We should ban certain topics

Author: Bringerofrain ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 71
  • Bringerofrain
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 516
    3
    4
    7
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Bringerofrain
    I know free speech is something a lot of people here hold dearly, but it can be bad for dialogue. It might be cute to even argue in favor of disgusting things like being pro serial killer in a debate. However we need to focus on how certain beliefs can harm society and how we should not even tolerate those beliefs. I would propose banning certain topics such as what follows.

    1. Nuclear war is good
    2. Murder is good
    3. Rape is good
    4. Women are inferior to men
    5. Some races are superior to others

    These topics can have real world consequences, particularly since the site has a very young demographics and are very impressionable. 

    I know this might be controversial, but the site should eliminate any notion that all speech is acceptable or will be tolerated. Anything considered disgusting by normative ethics should be banned.





  • Bringerofrain
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 516
    3
    4
    7
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Bringerofrain
    If people never hear extremist arguments, they will never be able to be persuaded to be extremists. 
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 332
    Forum posts: 10,149
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @Bringerofrain
    You recently made a topic supporting incels (or mocking them, I'm not sure which I just noticed the title and knew it was too offputting of a topic to touch)... Anyway, I agree to the notion of this but I think topics 1 and 2 are not too taboo depending on the context. I agree with 3-5 being no-gos. I understand it can be entertaining to be devil's advocate but exactly as this can have real world impact I have come to understand as I've grown up, why censorship is needed in moderation (pun intended).
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 332
    Forum posts: 10,149
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @Bringerofrain
    3 and 5 I'd support outright banning. I feel 4 could be interesting if the woman-defender is allowed to bite back at how males have often ruined their own progress because of their hostility and impulsivity and stuff like that.
  • Bringerofrain
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 516
    3
    4
    7
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Bringerofrain
    --> @RationalMadman
    I was neither making fun  or supporting incel's. Just pointing out some of their arguments about being genetically inferior may have merit. 
  • Bringerofrain
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 516
    3
    4
    7
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Bringerofrain
    Also just to be clear, I wouldn't ban topics based on level of disgustingness but the impact of that ideal gaining a foothold in the mind of large numbers of youth. The argument may even be correct in some of those instances but should be banned anyway. For example some races of people do have higher IQs than others, but if it is argued that race a has a lower IQ than race b in the debate than the debate should be removed and the debater making the argument enter some sort of education program before being allowed to make more topics. Something like a short video and questionnaire to help them learn the correct opinions about these sorts of things. What is the process for starting a meep?
  • Wagyu
    Wagyu avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 130
    1
    2
    4
    Wagyu avatar
    Wagyu
    --> @Bringerofrain
    4 could make a juicy debate. 
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 99
    Forum posts: 4,638
    7
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    I would propose banning certain topics such as what follows.

    1. Nuclear war is good
    2. Murder is good
    3. Rape is good
    4. Women are inferior to men
    5. Some races are superior to others

