Instigator / Con
21
1575
rating
5
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#789

Free Speech on Campus

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
6
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

vsp2019
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
18
1495
rating
47
debates
48.94%
won
Description

My position is that most subjects can be discussed within the proper academic framework. However, it is a net negative for universities to allow certain speakers, who push for bigotry, to have a platform on campus. I would like to debate anyone who is against this form of censorship and someone who considers themselves a free speech absolutist. This is not a law debate(The point of the debate is about whether universities should uphold free speech, not what the law says about free speech).

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:

Kiss my goddamn ass.

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:

On The fence

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:

The terms of the debate were:

“My position is that most subjects can be discussed within the proper academic framework. However, it is a net negative for universities to allow certain speakers, who push for bigotry, to have a platform on campus. I would like to debate anyone who is against this form of censorship and someone who considers themselves a free speech absolutist. This is not a law debate(The point of the debate is about whether universities should uphold free speech, not what the law says about free speech).”

The title of the debate was clarified in the detail of the debate, and in my view con argues this point.

Pro agrees that cons side of the resolution is correct - effectively conceding the debate right there and rendering all other arguments moot.

Pro goes on to argue that con is arguing for free speech on campus: however this isn’t the debate resolution as outlined in the details. As a result, pro is arguing that con upheld a different resolution than the debate - which may be true but is also irrelevant.

As a result, arguments to con.