Challenge Match: chissler vs bodrul: Sticks and Stones...

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   
The topic for this debate is "Congress Should Ban Words That Incite Hatred (The Actual Words)"

chissler is arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
bodrul will be arguing the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 1 alternating reply each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

Character limits are no longer in effect. You may use as many characters as a single post allows.

Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

Responses should be made within 24 hours. One single 24 hour extension can be used by a member by requesting it in the thread. If 24 hours passes without response, you may proceed with your next post. Members who exceed 24 hours run the risk of losing their post, but may still post up until their opponent has submitted their next response.

This is a challenge match. The winner will receive 2 ranking points, the loser will lose two ranking points.




posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Greetings to one and all. First let me begin by thanking MemoryShock for his hard work and dedication to the Debate forum of Above Top Secret. Secondly, allow me to thank bodrul for his participating. Lastly, I thank you the reader for taking the time to listen to what we have to say.

Away we go.

"Congress Should Ban Words That Incite Hatred (The Actual Words)"

Wow, this is going to be a tough one.

I can hear you thinking right now, not a chance in hell! Our freedom of speech is something that we hold near and dear to our heart and nobody is taking that from us. Right? Right? Right!

Or is it right?

Throughout this debate we're going to examine certain words and the message that they carry, then we're going to examine the repercussions that have been carried with these words.

The typical response will be how people lost their lives in order to fight for our right to freedom of speech. But how many lives have been lost since due to the manner that some people choose to express free speech? This was not the intent of freedom of speech.

It should be noted that there several restrictions on freedom of speech already. Absolute freedom of speech does not exist on any level, and this restriction that I propose is only another step in the right direction.

Let's review some current restrictions on freedom of speech around the world:

  • Defamation
  • Threats
  • Lying in court
  • Treason
  • Blasphemy
  • Copyright infringement
  • Holocaust denial

    So before my opponent shoots himself in the foot and tells us how freedom of speech exists, I'll begin here with making it clear that it does not exist.

    I'll quote Noam Chomsky here with a relevant quote:

    ""If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like."

    I support this 100%. What we're dealing with here is not topics we disagree with, we're talking about hate speech. Disagreeing with a subject matter and outright hate speech are polar opposites.



    Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting.

    en.wikipedia.org...


    "Speech intended to degrade, intimidate and incite violence"

    Is this something that we want to defend?

    Again, let me make this clear. I stand for freedom of speech (remember absolute freedom of speech does not exist) and I am more than open to opposing view points. But what I do not stand for is the ability of ignorant souls to degrade other citizens and incite violence on the masses.

    The following are countries that have stiff laws against hate speech:

  • United Kingdom
  • Germany
  • Canada
  • Ireland
  • Iceland
  • Australia
  • New Zealand
  • France
  • Singapore
  • Brazil
  • Sweden
  • Finland
  • Denmark
  • Norway

     
     


    Now are we going to naive enough to say that even though so many other countries have made a stand on this issue, that the United States is in the right for not? They stand outside the vast majority when it comes to Kyoto, and I don't think it's much of a secret that it's in their best interest to sign off on that. Why do I quote Kyoto? Because it is the perfect example of how the United States has failed to take action on an issue that sorely needs it.

    Socratic Method

  • How many great leaders of the world would be silenced if they were not permitted to express hate speech?
  • In an estimation, how many lives would have been saved if previous world leaders who spewed hate speech would have been restricted in the manner that they spoke of those they prejudged.
  • What constructive purpose does the term "nigger", "faggot", "spic", etc. serve?



  • posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 09:09 AM
    link   
    The 24 hour window has elapsed and my opponent has failed to author his opening statement or request his extension. So I will continue on with my follow up post.

     
     


    I ask our readers to consider the history of man and think of the countless lives that have been lost due to the action on ignorance of our kind. If we were to remove these words from our day to day lives, I believe it would be a huge step towards the social equality that so many of us dream about. Remove the verbal stones that we use to strike one another down and allow us to live in peace.

