — that’s free speech, not hate speech.
He’s crying over trolling. Welcome to social media — if you can't handle memes and comments, maybe politics isn’t for you. This isn’t hate, this is India’s humour, sarcasm, rebellion. Gandhi was trolled. Ambedkar was insulted. But they didn’t ask for ‘limits on speech’ — they spoke louder.
Your whole speech sounds like ‘Please control what people say so no one gets hurt.’ But we’re not weak. We don’t need a digital babysitter. If you can’t handle opinions, log out of Twitter, not out of the Constitution.
You fear speech because you fear the truth. And the truth is — if speech were a weapon, then sir... you just brought a feather to a gunfight.
Thank you very much!
P.S. — Overuse of bold and underline formatting is going to get you nowhere. This isn’t Google Docs. It’s a battle of wits, not Word formatting.
In my debates I use AI to learn how to write good sentences, this is why you have never seen me write long arguments, because I just started debating.
Yes I’m a noob, but I know enough that copying AI’s arguments is just plain shitty way to use this site.
Why even be on the site if you’re gonna use AI to write arguments?
I agree with jonrohith for the use of AI for not being in the red
But I disagree with him for everything else.
I only have a High School education myself, and am unorthodox with grammar myself.
I 'do think it's better for a person to be better spoken or written, but online debate isn't a bad way to improve one's abilities in those aspects.
I wouldn't even be able to order a coffee in another language, so kudos to people who can do more than myself, I say.
Use of AI can be a fuzzy concept,
For example, this site has a built in spellcheck.
Thanks for your detailed report.
English is just a language , it does not reflect your intelligence.
And there ends a debate in which the pro tried to win by hook or by crook and succeeded. He's known to be using AI in crafting arguments and can't even form single coherent sentences in English. What a shame!
Pro Round 1
I'm not sure I'd say 'Rights or 'Free 'Speech are given by 'Democracy,
One can be given Rights and Free Speech even in a Dictatorship.
'How is free speech to be limited,
In a stretch, even right to movement must be limited, lest one overwork their muscles,
I think debate needed more concrete contention.
I 'do like the quote,
But sticks and stones may break my bones.
The 'problems with your questions,
Is they may be setting up the goals of the debate in a bad way for you.
Criticism of ideas is vital in growth.
Is cunning speech to be banned?
Laws on speech 'already exist, 'big problem in this debate is Title and Description, or rather the 'lack of.
.
Con Round 1
Con 'might have been better off seeking clarification of debate before accepting, though I admit debate is vague.
Con brings up alternatives to censorship,
And argues speech is already limited. Con might have also dug deeper into this, as it 'is a chink in the debate, how poorly 'exactly what is being argued has been set up by the vagueness of title and lack of description.
Con argues the dangers of being 'too limiting with Freedom of Speech.
Pro Round 2
Pro argues they are not calling for a Ban of Free Speech, but that it must be Restricted from crossing certain Boundaries.
But I the voter am confused, is Pro arguing current standards of limiting Free Speech in X are enough, not enough, is Pro arguing against 'Unlimited Free Speech?
Pro brings up statistics in India,
Which might give I the Voter more understanding,
When someone in Britain says Gun Rights must be limited,
When someone in America says Gun Rights must be limited,
I get 'some understanding, given the status quos on Guns is different, but I still don't know if it is meant gun rights should be limited at 'all,
Or if 'this amount of Gun Rights is correct.
Debate may be further clarified by Pro arguments against Hate Speech,
Should I view debate as, Laws against Hate Speech in India must go further than they do currently?
Pro 'does argue Hate Speech a danger in current India, possibly a rising threat, that the law must address through change.
.
Con Round 2
Does a decent job arguing for clear cut boundaries of what is limited, and by who.
Argues current laws already exist against certain types of hate speech.
Argues the amount of restriction isn't the problem, but education and implementation.
Argues against what's "acceptable" as a good yardstick for limiting Free Speech.
For myself the Voter, a problem is 'still 'what is the debate arguing about,
Pro Round 3
I don't think that Con is arguing everything an eye for an eye,
Or even that trolling should be met with trolling,
The words of Con that I see are " If someone trolls me, I fight with facts. "
By Pro this line catches my eye most,
"Right to speech is not regulated in social media, so people are using hatred speech without any guilty "
I think this is a good argument, 'Provided Pro backs it up by proof, more statistics and sources would be good.
Pro has a point in talking about how laws change as societies change and new technologies come about,
'But a 'huge problem from the start of this debate, has been clear goalposts.
Con to my view, has been doing better in argument by arguing against Blanket Limitations on Free Speech, as well as arguing for alternative and existing methods of dealing with Hate Speech in India than further limitations.
In my view both sides have used sources, albeit limited,
Pro with change in Hate Speech, Con with Constitutional Article 19(2)
Barring any changes by Con final Round, I am going with equal in all respects but arguments, Arguments I place with Con. Due to my difficulty in parsing Pro's meaning and argument's early on until debate further unfolded,
While Con has been consistent from the start, arguing against vague Free Speech limitations, as well as arguing against premise as unsound, as 'everyone limits tools.
