EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Slander should not be against the law

0 points
15 points
adminadmin (CON)
Anti-slander laws are awesome because the role of the state is to protect society from the malicious actions of others. When individuals are maliciously lied about in a way that causes significant, demonstrable and tangible harms to an individual, the damage this can cause goes far beyond the initial impact, and can dog a person for life. We're talking serious crime like false rape accusations or distributing claims that somebody is a pedophile. Such people can lose real business, social position and employability. They become targets despite having done nothing wrong. That's bad for the individual, but it's bad for society, limiting that person's progress having flow-on effects for the wider economy. As such, the state is legitimized in covering slander under the law.

Make a case, pro.
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-05-04 03:13:24
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
1 day, 3 hours at the time on this post.
Posted 2015-05-01 19:57:01
@admin - How much time is left. It gives me the wrong time on this computer and it keeps screwing me up.
Posted 2015-05-01 18:53:15
Will accept tomorrow, just got to do some bible debate case first
Posted 2015-04-26 00:58:19
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2015-05-14 15:16:41
VoiceJudge: Voice
Win awarded to: admin
Uh, huuuuh, huuuuuh, huuuh, duh; the win goes to Con for very obvious reasons. Pro forfeited every single round within the debate, and was consequently unable to provide a negating case and thus any arguments. Con made the only arguments, and then forfeited the next round, ultimately ending the debate.

Hey Pro!:

Watch the freakin forfeitures, bruh. They are the things that are killing you and your debate ranking. I surmise that you could have provided an effective argument against Con if you had just posted an argument.


First off, I would like to say thank you for actually posting an argument, even though it lacked any support whatsoever, thus classifying it as a bare assertion (and you should know that bare assertions do not carry much weight where proof is required). Just support your arguments, and you will be okay. I am giving you the victory because you posted an argument, and Pro had a rather large Burden of Proof that he failed to fulfill.
1 user rated this judgement as constructive
2 comments on this judgement
It's hard to support things in depth in 900 characters. I tried to support my case with reference to the role of the state. If he challenged me on that then that would be ideal since that allows me to spend the next 900 characters substantiating that. 10 rounds would have given me plenty of time I think.

Thanks for the judgment though ;)
Posted 2015-05-14 16:04:22
I didn't know it was 900 characters. I guess I should have looked at the rules :3.
Posted 2015-08-25 15:44:12
2015-05-14 14:30:17
RXR.Judge: RXR.
Win awarded to: admin
pro forfeited
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement
2015-05-14 06:36:02
TejreticsJudge: Tejretics
Win awarded to: admin
Stag forfeited the majority of the debate, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. Stag forfeited *all* rounds of debate, starting from Round 1 itself, which is highly misconducted. Con was the *only* one to present any arguments whatsoever, though they also forfeited the final round. This grants arguments and conduct to the opposition.

I recommend that both debaters spare time in the debate setting to at least extend their arguments following an opponent's forfeiture and actually present a case rather than forfeiting. Pro, I recommend you don't forfeit rounds directly, and at least leave a message conveying forfeiture and saying you don't have the time. Con, my advise is that, in response to forfeiture, please extend your arguments.
2 users rated this judgement as constructive
2 comments on this judgement
You basically said the same thing twice in the first two sentences of your RFD. LOL
Posted 2015-08-25 15:44:12
@Tejretics on Edeb8, you can stop a debate early by simply forfeiting a round immediately after your opponent has. It's not really considered bad form, it just stops a debate from dragging on and on with endless forfeits and "extend arguments".
I guess the main thing is just to make sure that you were the last one to post something, so that people know that you were there and ready.
Posted 2015-08-26 09:59:37
2015-05-14 17:00:49
ButterCatxJudge: ButterCatx    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: admin
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement
2015-05-15 04:04:19
nzlockieJudge: nzlockie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: admin
2015-05-17 16:16:24
HelloJudge: Hello
Win awarded to: admin
Pro forfeited two rounds, including the very first round of the debate. Con only forfeited one round. Because Pro obviously forfeited more round than Con, Pro suffers an automatic loss. By not attempting to support the claim that "Slander should not be against the law", Pro has also failed to meet the burden of proof essential to his position. However, Con actually made a case.

Con wins this debate.
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement
2015-05-20 16:09:44
lannan13Judge: lannan13    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: admin
Con is the only one who made an argument.The rest of the debate was entirely forfeited.
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 10 rounds
  • 900 characters per round
  • Reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • No images
  • No HTML formatting
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 5 days
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None