EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
1256

That the government should not place any restrictions on free speech

(PRO)
0 points
(CON)
WINNER!
4 points
fire_wingsfire_wings (PRO)
Ave

I don't have much time to write my argument, and I am writing in my phone, so I apoligize for some spelling errors which can happen in the phone. I will not be proviving sources in the debate, because I cant do that in the phone. I am writing this in the car, because I am away for vacation. That is another reason why my argument will be short.

My first argument will be about the articles of the UN, and laws  In an article, it says that all people have the liberty, and the first amendment, which says that we have the liberty.

Now, what liberty do people have? Well, lots such as liberty of choice, liberty of harm, and freedom of speech.

Now, freedom of speech. We have the freedom of speech, or to easily say it, we have the freedom to talk what we want, and we can say anything we want. 

The debate is about if the government placing restrictions of speech. And, as I showed we have the freedom of speech, and that we can say whatever, we should not let the government do this. The resolution is affirmed, and vote for Pro. I apoligize for the bad argument.

Vale

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-07-31 10:56:25
| Speak Round
FamousdebaterFamousdebater (CON)
Affirmative and Negative Burdens

I argue that my opponent's burden cannot be advanced based on the assumption made in the resolution regarding the existence of a "moral obligation", implied by the word "ought" [1]. 

Since the resolution makes a positive assertion my opponent must prove that: 

"the government should not place any restrictions on free speech" 

My burden requires me to show either one of two things: 

A) That the government should place restrictions on free speech. 

B) That the government have no obligation to do or not to anything (and therefore the positive assertion that my opponent makes is invalidated based on the fact that he must show that the government SHOULD NOT do something). 

In this debate I will choose option B and in doing this, not only will I fulfill my BOP but I will also negate my opponent's case which is contingent on the existence of moral objectivity [2]. 

My Case

My case is very simple. There are many, many normative ethical theories. Each of these pose different ideas of what is moral [3]. Examples include ideologies such as: 

Intellectualism - the belief that the action that best fosters and promotes knowledge is the most moral action [4].
Welfarism -  the belief that the action that increases economic welfare and general welfare is the most moral action [4]. 
Utilitarianism - the belief that the action that promotes and maintains the most happiness is the most moral action [4]. 

Different people believe these examples of normative ethical theories (and more) [5]. There is no one objective standard - if there was, then different people would not believe different things (ie. the very definition of the term subjective {paraphrased using synonyms}) [6]

Metaethical theories are theories regarding what morality actually is [7]. Normative ethics are what make up metaethical theories since they dictate what is actions are moral (in this case the examples include: actions that promote/foster knowledge; actions that increase economic welfare/general welfare and action that maintain and promote happiness) [4]. 

Since there are no unanimous and innate agreements on what normative ethical theories are correct and normative ethical theories make up metaethical ones, it is clear that there is no objective moral standard which my opponent's case is contingent on. 

Syllogism 1 

P1 - Objective morality has not been demonstrated. 
P2 - My opponent's case and burden is contingent on objective morality. 
C1 - My opponent's burden cannot be made. 
P3 - As labelled above there are 2 courses for me to meet my burden (A and B). 
P4 - I proved option B (see P1). 
C2 - My burden is met. 

Sources

[1] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ought
[2] http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_absolutism.html
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics#Normative_ethical_theories
[5] http://www.ethicsmorals.com/ethicsnormative.html
[6] https://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=subjective%20definition&oq=subjective%20definition&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2752j0j4
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-04 16:52:03
| Speak Round
Cross-Examination
Famousdebater: Fire, do you wish to expand upon your arguments in the next round?
Famousdebater: Also, are you planning on affirming moral objectivism?
Famousdebater: Actually, ignore the first question. We are both in need of expansion upon our cases. Could we use the next round for that instead of jumping straight to rebuttals?
fire_wings: Yes, of course I will expand my case, maybe change the whole thing.
fire_wings: Yeah, let's use the next round only for expansion of our cases.
Famousdebater: Okay. Could you answer the 2nd question please.
fire_wings: I was not planning to.
Famousdebater: That answers ambiguous. You imply that you wren't planning to but you that doesn't answer the question.
Famousdebater: ^i.e.. Please answer the question more clearly.
fire_wings: You were saying are you planning to. I said I wasn't planning to. How more clear can I answer that?
fire_wings: You say this, "My burden requires me to show either one of two things: A) That the government should place restrictions on free speech. B) That the government have no obligation to do or not to anything (and therefore the positive assertion that my opponent makes is invalidated based on the fact that he must show that the government SHOULD NOT do something). " How can you choose your burden? You made 2 choices. 2 is obviously an advantage for you, but I think 1 is more important, and more like your burden. Your burden is to place restrictions on free speech, (continued on the next post)
fire_wings: because your burden is the opposite of my burden, and my burden is that I need to not place any restrictions on free speech.
Famousdebater: I have one burden but there are two different ways of achieving it. I decided to go for option B (the kritik). Both of them advance the same burden.
Famousdebater: I'll rephrase that question for you. Will you affirm moral objectivism in this debate now that you've seen my argument?
Famousdebater: And if you are going to affirm moral objectivism - how do you plan on doing so?
Famousdebater: Let us form a round structure as well. Round 1 is solely for arguments. Round 2 is for extended arguments and rebuttals. Round 3 is for defense and conclusions. Agreed?
Famousdebater: If fire does not answer me in cross examination then the structure proposed below should be introduced since I gave him adequate time to respond.

