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