Not that I think Pro didn't have a point, but goalposts were not clearly defined, and I thought Con had many arguments against concerns that Pro raised.
.
Con Round 3
Argues against ambiguity and further restriction of Free Speech laws in India.
Eh, I don't really like the way Con says "Cute" but minor dislike on my part.
"He’s crying over trolling" Ah whoop, 'another comment I dislike.
Tweets 'can cause riots.
I was not bothered by the "bold and underline formatting"
But 'do think Word formatting is important for getting one's words across.
Voter Final Thoughts
I don't really like 'either side's arguments all that much, because debate was too vague for me. But I view the brunt of responsibility for that to be on Pro, while a number of Cons arguments argued 'against ambiguity and the lack of coherence in the title.
ok i consider it.
Alright, there may have been some uncertainty or lack of clarity before, so I’ll be clear now.
I am the head moderator. I’ve pointed to an example of the type of effort to influence votes that you should not be doing. I am warning you not to continue doing it here and on other debates. You are welcome to ask for people to vote on debates, but avoid influencing them in your requests.
I not received any warning, and no one have right except Truthful moderators alone to warn, i not consider normal persons as warnigs that is advice.
although i tagged them , i not asked to consider in voting,
whether i don't have right to say my opinion in comment, only few sees comment , i not sent that to any single person, are asked to consider to voters
I just asked you and some body to vote on this topic, because sometimes topic is not visible. but i neither asked any to vote for me, who complained me ,idk
https://www.debateart.com/debates/6198-right-to-speech-must-be-limited?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=5
Posts that tell voters how they should perceive the debate before they read it are meant to influence them.
Where you found that I am influencing voters
Consider this that warning, then. You can absolutely ask for people to vote on your debates. You should not also be trying to influence those votes by providing your perspective on the debate or asking them to specifically vote for you. That is still influence, even if I would consider it minor.
I not received any warning from you or any moderators, whether you have any evidence that I tried to influence individual voter. I not influenced any person. you know now who is influencing voters.
Where’s your proof that Jon used AI to write his argument for him?
I did realise that. But what johnrohith taking help of AI and all has deeply pained me. Nothing personal against you.
If you read my RFD, you'd know that my decision actually had more to do with what you wrote than it did with anything he wrote, but believe what you want I guess.
Give it a rest. Of course you would for him you like AI generated responses better.
He's been warned about it, but there's a difference between engaging in unfair or unethical behavior and violating site rules. This isn't a ban-worthy offense. If voters choose to award conduct to you on the basis that he's doing this, then that's a valid response. As for "who is making the voters decide," I know both my and Savant's decisions have come from ourselves, not from being asked to vote. I understand that pressing for votes in his favor is problematic, but it doesn't remove the ability of voters to think or vote independently. Nor, for that matter, does behaving like this mean that said debater cannot possibly earn a win on the debate.
As for reconsidering my vote, while I might reconsider other points, my reasoning for awarding him arguments still stands. I'll note that that reasoning also has nothing to do with anything he's posted so far. I don't vote on any debate with a mind towards the overall credibility of the site (I tend to focus on the arguments and the topic at hand), and I don't think that's at stake here anyway. I think it would stretch the meaning of awarding arguments to use them to enforce good ethics instead of considering and weighing the points presented.
With all due respect, I feel compelled to point out a glaring issue with your judgment. You acknowledge that Pro was previously warned for attempting to influence votes—a serious violation of fair debate ethics. Yet, when this behavior is repeated again, your response is simply to "note" it? This isn’t just a minor infraction. It’s a deliberate attempt to skew the outcome and manipulate the platform's integrity. If warnings are ignored, what message are we sending? That rules are optional? That fairness is secondary to familiarity? You mention that it's "up to the voters" to decide whether grammar or AI use matters. But who is making the voters decide—Pro himself, with repeated and direct attempts to sway them? That’s not voter independence. That’s coercion. A debater trying to game the voting process after being cautioned should not be rewarded with a win—on moral, ethical, and procedural grounds. I urge you to reconsider whether a vote in Pro’s favor is justifiable when he has disregarded the very rules that preserve the platform’s credibility. If moderation does not mean enforcement, then what does it mean?
I don't particularly care about voting in a jonrohith debate.
His English could certainly use some work, though it's up to voters to decide whether that matters enough to award legibility. It's borderline for me, but still sufficiently understandable that I didn't award it.
In terms of using AI, that is also an issue left to the voters in terms of how much it matters. For me at least, the strength of his own arguments wasn't the main issue that decided my vote.
Jonrohith has already been told he shouldn't be trying to influence the votes on this or any other debate, so I agree that's an issue.
So Rohith can't write sentences in proper english. He agrees on using AI in this debate. He id asking people in their DMs to vote for him and this is ok? Mods please take note.
Jonrohith, blocking me won't help you in framing grammatically correct sentences.
I not used ai in round 1 and 3, used ai in round 2 for improving style. not my words.