    If we removed the weapons from any battle ground, would the war cease to exist? Battles can not be fought without the necessary ammunition. This hate speech is mankind's verbal weapons that we use on one another to strike our foes down. And why? What is constructive about hurling these derogatory insults at one another? What purpose does it serve? How does this make us a better society? It doesn't. Such a move to remove these terms would be an obvious effort to ask our citizens to strive to be better, to make an effort to be open-minded, and to refrain from speaking with such disdain.

    Have you ever been the victim of a derogatory comment? As a white male, I'm not really one to be able to speak with empathy here. But I have been the victim of individualized prejudice and picked on throughout my school years. But I would not even attempt to imagine what it must feel like to be slapped in the face with a verbal punch of some of the most hate ridden, ignorance that man can spew. How would it feel to be on the wrong end of these punches? Are we really asking our innocent men, women, and children to continue to suffer these blows?

    And for what? So some ignorant minded fool can remind himself at the end of the day that he has freedom of speech backing him up and he can say whatever the hell he wants, no matter who it hurts? Is this what we want? It is not an exaggeration when I say that world wars have been fought over this very issue and millions of lives have been lost in the process. It's not worth it!

    Earlier in this debate I discussed some restrictions on free speech world wide, I will not quote a few on American soil.

  • Restrictions on child pornography
  • Restrictions on adverstising
  • Copyright laws
  • Slander
  • Flag discretion (symbolic, but still relevant)

    Free speech does not exist within the United States of America, so this step that I propose is only another measure that falls within the precedent already set.

    I now direct our reader's attention to the Miller Test, which is the Supreme Court's test for determining whether or not certain speech is deemed obscene or not. Speech that is deemed obscene is not protected under the first amendment and can be prohibited. I repeat, can be prohibited.

    The three standards of this test that must be met are:

  • Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
  • Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[2] specifically defined by applicable state law,
  • Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific).

    Why do we fail to act on what is so obviously necessary? Measures have already been taken to restrict and censor this content when it is deemed obscene and the government can legally prohibit it. The hate terms in question lack any constructive connotation and can be seen as nothing but obscene. The only logical step to take in this situation is to remove these terms and push forward with the theme of equality throughout our society.

     
     


    Socratic Method

    I have no further questions to ask. If my opponent does make a reply to this debate, I ask that he simply respond to my three questions posed in my opening statement. Thank you.



  • posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 08:08 AM
    link   
    Firstly apologies for missing my first post had trouble getting back from London in time.

    For my opening post I would like to start off with the following statement and define what it means.



    en.wikipedia.org...
    Freedom of speech is being able to speak freely without censorship. The right to freedom of speech is recognised as human right in under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognised in international human rights law under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR recognises the right to freedom of speech as "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression".[1][2] Furthermore freedom of speech is recognised in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which establishes human rights law on a regional level.

    The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to denote not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas,
    regardless of the medium used. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression is closely related to, yet distinct from, the concept of freedom of conscience and freedom of thought.


    Freedom of speech is something that allows people to express what they feel,
    Something that should not be controlled by anyone as shown above is recognised by the international human rights laws.

    My opponent is correct in pointing out there are restrictions on freedom of speech, which changes from nation to nation.

    These have always been under scrutiny by their people and the international community.

    Where governments use restrictions to control their people and ensure that they have a better grip on power and what their people do.

    Now the government that do this say it’s for the good of their people and the restrictions are in place to ensure the good of their people.

    How far will this go? Control the words people say and ban them?
    So each time a new word is made up by someone to describe someone or something that falls in with hate speech, that word would automatically be banned?

    This is no way in the right direction as there will always be people that will find certain words offensive.

    By saying you cannot say a certain word won’t make someone be any different, if they are full of resent and hatred for others they will still be the same. They will always find a way to express themselves.

    To answer your questions

    1. As I said previously people that are full of hate would always find ways to express themselves, just because they wouldn’t be permitted to use certain words and use certain tones wouldn’t mean they wouldn’t be able to put words together to sugar coat what they really mean.

    Hitler, starling and other tyrants of history that were full of hate would always find ways to achieve their goals.

    2. How many lives would be spared? Not as many as I wish.
    as I said for question one, people will always find a way to preach what they feel and no matter how many words people want banned, people will always find a way.

    If their hatred is that strong nothing can stop them and history has shown that.