Return To Top | Speak Round
fire_wingsfire_wings (PRO)
Ave

Framework

My framework will be centered around freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the freedom of talking on what you want, giving your opinion, and having the freedom of speaking. I will say how this freedom of speech will be important for my side, and how it contradicts my opponent's side in my arguments.

Burdens

My opponent in his last round gives some burdens for me, and him. I agree what he said about my burden, but not his burden. 

My opponent says that my burden is, "that the government should not place restrictions on free speech." As my opponent is the opposition, he needs to argue that the government should place restrictions on free speech, because we are in opposite sides. My opponent says that he will prove that they don't need to do it, but they can. That is a totally different side, not my opponent's side. Hence, that is NOT my opponent's burden.

Arguments

I will make my arguments, as we agreed to in the CE. I did not have time to argue in the CE.

My first section of my argument will be about some laws and some Amendments. The first amendment I will talk about is the First Amendment of the US. In a short guide to the Constitution, it says this. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances [1]." It says, "or abridging the freedom of speech..."

In a more detailed explanation in Wikipedia, it says, "The First Amendment(Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the  free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights [2]."

Both explanations it gave in Wikipedia, and in the short explanation it gave above, they both say that we should have freedom of speech, and it should be allowed. Freedom of speech means that we have the freedom of speech, or we can speak freely. This completely contradicts the claim above that the government should not place any restrictions on free speech. The amendment says that we should have freedom of speech, but the resolution for my opponent's side basically says that we should not have the entire freedom of speech, that the government places restrictions, which is not freedom. So the amendment contradicts that the government should place restricitions, hence therefore we should not place restrictions on free speech, therefore the resolution is affirmed because of the First Amendment in the US. Therefore vote for Pro.

The UN declaration of Human Rights, the first article also says, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood [3]." This says that people have equal rights, and freedom of speech is a right, so we should have it. My opponent's side makes a contradiction of many laws. Therefore, vote for Pro.

Conclusion

I have shown that we should not place restrictions on hate speech because if we do, it will harm many laws such as the first amendment, and some UN laws. There are lots of more laws that I can say that harms the side that the government should place restrictions, but if I put more, I think it will be spamming. My framework was about freedom of speech, and I perfectly argued with that saying that the freedom of speech says that we should not place restrictions, and I explained that in my arguments. Therefore, please vote for Pro, as you can't vote for Con because of the laws of the US, and the UN are NOT in his side.

Vale

References

[1] http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!?utm_source=google&utm_medium=ad&utm_content=062016whatconstitutionsays&utm_campaign=crcgg_2016guidetotheconstitution

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[3] http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html

Please vote for Pro, Thank you. Thanks for the debate Con!!!




Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-12 20:59:06
| Speak Round
FamousdebaterFamousdebater (CON)
 I won't go into rebuttals this round for 2 reasons: 

A - My opponent hasn't opted in to do so. 
B - I don't need to since the K completely negates both of my opponent's cases. 

This round is for expansions upon arguments however my case is sufficiently explained and is strong enough to both meet my burden and negate my opponent's entire case, so instead I'm going to use this round to expand upon the burdens (which my opponent is very confused about at the moment) and I'll also explain what a debate Kritik (K) is and how this form of debate theory can be used to meet my burden and negate my opponent's case. 

Burdens and the Kritik

There are two burdens in this debate. My opponent's burden and my burden. 

My opponent's is to prove the statement that the government should not place any restrictions on free speech to be true. 
My burden is to prove the statement that the government should not place any restrictions on free speech to be false. 

By showing that the government has no moral obligation (ie. the definition of should) to not place any restrictions on free speech I am proving the claim that the government should not place any restrictions on free speech to be false. 