    You might as well put out a sign that says, "NO REPUBLICANS"   Is that the effect you are hoping to achieve?
  • Bringerofrain
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 516
    3
    4
    7
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Bringerofrain
    --> @oromagi
    Lol, that's funny. If that policy would eliminate all republicans, that is pretty sad.
  • Bringerofrain
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 516
    3
    4
    7
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Bringerofrain
    What do you think of my ideal for the reeducation videos, so the people posting those topics understand why they had their content censored?
  • Intelligence_06
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Debates: 61
    Forum posts: 1,893
    4
    7
    11
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Intelligence_06
    I would suggest banning those as well, but for the reason that those could be seen as free wins to any serious debater who is sane.
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 25
    Forum posts: 2,882
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @Intelligence_06
    Says you - as you argue that homosexuality is a choice.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,743
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Bringerofrain
    If people never hear extremist arguments, they will never be able to be persuaded to be extremists. 
    Who was the first "extremist"?
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,743
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Bringerofrain
    sed on level of disgustingness but the impact of that ideal gaining a foothold in the mind of large numbers of youth. The argument may even be correct in some of those instances but should be banned anyway. For example some races of people do have higher IQs than others, but if it is argued that race a has a lower IQ than race b in the debate than the deba
    HILARIOUS.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,743
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @RationalMadman
    3 and 5 I'd support outright banning.
    Of course you would.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,743
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Bringerofrain
  • Bringerofrain
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 516
    3
    4
    7
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Bringerofrain
    --> @3RU7AL
    The first extremist was Cain
  • Bringerofrain
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 516
    3
    4
    7
    Bringerofrain avatar
    Bringerofrain
    Anyone who says those topics are an automatic loss against a good debater is incorrect and probably doesn't have a strong background in philosophy. 
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,743
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Bringerofrain
    The first extremist was Cain
    And how do you think they learned their "evil" ideas?
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 25
    Forum posts: 2,882
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @Bringerofrain
    Mm, there are certainly arguments for all of the topics brought up - whether they're actually good is another matter entirely. Perhaps someone with an intermediate knowledge of philosophy could argue for the topics with success; however I often find that if you have even a grasp of the concept they are arguing for they are immediately revealed as having no idea what they're talking about. There is a very good reason why most philosophers don't find these things as justifiable - closer inspection against most "shock and awe" arguments are simply not valid.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,868
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    I am opposed to the idea of banning any discussion of any topic for the simple reason that we should not be afraid that the discussion may incite someone else to action, and that is really what is at the root of the fear of discussion of some topics. If one cannot discuss what may make nuclear war good [can't think of any substantiating commentary at present, but that doesn't mean there isn't one], how do we convince that it is bad? there must be opposition in. all things, else we fail to understand both sides of an issue; any issue. Rather, we need to assure that our youth hear both sides of an issue. I don't think it's any healthier to indoctrinate youth with either side of an argument; let them hear, and discuss both sides.  How, unless we can openly discuss whether war of any kind has good and bad consequences and, by so doing, allow the conclusion to develop that nuclear war, specifically, may not be such a good idea. EWhen has ignorance ever been a good idea?

    And, by the way, just so all sides of an issue can be discussed, what the hell is wrong with Dr Seuss?
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,743
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @fauxlaw
    I am opposed to the idea of banning any discussion of any topic for the simple reason that we should not be afraid that the discussion may incite someone else to action,
    100% THIS.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 8,743
    3
    4
    8
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Theweakeredge
    1. Threat of nuclear war maintains peace
    2. Vigilante justice is a human right
    3. Credible threat of torture can be an effective interrogation technique
    4. Some individuals are better suited to particular tasks than other individuals
    5. Some individuals are better suited to particular tasks than other individuals
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 25
    Forum posts: 2,882
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @3RU7AL
    Original Topics:
    1. Nuclear war is good
    2. Murder is good
    3. Rape is good
    4. Women are inferior to men
    5. Some races are superior to others

    Proposed arguments:
    1. Threat of nuclear war maintains peace
    2. Vigilante justice is a human right
    3. Credible threat of torture can be an effective interrogation technique
    4. Some individuals are better suited to particular tasks than other individuals
    5. Some individuals are better suited to particular tasks than other individuals

    1  - Threat of Nuclear War is fundamentally different from Nuclear War - this is sad 3RU7AL
    2. A better argument than the first one - however vigilante justice does not necessarily equate to murder - furthermore this is only using the legal definition of murder
    3. This should be a simple simple ethics impact check - is information more important or bodily agency, long-term physical and mental condition, the possibility of death. Information will rarely if ever be worth that - this is absurd.
    4 & 5: SOME INDIVIDUALS do not equate to EVERY INDIVIDUAL AS PART OF A GROUP - this is the saddest argument - stop.
     

  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 2,868
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @3RU7AL
    thanks