    3. Many words that are used to abuse others are also terms for other things an example is *Faggot*



    • ornament or join (fabric) by faggot stitch; "He fagotted the blouse for his wife"
    • fagot: offensive term for an openly homosexual man
    • fasten together rods of iron in order to heat or weld them
    • bind or tie up in or as if in a faggot; "faggot up the sticks"
    • fagot: a bundle of sticks and branches bound together
    wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


    somewhere down history someone has come along and used it to describe gay men.
    This shows that words that are used to define other things and objects are and can be used in an offensive term.



    If you removed the weapons from a battle field people will always use what’s at hand to carry on fighting. The human body is the ultimate weapon and history has shown that.
    Mankind will always find ways of killing each other.

    If we remove the verbal stones from the world, doesn’t mean we have removed the hate from the hearts of the people that use them to strike into the hearts of others.
    Removing and banning words will not bring about world peace.

    I have been called Paki, Banger and other words, but I am not someone to take these words to heart and by allowing these people who use these words to hurt others get to me would show that they have won.
    I will have shown them that this word that they use truly is a powerful weapon.

    By banning these words we as a people (and I speak in sense of global community) will show these people that we fear them enough to try and silence by restricting what we fear or don’t agree with.

    To protect our youth? Who comes up with these words to describe others in hateful manner?
    Words are made up every day to describe something people do not understand or dislike.

    I must disagree with my opponent on the following as they do not contuse as free speech.
    • Restrictions on child pornography

    Child abuse is no way freedom of speech and should never be classed with ones way to express themselves and what they can say.

    • Restrictions on advertising

    there has always been restrictions on how a company can show its product to the public,
    for example using a sensible advertisement or attempting to put a graphic image which would be seen by kids or in that age group.

    To say that this is the same as what someone can say is ludicrous

    • Copyright laws
    copy right laws are there to protect the sole property of a company and ensure that it's not reproduced and pirated. Freedom of speech is for people to express themselves not be a common thief.

    • Slander

    Freedom of speech makes people responsible for what they say. If they want to go out and lie about others they know they are accountable for what comes out their mouths,


    • Flag discretion (symbolic, but still relevant)
    different in different countries as the Flag is seen as very symbolic or political tool.

    So when a Flag is burnt there are different messages that are sent out political or hate.

    The Millers test




    however, the test generally makes it difficult to outlaw any form of expression. Much pornography has been successfully argued to have some artistic or literary value.


    in practice the Millers test has a three procedures before a word can be banned or certain phrase.

    the Millers test may have powers to ban Words and ensure that they aren’t protected by the first amendment but they have to ensure that it passes the process.

    And this helps free speech as most words that would be banned were and are used for other subjects and matters so when processed through the millers test they would fail in being banned.

    My Three Questions

    1. Since new words are brought up or current words are used to describe others.

    How far would restricting these words go?

    2. You said if people couldn’t use hate speech less people would have died in history.

    How would this have worked if in history people have always been motivated by personal gain (national gain) or the hate they feel within?

    3. By Banning what people say, how would this help in stopping them hating others and finding a way to express themselves?


    Again I apologise for missing my first post



    posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 02:01 PM
    link   
    I'm requesting my 24 hour extension.

    (I may not need it, but just in case)



    posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 08:07 AM
    link   
    This is my third and final response for our debate. I hope anyone who has read this has enjoyed what has been exchanged here as much as I have. Anyone who reads any debate on ATS is bound to learn something, and I see this debate as no different. Away we go...

    I will begin this debate with some thoughts on my opponent's first response, then I will be following up with some further thoughts of my own that will show why the hate speech that ignorant minded souls attempt to spew, should be restricted.

    I would like to begin with the "response" my opponent has offered to my Socratic questions. First of all.. I quote the rules of our debate.


    Originally posted by MemoryShock
    When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.


    The question that I posed was:

  • How many great leaders of the world would be silenced if they were not permitted to express hate speech?

    His answer...


    Originally posted by bodrul
    . As I said previously people that are full of hate would always find ways to express themselves, just because they wouldn’t be permitted to use certain words and use certain tones wouldn’t mean they wouldn’t be able to put words together to sugar coat what they really mean.