These arguments are written by a human being called Rohith that is me. You can read arguments fully . But its grammar alone improved by ai. there is no rule in this site policy inhibiting Ai use. but these are arguments are fully written by me by spending my thoughts and time. Round 3 is not edited by ai.
jonrohith, did you use ChatGPT to write your arguments? IamAdityaDhaka told me you admitted to this but I don't see where.
advices are not needed for me now, Thank you
I, too, second Tickbeat’s comment #7. Voters are to compare all debate arguments according to DA debate rules, and any special instructions in the Description, not according to any participant’s after-the-fact complaints. One can note that you left the Description field blank. Might want to consider using that field for purposes as given in debate rules next time, but not for opponent restrictions if you don’t limit yourself by the same restrictions. That’s part of voter assessment of player conduct.
If the debate is over, let it stay over. Resorting to personal comments after the discussion has ended only proves one thing — you’re trying to swing the votes by creating noise, not by offering substance. I haven’t commented on your arguments post-debate because I believe in respecting the process. Maybe try doing the same.
You say I only focused on my point of view — of course I did. It’s a debate, not a group therapy session. I defended my stance with logic, evidence, and conviction. If standing firm on reason bothers you, maybe the problem isn’t my argument — maybe it’s your inability to counter it.
You say “speech is a weapon” — then thank free speech for giving you the mic to make that ridiculous claim in the first place. You want to curtail rights and dress it up as “protection”? That’s not policy — that’s paranoia parading as patriotism.
And let’s not pretend this is all about principles either — the sudden comments, the desperate tone, the timing... it’s clear: you didn’t think you could win clean, so you tried to bait me into reacting. That way, you could paint me as the aggressor and sway the undecided.
Let the audience decide. Not your edits. Not your DMs. Not your platform history.
Well said!
Stop trying to introduce your opponent negatively to your voters before they even get the chance to form their own opinion. That's a bad faith way to debate, and if you actually cared about working towards the truth, you wouldn't do that. If you are confident that your conclusions are right, you shouldn't be afraid of people reviewing the arguments for themselves so they can come to their own conclusion, which, if you are right, means they will come to the same conclusion you come to because it is the most logical. The only time someone will be afraid of their claims being scrutinized is if they aren't confident that they're right, and they won't admit it.
Maybe let them decide?
Pleas let them have a deep analyses of the debate and choose for themselves
In this full debate con considered only his perspective he not considered other people, he thinking all people are like him.
Thanks for your deep analysis on my debate.
Also, last point.
You argue against freedom of speech, yet........ are a self described Libertarian........ I really don't know how that can be, as a libertarian is, by their very definition, against restrictions on speech.
I shall give but a few observations. I do so freely, because I have the right to speak. I intend to exercise that right, whether or not it causes offense, because I live in a democracy. And in a democracy, speech is not a luxury, no, it is a necessity.
You opened by praising freedom of speech as a noble inheritance, passed down by our forebears, granting us the ability to speak publicly and without fear. In this, I agree with you wholeheartedly. But scarcely a breath later, you pivot: speech, you claim, can be harmful; speech, you warn, ought to be restricted. You go further still, suggesting that speech is no longer merely speech—it has now become a tool.
Let us be clear: speech has always been a tool. That is why it evolved from the primitive grunt to the articulate phrase, from tribal murmur to statesman’s oration. It is a tool sharpened by civilization, by philosophy, by politics. And as with all tools, it may build or destroy. But the point is not to dull the tool, it is to teach its proper use.
In a democracy, we live with both edges of that sword. We accept that speech will, at times, be crude, painful, or foolish—because the alternative is far more dangerous. The alternative is silence.
Of course, speech is not without limits. Most democratic societies already recognize boundaries: libel, defamation, incitement to violence—these are not protected forms of speech. Even in the United States, that great fortress of free expression, one may not incite panic by falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre. So I must ask: when you call for further “restrictions,” what precisely do you mean?
Who, under your model, shall decide what is or is not harmful speech? Shall we criminalize criticism of religion? If a citizen says, “This religion treats women unfairly, and I oppose it,” is that hateful? Should it be punished?
You must understand that once the state acquires the authority to police speech based on offense or discomfort, it will not stop with your concerns. Today it is religion, tomorrow it is politics, the day after—history itself. Shall our children be raised on a single narrative, taught only one version of the past, allowed only one acceptable opinion?
We have seen, in living memory, regimes that muzzled speech in the name of the “greater good.” Nazism, Communism, theocratic absolutism, all began by silencing the “wrong” voices. And in the end, all voices fell silent. I would rather face the chaos of discord than the quiet of oppression.
Let me be clear: I do not defend unchecked speech. I defend free speech, restrained by law where necessary—but never by fear, never by vague appeals to safety, and never by those who seek power through censorship.
We do not preserve democracy by weakening its core. We preserve it by enduring its challenges and remaining steadfast in its principles, even when it is difficult, even when it is unpopular.
Freedom of speech is not simply a right. It is the lifeblood of a free people. And I would rather be wounded by words than silenced by decree.
Thank you.
Are you ready for next round.