1575
rating
5
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#773
Universities should uphold free speech on their campus
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 6 votes and with 26 points ahead, the winner is...
vsp2019
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Twelve hours
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
1435
rating
15
debates
33.33%
won
Description
I would like to argue on the topic "Universities should platform even the most controversial views". I will be in the against position. My personal position is that, though most views should be fine, there is a strong case that can be made against certain speakers and why they should not be allowed to speak on a university platform.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro triple forfeits which was less than Con's good topic/effort deserved.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro FF 3 times which is poor conduct
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Full forfeit.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro forfeited 3 times and thus effectively concedes the debate.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Double ff from Pro
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is a full forfeit debate. Per the site's voting policy, full-forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the forfeiting side.
************************************************************************
No worries. I was confused cause I agree with what you were saying but I thought you were trying to refute me
Sorry. I didn't mean to tag you. Refusing to platform a view like Milo's is a conscientious thing to do.
I was trying to just throw that information out there for the benefit of humanity.
There is a huge difference between Galileo saying the Sun is at the center of our galaxy and Milo Yiannopoulos doxxing a transgender student because Milo did not like what the latter had to say
If you read what I have said on this subject so far you will notice one thing: I never said we should censor unpopular or controversial opinion at all. So you are preaching to the choir here
Censoring unpopular or controversial topics is one of the reasons the Dark Ages lasted so long.
It depends on the context of why you are saying it. If you are making a sociological study, then sure. The same way it's also okay for someone to say, white males have had historically held a position of privilege that they benefit of to this day. Assuming both are factually correct, those are just facts. But if you are saying this with the intention of making prescriptive statements(Therefore we should kick black people out, White people should not be allowed on campus), then I disagree.
People still do say these things: If you look into the Evergreen scandal where Bret Weinstein stood up against the fact that white people were told to stay home and not come to campus, I oppose these students who said that. I side with Bret on this. These students should not have been given a platform and they should have been arrested for what they did later.
However, if instead these students said they wanted to make a socioogical discussion on white privilege and oppression of black people, I would support that.
People like Richard Spencer may not directly say they want black people kicked out, they are indeed obtuse with their language. But by looking at the bigger picture of all that they said, it is easy to see what their intentions are.
I don't think anyone prominent is saying all Muslims are terrorists etc. If I wanted to say Blacks were more likely to commit crime, would that be OK to say?
I am fine with ideologies/political views being discussed among actual experts, I just am not fine with someone being given a platform just to dehumanize people. If Richard Dawkins were to come to my university to dehumanise all religious people("all Muslims are terrorists", "All Catholics are pedophiles", "Jews are taking over the World",etc...) ,I would oppose him being given a platform. If he were to come just to discuss why he hates religions(Islam/ Judaism/ Christianity/etc... is dumb/violent/retarded/etc...), then I would support that. As I said, I am even fine with people being given a platform to criticise atheism.
If someone wanted to make a speech saying that being straight was the only real sexuality, he has the right to say this. If I were a priest, would I have sense in censoring Richard Dawkins from making a speech at a college campus? Historically, the right used your logic to censor people. Now it's the left that does it.
You may be unconformable with black panther calling for the enslavement of white people. If you are, then you can debate with them about their idea or you can simply leave the room. Censoring them undermines free speech.
I am referring to refusing people like Milo Yiannopoulos for eg, a stage to deliver a speech on university grounds
Technically, refusing to publish or allow certain views to be spoken or written on a college campus isn't a violation of free speech. It's like saying, "you can say what you want, but you can't do it here."
Another example is removing a person from the room for interrupting court proceedings.
Guess allowing their voices to be heard on campus.
What do you mean by platform?