    Hitler, starling and other tyrants of history that were full of hate would always find ways to achieve their goals.


    Starling?

    Where is the answer in this whole light show that my opponent has put on? He has failed to answer the question in a direct manner, which the rules of this debate state.

    My second question that I posed...

  • In an estimation, how many lives would have been saved if previous world leaders who spewed hate speech would have been restricted in the manner that they spoke of those they prejudged.

    My opponent's response...


    Originally posted by bodrul
    2. How many lives would be spared? Not as many as I wish.
    as I said for question one, people will always find a way to preach what they feel and no matter how many words people want banned, people will always find a way.

    If their hatred is that strong nothing can stop them and history has shown that.


    Not many as you wish?

    You take satisfaction that very few people would have been spared due to a censorship on hate speech? On top of this atrocity of a comment, you still fail to offer an answer. "Not many" is not an answer. I was hoping that my opponent would take four or five seconds to consider the question and offer an estimation of what the impact would be on a potential censorship. But alas, he has once again failed to answer the question I posed.

    Now I won't quote the third question and response, but I will concede that my opponent stung me a little with this one. While I posed several terms and he chose to only respond to one, ignoring the others conveniently, he did come back strong with a good point. One of the terms I selected has constructive connotations and I made an error in selecting it. However, my opponent has also conveniently overlooked more than half of the question. The rules state that direct answers must be given and I fail to see how any of those could be possibly deemed as direct answers.

    My opponent has decided on a simple approach here, he's right thus he should win this debate. I'm not saying he is right but given the community that we are preaching to, not many people may accept the side of the debate I am presenting. My job here isn't to convince you to go against your beliefs, my job is merely to present a better case than my opponent. At the end of this debate, if you feel that this censorship is still wrong.. that's fine. But that doesn't equate to a victory for my opponent. Your opinions on the topic do not decide this debate, it is a matter of who presented the better case. And I would hope that the singing and dancing my opponent has done around my questions will be taken into consideration.


    Originally posted by bodrul
    If we remove the verbal stones from the world, doesn’t mean we have removed the hate from the hearts of the people that use them to strike into the hearts of others.


    Completely wrong.

    If I possess a skill and I fail to use it, I lose that skill. If you learn new word and then never use it, you will cease to retain the term in your vocabulary. If we remove the ammunition from our hatred, hatred will cease to exist. Our world is not compiled of cold blooded murderers. We are compiled of good, honest, hard working people.. and when given the necessary ammunition of hate ridden speech or some type of weapon, they can become a murderer. Remove the ammunition, remove the problem.

    My opponent will have you believe that people are born knowing how to hate, to judge, to resent. But we are not. These are all negative aspects that we are taught on our journey through life. Prejudices are something that are taught and ingrained in our mind at a young age through this hate speech.

    My opponent may feel that this is a battle not worth fighting. I feel it is worth making a stand for, and well beyond this debate it is something I will stand for as I go through life.


    Originally posted by bodrul
    Child abuse is no way freedom of speech and should never be classed with ones way to express themselves and what they can say.


    This sentence doesn't make any sense.

    There are restrictions on what an adult can say to a minor.. thus a censorship on freedom of speech. As an adult, I can not walk up to an eight year old girl and talk to her in a sexual manner. If I do, I go to jail. I'm flabbergasted that my opponent states this is not an issue of freedom of speech. If it isn't, what is it?

    My opponent follows up with an odd explanation that advertising, etc., are not examples of freedom of speech issues either. How? If I market a product on television, I am censored in the manner that I can do so. This all falls under the umbrella of speech and it is a perfect example of how the government has already censored it. It refutes the simple fact that people stick to their guns and say it is their right to say whatever they want, whenever they want, and however they want.. because it is their right to freedom of speech.

    I will now directly respond to my opponent's questions.

    1. How far would restricting these words go?

  • Restricting words that are of no constructive connotation and are merely used to incite violence and spread hatred should be removed from our vocabulary. Terms that can be used as inciting violence but do have a constructive connotation, they should remain and we should educate people on the term. But terms with absolutely no constructive means other than to degrade.. we have no use for them.

    2. How would this have worked if in history people have always been motivated by personal gain (national gain) or the hate they feel within?