This is because should and should not are both claims that require the existence of objective morality. My opponent has not even attempted to prove objective morality to exist and he hasn't attempted to prove that any such moral obligation (as stated in the resolution) exists at all. My opponent cannot possibly win a debate when he is supposed to prove that governments have a moral obligation to do / not do something when he doesn't even make ANY attempt to show that any such moral obligation even exists. 

By showing that moral obligation doesn't exist, my opponent's case crumbles because his burden can only be affirmed if moral obligation exists. By burden is also advanced due to the fact that I am negating the claim that the government should not place any restrictions on free speech. 

An extremely common misconception in debate is the belief that in normative topics (where should or ought is used in the resolution), that one side has to argue that x should be done and that the other side has to argue that x should not be done. This is false. 

A kritik is a type of debate theory which attacks the resolution and what it states to both refute your opponent's case and to also advance your burden. It is a commonly used style of debate - particularly within Lincoln Douglas (LD) debate [1][2]. 

I have one burden and that is to negate the resolution. The K sufficiently negates the resolution and due to the fact that my opponent has not attempted to refute the K at all the debate is very clearly leaning in my favor.  

I urge all voters to vote Con because of the very clear lack of resolutional and relevant burden advancement on my opponent's behalf. I'm happy to answer any questions during the cross examination period. 

Sources

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%E2%80%93Douglas_debate#Kritiks 
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%E2%80%93Douglas_debate 

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-28 19:41:27
| Speak Round
Cross-Examination
Famousdebater: I'm assuming that the final round will be solely for rebuttals. Correct? If so, then can the final round be for rebuttals of both the first and second rounds.
fire_wings: Yeah, it will be the rebuttals of the first 2 rounds
Famousdebater: Do you have any questions on my burden assessment?
Famousdebater: Or the K? It's pretty advanced debate theory, so please ask questions if you've got any - I tried to keep the Kritik as simple as possible.
Famousdebater: I'm guessing that he has no objections/questions to the burden assessment or the K since it's been 2 days and he has been active on DDO and I even requested him to engage in the cross examination and he said that he would (about a day ago).
fire_wings: I'm here
fire_wings: I don't really know about K's, but I'll try. And, the burden thing is wrong.
fire_wings: I thought you would make your arguments in the next round, but you didn't.
Famousdebater: So what are your questions regarding the burdens?
Famousdebater: And what are your problems with the structure? R1 was for arguments. R2 was for expansion upon arguments. The final round will be for rebuttals. I don't see the confusion.

Return To Top | Speak Round
fire_wingsfire_wings (PRO)
This will be really short. My opponent only makes semantics, and cheats the burden, making it much easier for him to win. He doesn't actually make real arguments in Round 2, and spends most of his time on burdens in Round 1.

"My case is very simple. There are many, many normative ethical theories. Each of these pose different ideas of what is moral [3]. Examples include ideologies such as:

Intellectualism - the belief that the action that best fosters and promotes knowledge is the most moral action [4].Welfarism - the belief that the action that increases economic welfare and general welfare is the most moral action [4].Utilitarianism - the belief that the action that promotes and maintains the most happiness is the most moral action [4].

Different people believe these examples of normative ethical theories (and more) [5]. There is no one objective standard - if there was, then different people would not believe different things (ie. the very definition of the term subjective {paraphrased using synonyms}) [6]

Metaethical theories are theories regarding what morality actually is [7]. Normative ethics are what make up metaethical theories since they dictate what is actions are moral (in this case the examples include: actions that promote/foster knowledge; actions that increase economic welfare/general welfare and action that maintain and promote happiness) [4].

Since there are no unanimous and innate agreements on what normative ethical theories are correct and normative ethical theories make up metaethical ones, it is clear that there is no objective moral standard which my opponent's case is contingent on."

That seriously doesn't make any sense to the debate topic.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-09-16 17:39:35
| Speak Round
FamousdebaterFamousdebater (CON)
Intro

This debate is very, very clear in its outcome (as is clearly evidenced by my opponent's final round - which I'll get on to later). This round was supposed to be for rebuttals but my case and my clarified case both affirm my burden and negate my opponent's through the use of LD Debate Theory (specifically through a Kritik). 

My opponent's final round looks long but in reality it's just him copy and pasting a large portion of my case and saying that it doesn't make sense and that it's irrelevant to the topic without actually negating the K in any way, shape or form. 

If my opponent wishes to negate the K based on irrelevancy he cannot merely assert it. I have provided an in depth case on why the K is relevant to this debate (due to its contingency on moral absolutism/objectivity and moral obligation), and my opponent has continued to ignore every single point I've raised in this debate. 

