That blasphemy should be a crime

Reynold Jupudi (PRO)
According to the Marian-Webster Dictionary, blasphemy is “the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God”. Blasphemy is a form of hate speech.

Blasphemy is not:

Politely disagreeing with one’s religious beliefs
Using your right to express your own religious or irreligious beliefs without causing physical or emotional harm to others

However, when you purposely use the name of God and/or Jesus Christ in a profane manner to spark a reaction from a Christian, it is a form of hate speech and verbal harassment. For many atheists and non-Christians, misusing the Lord’s name is a light matter. But for Christians like myself, it is greater than insulting one’s mother or father and can be an emotional trauma when experienced. If an atheist will not put up with verbal harassment, a Christian doesn’t have to either. Just because someone has different beliefs than you, it doesn’t give you the right to insult what they hold to be sacred and divine.

As for if blasphemy should be criminalised, the whole debate of whether hate speech is free speech comes into play. Personally, I don’t believe hate speech should be regarded as free speech and should be criminalised. Therefore, blasphemy which is a form of hate speech should also be criminalised.

Return To Top | Posted:

2017-12-14 11:28:03

| Speak Round

Mharman (CON)
Round Forfeited

Return To Top | Posted:

2017-12-17 11:30:06

| Speak Round

Reynold Jupudi (PRO)
Since my opponent has forfeited, I will assume that they have conceded the debate. Unless they post their argument in the next round, I win this debate.

Return To Top | Posted:

2017-12-17 14:29:46

| Speak Round

Mharman (CON)
Round Forfeited

Return To Top | Posted:

2017-12-20 14:30:08

| Speak Round

Reynold Jupudi (PRO)
:)

Return To Top | Posted:

2017-12-21 04:32:17

| Speak Round

Mharman (CON)
Round Forfeited

Return To Top | Posted:

2017-12-24 04:34:02

| Speak Round

Reynold Jupudi (PRO)
...

Return To Top | Posted:

2017-12-24 05:31:49

| Speak Round

Mharman (CON)
Round Forfeited

Return To Top | Posted:

2017-12-27 05:32:03

| Speak Round

Reynold Jupudi (PRO)
Round Forfeited

Return To Top | Posted:

2017-12-30 05:32:03

| Speak Round

View As PDF Speak Debate

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment

Anonymous
No thanks, The Lord can avenge by himself

Posted 2017-12-21 11:39:25

Murder-0f-Crows
I reject this idea. There are those who believe that everything has life in it So if one where to say they hate rocks, would it be hate speech if another believes there is a spirit within the rock? This idea can snowball very quickly. To be honest I don't even believe hate speech should be a crime either. The preaching of the gospel is hate speech and an insult to common sense. So, if you want to make blasphemy a crime then you might as well add preaching any religion to that code of crime.

Posted 2017-12-18 18:07:33

Reynold Jupudi
Honestly, I kind of agree with Mharmam but just to play the Devil’s Advocate and makes things more fun, I’ll be siding with Pro on this one.

Posted 2017-12-14 08:04:18

The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2018-01-02 04:43:56

Judge: angsonam
Win awarded to: Reynold Jupudi

2018-01-04 14:15:00

Judge: nzlockie TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Reynold Jupudi
Reasoning:
Basically, PRO was the only side to give any argument!
This resolution was as almost certain loss for PRO so I sympathise with their position. Their case was clearly put; "Blasphemy equals Hate Speech and Hate Speech should be criminalized."
There were some significant weaknesses in this argument but CON failed to capitalise on them.

Feedback:
CON: Make a point bro.

PRO: The good is that you needed to make your point clearly without a lot of repetition. It's a fairly outrageous resolution so most people are going to be sceptical. You need to make your point quickly and clearly. You did this really well.

The bad: I think you've adopted an obvious but weak line here. Classifying Blasphemy as Hate Speech is an extremely long bow to draw. Hate Speech itself is an extremely controversial subject, and difficult to define.
If you were determined to persist on that line of logic, I think you needed to talk more about WHY hate speech is bad. Convince me that the damage is worthy of the imposed social restriction.

I think you also opened yourself up when you (by inference) narrowed the resolution to blaspheming against the Christian God. I suspect you would have been on safer ground to quickly establish that this law would apply to ALL deities.

Personally I think you may have done better to link Blasphemy with Mental Abuse. Also difficult to define and also controversial, but a lot more examples to draw on and scientific evidence of damages to cite.

I liked that you started by differentiating Blasphemy from simple disagreeance - that was important.
Although I would advise you to avoid stating what stuff is NOT. Your case will sound more convincing if you state what Blasphemy IS.

Very difficult case, good on you for taking it on!

2 users rated this judgement as constructive

0 comments on this judgement

Rules of the debate

Text debate
Individual debate
5 rounds
8000 characters per round
Reply speeches
No cross-examination
Permissive Judging Standard (notes)
Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
Images allowed
HTML formatting allowed
Rated debate
Time to post: 3 days
Time to vote: 1 week
Time to prepare: 1 hour

This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29