  • Your pessimistic views are somewhat disturbing. People have not been always motivated by personal gain or the hate they feel within. You make it sound that the human race is based off of hate mongers who would eat their own if they felt like it. We can quote Hobbes who said that we acted out of self-interest, but we can also quote Comte or Hutcheson who felt that benevolence was an innate trait. Comte actually coined the term "altruism".

    So to directly answer your question.. the world has not always been motivated by personal gain or hatred. In the eye of evil, good people have stood up and fended them off. Choosing to ignore the good and strong, as you have done here, does not minimize their existence.

    3. By Banning what people say, how would this help in stopping them hating others and finding a way to express themselves?

  • As stated above, it will remove the ammunition. If guns are meant to kill, without the bullet they are useless. To judge, oppress, hurt.. we rely on our verbal communication to do so. If we remove the stones from our speech, we'll be challenged to find more constructive ways of defining one another. At the end of the day, is it really a problem that instead of using ignorant terms.. we might call one another by our first name? I fail to see why we resist such a logical and simple approach.

     
     


    In conclusion here folks, I think the issue is rather simple. While what might be expected of us could be a little frustrating for those who seek not to challenge themselves, the outcome is what we are in desperate need of. Are we not tired of having others feel like they are inferior? At what point do we acknowledge our history and learn from it. At what point do we say enough is enough and say that today is the day that we all feel at home on this planet and we all feel that we are worthy.

    I believe in free speech and I support it. But what I do not support is the inciting of violence, the hate speech merely intended to oppress and hurt, and the act of telling others that they are not as good as anyone else.

    Like we've been told since we were kids, "if you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all". Another fitting quote by George Santayana, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it".

    Let us break this cycle of ignorance and promote equality. The first step is removing the bullets from the gun and challenging ourselves to do one better and express ourselves in a manner that does not incite violence and spread hatred.

    Don't say it's too tough or it can't be done. It's too late! It will never work!

    Those excuses are a waste of time. Ask yourself if it makes sense. If it does, then why not? If we can clone, land on the moon, create atomic weapons, are we to really believe that we are not capable of speaking in a manner that is not hate ridden?

    Thank you,
    chissler



  • posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 04:06 PM
    link   
    For my final response I would like to thank my opponent for taking his time to accept my challenge and defend a position which in this day and age is something few people will see worth protecting,
    you have put up a good fight and have given me a run for my money and all the best.

    I would also like to thank MemoryShock setting this debate up.
    And I hope everyone that has read this debate will have learnt some valuable insights into the two views that have been echoed by me and chissler.

    I will first start off with the response I got my from opponent on his question

    • How many great leaders of the world would be silenced if they were not permitted to express hate speech?

    My opponent has said I haven’t answered this question directly as I feel I have done so as I have addressed the question.
    To clarify the answer,

    My opponent asks how many great leaders would be silenced; I have given an example of Hitler and starling as they are prominent figures in history known for deaths of loads of people.

    If these leaders were stopped from using hate speech what would have stopped them from using sugar coated words to hide their true agenda something that wouldn’t be seen as hate speech.

    It’s not like one can say don’t say this word but don’t try committing this act. My opponent makes it sound as if by stopping these tyrants and leaders somehow we would have stopped them from spreading their true agenda.
    I for one will not agree with this, just because hate speech isn’t used don’t mean a hateful agenda can’t be shown in a manner that looks and sounds civil.

    On the second question my opponent has decided to go very low and claim me saying Not as many as I wish
    Leaving out



    2. How many lives would be spared? Not as many as I wish.
    as I said for question one, people will always find a way to preach what they feel and no matter how many words people want banned, people will always find a way.


    And then having the Nerve to say I take satisfaction that only a few people would have been spared due to a censorship on hate speech?
    I would have thought saying not as Not as many as I wish with the rest of my reply to the question would show that the amount of people that would have been spared would be less then what I would like.

    If I said to many then I would have wished my opponent would be correct but the difference is very clear.



    In an estimation, how many lives would have been saved if previous world leaders who spewed hate speech would have been restricted in the manner that they spoke of those they

    I would like people to read the question and look at my answer. As you can see I have been direct with it and firm.

