Right to speech must be limited

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!

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.