Instigator
Points: 4

Hate speech is protected under the first amendment.

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
Sparrow
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender
Points: 28
Description
No information
Round 1
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 2
Forfeited
Published:
I don't know where Pro has been but someone has to break the silence. Hate Speech is not technically illegal in the US but it's not protected by the first amendment and you can be punished by law if it is severe enough and deemed a hate crime.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first amendment supposedly protects free speech, but it does not do so perhaps as well as it was intended originally.On top of the possibility that you can be charged with hate crimes for harassing people with hate speech, especially if you couple hate speech with actions taken to harm or demean them, you can also be censored in public and onlineย  according to the policy of the business who's property you're on. in places like grocery stores and on sites like twitter and facebook etc. you do not have free speech, rendering the first amendment almost useless because it's really up to corporate policy in most cases.
Round 3
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 4
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 5
Forfeited
Forfeited
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚
#30
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
LOL what a fucking reaction!
#29
Added:
--> @Type1
lmao bruh r/whoosh
#28
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
wtf do you realize pro didn't even post a single argument? You call me a troll but this demonstrates that you are either a troll or an unequivocally retarded imbecile.
#27
Added:
--> @justincole, @Sparrow
There have been some good points and great debating on both sides, but as a voter, I have to say pro has the edge by far. He debunked con's arguments flawlessly leaving con in the dust which is why he forfeited in the later rounds because he knows he lost. Props to pro, well done, you have my vote.
#26
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath
this sounds like u lmao
#25
Added:
--> @KingArthur, @justincole
He hit the nail on the head right there. This argument is essentially A = A
#24
Added:
Too easy. The USSC has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is protected. You should change it to, Hate Speech Should be protected. I'd take that debate.
#23
Added:
--> @justincole
If interested, you can make a debate on if free speech is good. I agree with that so I won't debate with you on it but RM might. He takes a lot of debates.
#22
Added:
"You see, if we allow people to speak of pure loathing of a particular race, gender or lifestyle-type, we naturally will have speakers encouraging people to 'end them by force'." They won't become mainstream, so it's not going to negatively affect society. It's not like race based slavery will come back, unless it is blacks enslaving whites. If your worried about whites advocating for killing black people, given that not even the KKK supports this, I doubt it would gain enough popularity to be a threat.
#21
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
People can try to spread hatred but with today's society i doubt many people will listen or pay attention.
Instigator
#20
Added:
--> @justincole
It's a very fine line on what's illegal. What exactly inspires the ones who say to hurt the type if not the speech inspiring hatred?
#19
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
If youre not going to prove it then why am i even trying to debate this with you. *sighs* i honestly thought there were people on here with intelligent arguments not based on feelings. Calling for violence is already illegal. saying that you hate a certain person of color is not illegal. its wrong but what can you do? you honestly havent provided any evidence that hate speech leads to violence.
Instigator
#18
Added:
--> @justincole
you cannot prove something that slowly reduced over a long time was only due to their approach to hate speech, you can however spend your OWN TIME to try and prove there isn't a reduction which you'll find is brutally false. I cannot be bothered to prove it to you, you will argue it's immoral regardless and that we need to tell people not to listen to the hate speech if it makes them violent and blame the readers and listeners but that's simply too impractical for a justice system to do as it will end up with too many people in prison to be able to cope economically with them taken out of the work-force as well as putting into the prison system the dumber, violent ones rather than fining the smarter, influential ones.
#17
Added:
--> @justincole
What do you define as harmless joke and one what platform is the joke being expressed to how many people of the race/sexuality/group-etc that you're sadistically laughing at while making it?
In case you go into humiliation-kink masochists who get off on being made fun of, I am both for that and the above making it clear that hate-speech ban isn't applied to in-house type jokes and that abusive parents who hate-speech bully their children are not having their children away because it's hate speech in itself but because of the role of a parent vs what they're doing to their children psychologically (probably physically too as stress can lead to diarrhoea and much else that will indirectly harm the child's development but that's for another debate).
Hate speech bans and the entire left-wing progressive group that I identify with are not usually against hate speech in a private 'fuck them' kind of manner but also kind of are against it when the victimised group is present and also when the speech is made in a very large-scale manner that can both influence hatred that leads to more hate speech and furthermore into violence via butterfly-effect AND that itself is so large-scale that the pain is causing a rift in the nation's social landscape.
#16
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Forfiture.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro realised the Left Wing is correct.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Full forfeit
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Full Forfeit