    My opponent has decided to argue that I have only responded to one out of three of his examples making it sound like he has put more then he has put down.
    Just to make my opponent happy here is another example



    Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., or SPIC, is an Indian company that makes petrochemicals.


    On *Nigger* now if this word is as bad as it is why is it acceptable for rappers to Rap this on their music labels?
    Or black youths and adults to walk down the street and shout out easy *'n-word'*
    If the word was that offensive you would have thought the people that it represents would find it offensive enough not to keep referring themselves to this when they have the chance.

    I will concede that this word did come about to degrade black people from 1619s where the word has changed over the years to what we see today.
    People have to take into account what the word is used for and how it is used by people.

    Hope my opponent is satisfied that he has got 3/3 on his questions.

    My opponent brought up what an adult can say to a minor, he’s arguing as an adult if he wanted to

    And that an IF

    Wanted to go up to a child and talk to them in a sexual manner he would be arrested, I’m surprised my opponent would bring this up and as I said before Child abuse does not contuse freedom of speech.

    And only a paedophile/child predator would talk in such manner to a child. And there is no arguing there.
    Unless my opponent believes its part of someone’s freedom of speech to chat up kids in a sexual manner?

    On the marketing Issue my opponent brings up a good valid point, when it comes to TV commercials and people dislike it, and enough people complain it is removed.

    I would like to use this point to show how Far our freedom of Speech has been eroded over the years,

    and how restricting the freedom of speech will mean more things being censored as more things will be seen as offensive, my opponent says the government controls TV ads when the people who decide what is shown and allowed to air are a separate group of regulatory branch which listen to the voice of the Public.

    Now I will address my opponent’s answers to my questions.

    1.My opponent believes if we keep all the bad words that have a meaning that isn’t hateful and teach people their true meaning we can combat hate altogether?

    I must disagree with this, as I said previously these words that are made up were created in the first place with a meaning sometimes good and sometimes bad, one person created them because there wasn’t a word to describe what they feel.

    now if we took out all Offensive words and put them in a machine so they never existed we would surely have someone come along and make up a word and use that,

    at the end of the Day no matter how one tries to justify banning a word another will take its place,

    I like how optimistic my opponent is on how these words if removed would create a better world and respect him for that. Buts that’s just a day dream.

    2.I am not saying all of mankind are fuelled by greed and power, and it’s true there are people who will stand up against what is wrong and unjust. But at the end of the day there will always be people that are full of hate; I can give you one example Adolf Hitler. Thats right one of History’s notorious evil,

    when he was a child he wanted to be an artist and drew and sold many paintings during his child hood, he wasn’t born evil but became evil not by going to a KKK type Nazi club but going through the economic struggle of Germany



    www.hyperhistory.net...
    Germany went through a great economic and national depression. Political parties who could not solve the crisis, left in hands of others equally hopeless.


    I would like to use this example to show that this man wasn’t born with hate and taught how to hate but did it to him from what he feared and what he felt.

    So no matter how much my opponent believes that taking out the foul words of hate there will always be death, in this Case 6million Innocent Jews, gypsies act.

    3.If words were banned that wouldn’t stop people from judging what they fear, what they don’t understand. If you go out into the street and ask someone about something they don’t understand, most will say they fear it or others would try and oppress it,

    to oppress, judge and hurt someone doesn’t require direct communications with the victim or to seem them eye to eye.

    I doubt it would have stopped all those people from being killed just because some words were banned. When someone is politically motivated or has the hate within them they won’t care about words or what hateful thing to say to their victims.

    Sometimes even words that aren’t seen as offensive compared to their counterparts can cause the same amount of damage.

    Since my fellow opponent loves to use quotes I would like to share a few.



    www.quotegarden.com...
    The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion. ~Henry Steele Commager

    The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~Tommy Smothers

    Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart




    www.brainyquote.com...
    If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
    George Washington


    For my closing statement I would like everyone to remember what freedom of speech means and what it allows people to do and I would like to show that banning some words because they are offensive would open up a flood gate as thousands of words around the world in different languages are seen as offensive when translated into English or another native tongue.

    I would like to remind everyone banning words will not change the world but make them even more acceptable to the youths as they will see it as something cooler to use.