The relevancy of Kritiks in debates is a debatable topic too and if my opponent really wanted to go down that pathway he could have negated my case. He, instead, merely asserted that the K was irrelevant without any support for this assertion. 

Therefore, his case is negated based on the premise that not once did he prove moral obligation - making his burden impossible to affirm. 

Burden fulfillment / Conclusion

In this debate I had to negate the claim:

That the government should not place any restrictions on free speech 

I have shown that this claim is false based on the fact that you cannot affirm this claim without the existence of moral obligation (ie. should not = have a moral obligation to not do ...). 

Since my opponent could not achieve this, he is unable to fulfill his burden whereas mine has been fulfilled simultaneously by me proving that the resolution is false. 

My burden is fulfilled. My opponent's is clearly not. I ask all voters to vote based on the content of the debate and not vote in accordance with their pre-existing bias on the topic or on the relevancy of Kritiks in debate. 

The outcome of this debate is incredibly clear - Vote CON! 

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-09-17 12:17:53
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
FamousdebaterFamousdebater
I'm coming back from holiday in 9 days but my argument is due in 7. Do you mind accepting another time extension request?
Posted 2016-08-19 08:42:34
FamousdebaterFamousdebater
Thanks. I'm on holiday so I don't have much time.
Posted 2016-08-16 19:11:47
fire_wingsfire_wings
Hey, grant time extension again. I clicked decline accidentally.
Posted 2016-08-16 13:52:07
FamousdebaterFamousdebater
Fire, can you post this quickly. I don't have a lot of time.
Posted 2016-08-11 19:37:07
FamousdebaterFamousdebater
Fire, can you post this quickly. I don't have a lot of time.
Posted 2016-08-11 19:17:51
FamousdebaterFamousdebater
Fire, can you post this quickly. I don't have a lot of time.
Posted 2016-08-11 19:09:28
FamousdebaterFamousdebater
Oops. Double post.
Posted 2016-08-04 16:59:35
FamousdebaterFamousdebater
Hoping to get a few votes on this. Due to the low activity I'm skeptical.
Posted 2016-08-04 16:59:25
FamousdebaterFamousdebater
Hoping to get a few votes on this. Due to the low activity I'm skeptical.
Posted 2016-08-04 16:59:24
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2016-09-17 12:46:36
KelniusJudge: Kelnius
Win awarded to: Famousdebater
Reasoning:
After reviewing this from top to bottom, I think I do have to fall down on Famousdebater's side, but it was a slim margin. I think that both sides here got lost in the back and forth of the intent behind the form of rebuttal being used and in at least two instances, you seemed to be talking past each other.
However, I still feel that Famousdebater attacking the universal sweep of the statement, compared to fire_wings' instance confirmation in the UN & the US was a stronger argument.

Feedback:
In my opinion, the kinda got off to a bad start, with the opening argument having to be speedily jotted down on a phone, and it crippled the path this debate took. I mean you no ill-will fire_wings, but that seems like it was a bad decision. Also, while I can see why you did it, if one of your rebuttals is more than 60% your opponents writing, then I don't feel convinced; it felt like "Argument from the Stone", you didn't explain why it was irrelevant, you just said that it was and assumed we would agree.
As for you, famousdebater, whilst I appreciate your honesty, in exposing your argument style, after re-explaining why your "Kritik" was an effective strategy for the second time, felt like you weren't actually debating anymore, just saying that you won and giving no further argument. If your opponent doesn't seem to understand your position, stone-walling them with an explanation of why your argument is valid seems lazy to me; in future I'd recommend that you choose another point of attack, rather than trying to elucidate your past arguments to your opponent.
You're not just trying to convince him, you're trying to convince the judges, and as a judge in this debate, I felt like you won by default because of the two arguments presented, yours was more solid; but a three round debate should bring up more than one argument.
1 user rated this judgement as a vote bomb
1 user rated this judgement as good
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
1 comment on this judgement
FamousdebaterFamousdebater
I appreciate the vote. Thanks.

As for the problems with the reiteration of the Kritik throughout the debate, the reasons I did this were because there was no need for me to expand upon anything else or introduce any other arguments in the debate. Since fire_wings never even attempted to refute or respond to the Kritik or affirm moral absolutism my burden was already met. I never really needed another point of attack so I'm not sure how introducing more arguments would have made my case any stronger than it already was.
Posted 2016-11-12 17:23:46

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 10000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • Uses cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 1 week
  • Time to vote: 1 week
  • Time to prepare: 1 day
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