Points: 15

Is freedom of speech a right?

Voting

The participant who scores the most points is declared the winner

The voting period will end in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Required rating
10
Points: 77
Description
I say yes, and am willing to prove it.
Round 1
Forfeited
Published:
Power move forth, pawn 2 places. Want the checkmate? Come along, try me.
Round 2
Forfeited
Published:
It's not a right.
Round 3
Forfeited
Round 4
Forfeited
Published:
Annihilated.
Added:
--> @PressF4Respect
See below. Same reason for removal
#19
Added:
--> @Risky112
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Risky112 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to con
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
************************************************************************
#18
Added:
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Full forfeit by PRO
#17
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
That's a good cover of mad world, but I do prefer the original.
#16
Added:
--> @Ragnar
My key contention would ultimately be that we're not asking the right question. Obviously, we have freedom of speech. That's a descriptive truth. People collectively want freedom of speech, even if it is subjective, and the law grants it to us as a right.
I think the best question to tackle this topic is "when should speech be free"
I think this line of reasoning would work with most moral/legal arguments.
#15
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Prisoners don't lose their freedom of speech. I think for a right to be inalienable, it would have to be such that there is no legal mechanism that is allowed to encroach upon it. I'm not convinced that any right should even have this status. I think every rule necessarily needs an exception.
#14
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Last comment wasn't for you, ignore it.
I agree that I like that standard for subjective and practical reasons. I don't think that gets you to an inalienable right though. I think that gets you roughly to moral particularism. Just about any right will have a point where it infringes upon another. So just abought any right would be inalienable under this definition.
#13
Added:
Hmmm. Rude as usual, no matter.
#12
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
I'd simply go by when the expression of your rights (or freedoms to be more precise) would infringe upon the rights of another.
#11
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
No. I'm talking in present tense, like 'strike to the jaw' etc. No mistake, couldn't give a fuck what you think of it tbph.
Contender
#10
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
Touche, but to be fair, you're accidental subjunctive use of the word "move" does make the sentence a tad choppy. ;)
#9
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
Forth isn't the same word as fourth.
Contender
#8
Added:
--> @Ragnar
I'm from the USA as well.
Okay. We're on the same page then. So here's my contention.
If a right is inalienable simply because we "shouldn't violate it" then by what method do we determine whether or not it should be violated?
That's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely interested in the answer.
#7
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
It was a question that would have defined my rebuttal tactic.
I live in the USA, where "certain inalienable rights" is a thing. ... Not that rights are never violated, but that the government is supposed to never violate them (and in general protect against their violation). Had pro agreed, I would have merely shown prisoners not being allowed to vote.
#6
Added:
--> @Ragnar
what makes a right inalienable? If you mean that people intrinsically can't violate it, then wouldn't the make the point of a right vacuous?
#5
#11
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
forfeit
#10
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
How do you forfeit the first round of your own debate?
#9
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgzGwKwLmgM
#8
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
#7
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Opponent conceded all rounds.
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
RFD in comments
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Arguments-Con was the only one to even state anything.
Sources-Con was the only one to site anything.
Grammar- No words to even observe for pro.
#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:
lmao tf is that voting period u might as well end it in 2025
#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:
Full forfeit
#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:
Forfeiture.
#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:
I would like to thank both opponents for this debate.
POOR CONDUCT
Pro has ff the majority of the rounds of the debate which is poor conduct
I ask the other voters to consider this when voting on conduct as well.