    Think about it when something is banned it stands out more,
    the word will still be there and available to use it will just be more in your face, this is what it means don’t use it’s now please as it’s against the law now.

    The youth will not jump up to the idea and let it go they will see this as something they can use and will do so.
    Just like the previous generation before them.
    My opponent says



    We can clone, land on the moon, create atomic weapons, are we to really believe that we are not capable of speaking in a manner that is not hate ridden?


    If we have come this Far and achieved so Much doesn’t it show that as Human we don’t need to be told what we can say and what we can do?
    Ask your selves this one Question is society that bad and degraded that we need to restrict what people can say and do to satisfy our self’s.

    If I win or lose its been a pleasure

    I would like to Thank Chissler for this dance and I hope we will dance again in future debates.

    good luck and god speed




    posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 05:21 PM
    link   
    Good job, Gentlemen...we are off to the judges.



    posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 02:16 PM
    link   
    By unanimous decision...the victor is chissler.

    Well done to both and here are the judges comments...



    I'll start by saying Bodrul missing his opening wasn't a good start. With such a short framework to move in,
    there wasn't any real direction for his side. He seemed to playing catch-up from the start.

    Chissler kept true to his side of the debate and with his careful wording, caused bodrul to spend more time on defending against chissler's claims than actually building his own case. A mistake he couldn't afford with missing his opening.

    Bodrul did a good job of recovering in his closing but it was a case of too little, too late. If this had been a full debate and not a stub, bodrul may have had a better chance of recovering.

    Decision: chissler.




    Chissler’s opening was well thought out and the fact that bodrul missed an entire post worked against him big in the overall picture. Having limited the debate in size anyway, bodrul’s entire debate consisted of only two posts.

    Most of bodrul’s first post seemed disjointed and unorganized. His addressing of the Socratic questions was not direct as specified in the rules.

    Bodrul rallied somewhat in his final post and seemed to have his thoughts more organized, however it was too little too late in the overall debate.

    I feel that if bodrul had concentrated on one area he touched on, he may have prevailed. The area of “Banning will not change actions”. He only barely touched on this concept and could have really gained some points if he would have expanded on the concept. Perhaps there was simply not enough time after missing one entire post.

    In the end…. Chissler by a large margin




    One of the hardest things to do as a judge is to rate the contestants on how they argue their point - instead of which debater you agree with - going into the debate


    As for this match - the decision is to Chissler.

    My decision is based upon three things i have to consider as a judge:

    How each contestant argues their side
    How each contestant rebuttals their opponents arguments
    How each contestant adheres to the rules.


    Both contestants started out arguing their side very well. But in his second and last post, Bodrul had almost completely detered from his prime directive.

    For the better part of his last post, Bodrul seems to be narrating how the debate has unfolded, instead of giving us more insight as to why his argument is the right one.

    There may not be a posting limit as a rule, but there is only so much you can say in each post. Make your words count. Especially if you've missed out on a post due to the 24 hour rule.


    As far as the rules:

    Bodrul did, if only unconsciously, dance around the questions outlined in Chrisslers post. As the Socratic rule states: Direct answers are wanted.

    With the technicalities out of the way:

    I feel as though it was a bit of a down side that Bordul was unable to make his first post within the 24 hour rule.

    I believe adding a third post to his argument would have allowed him to say much more.

    That being said, i believe it could have been a mistake that is easily recovered from.

    If a judge is allowed to give advice: here is the advice i'd give.

    Attacking your opponent's argument is fine. Its part of the game. But going at it too much, makes it appear that you have no argument yourself, other than your opponent is wrong.

    You give us a few really good reasons why we should consider your side of the argument, but they are far outweighed by your approach to your opponents rebuttals.

    Concentrate less on your opponent, and more on your topic of debate


    Very good read on this debate!
    I look forward to reading more from both debaters in the future



    posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 02:53 PM
    link   
    kind of desapointing but what the hell


    congrats to chissiler

    admit you did piss me off with the dancing part



    posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 07:08 AM
    link   
    Thanks, bodrul.

    I enjoyed the debate and would gladly take a rematch any time.





    top topics
     
    4

    log in

    join