EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

That the government should not place any restrictions on free speech

5 points
18 points
ggalloverggallover (PRO)
Free speech is the nuts and bolts of the mechanism with which our society functions. I see no benefit to the government legislating which words both me and other people must or must not utter. All I see resulting from such an act is tyranny, extremism, ideologies and several points of division within society. 
Return To Top | Posted:
2018-12-30 23:26:20
| Speak Round
JohannesJohannes (CON)
Hello everyone, first I want to thank my opponent for their participation in this debate thus far. I'll get right to it.

You first claim that "free speech is the nuts and bolts of the mechanism with which our society functions". You need to explain this. Usually when you ask someone how our society functions they're not going to say free speech. That doesn't make much sense to me. Free speech doesn't dictate the possibility, success, and limitations of our society.

You say that you see "no benefit to the government legislating which words both me and other people must or must not utter". There are two things wrong with this. First, we already do have free speech limitations. When something is considered hate speech, or a direct incitement of violence, it is punishable. Also, restrictions on free speech, as you seem to think, wouldn't be a ban of a certain word or slur or something like that. For instance, Trump is trying to institute libel laws that punish the media for knowingly spreading false information about him or the government. I personally don't agree with this but this is just an example of how free speech limitations are actually implemented. Even if Trump is able to implement this, I also recognize that it's not going to change the way our society functions -- as you seem to think.

You next claim that limitations on free speech would result in "tyranny, extremism, and several points of division within society". First of all, as I said, we already have free speech limitations and yet there is no tyranny or extremism.  Also, you need to clarify what you mean by division within society, a lot of division already exists; between classes, political ideologies, etc. Regardless, this seems like an extremely hyperbolic argument to make and a big leap to say that instituting free speech regulations would cause tyranny. This is something you need to clarify and at least explain.

To advance some arguments of my own, first, as I have already said, we already do have free speech limitations. Second, free speech limitations are necessary for certain situations. When there is a direct incitement of violence against a certain person or group (hate speech), it is illegal for a reason. If you could do this, it would be extremely dangerous. Words are the prerequisite for action. Obviously, a lot of actions are prohibited -- so wouldn't it make sense to limit the speech that can inhibit those actions (in certain situations)?

Thanks, that's all for now. VOTE CON!!!

Return To Top | Posted:
2018-12-31 09:38:12
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
thank you for your opinion!!!!!!
Posted 2019-02-05 09:13:35
if u dont have free speech u cant determine whats true and false and its important for a working country!!! and if u limit it you might limit social progress! and thats not good!!!! its a fundamental human right! besides what is the point of limiting free speech anyways its not like theres that much harmful things!
i support pro!!!!!
Posted 2019-01-27 18:19:02
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2019-02-12 14:12:59
demonwarrior2266Judge: demonwarrior2266
Win awarded to: Johannes
I do not agree with Johannes. I believe that the government should keep a working system going. If a system isn't broken, don't try to fix it. This is what happened when Hitler started the fascist system in Germany, and look where they ended up. There system was fine before WWI, and even after it, it was maintained and at least kept in order before Hitler, but he changed this. However, limpfish gave no solid arguments that weren't debunk-able, and he forfeited both rounds. I am going to have to give this debate to Johannes.
0 comments on this judgement
2019-02-13 12:28:59
dpowell3543Judge: dpowell3543    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Johannes
I'm going to give the win to Con, not because I agree with them, but because of Pro's lack of argument. Pro provided a baseless, senseless argument right off the bat, with no sources or credible points. When asked to further explain, they forfeited every round after. Having given no arguments and no answer to Con's question, Pro has forfeited the debate.

limpfisch: Make better arguments and don't forfeit.

Johannes: Try providing evidence on how limiting free speech can be a good thing. Prove that it has, in some way, benefit society.
1 user rated this judgement as biased
0 comments on this judgement
2019-02-14 05:44:57
crossedJudge: crossed
Win awarded to: Johannes
though i agree with limpfisch and the government should not place any restrictions on free speech he did not make a case and forfeited. i just want to make clear that points of views should never be censored. and that stick and stones may brake your bones but words would never hurt you. but johannes was the only one who participated in hte debate so he wins. maybe limpfisch could not participate because the government censored certain sites and was unable to participate. this looks like the debate im doing now
0 comments on this judgement
2019-02-14 07:40:40
matsandunJudge: matsandun
Win awarded to: ggallover
2019-02-14 09:42:18
MichaelHobertTheOnlyJudge: MichaelHobertTheOnly
Win awarded to: Johannes
2019-02-23 04:45:55
Mr. BillJudge: Mr. Bill
Win awarded to: Johannes
Johannes had much better arguments. Also limpfisch forfeited.
0 comments on this judgement
2019-02-23 20:45:42
adminJudge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Johannes
2019-02-26 23:16:59
jayden leeJudge: jayden lee
Win awarded to: Johannes
2019-03-01 12:09:58
homericpirateshipJudge: homericpirateship
Win awarded to: ggallover
Even though I technically agree with Johannes 99%, limpfisch was the only one with thorough explanation and questioning. Johannes forfeited the round.
1 comment on this judgement
I think you're a little confused buddy
Posted 2019-03-05 04:47:26
2019-03-05 04:23:24
kallistarJudge: kallistar
Win awarded to: ggallover
limpfisch seems to have won this round by default given that Johannes didn't allow limpfisch to make a skilled enough argument in response to the few platitudes that johannes seemed to have given as scarce examples.

johannes did not specify as to what any restrictions on free speech there are, his argument was round-about and over-enthusiastic and predatory, allowing limpfisch no way of responding to the poorly constructed, slap-dash argument with anything made from philosophically weighted ethos.
1 user rated this judgement as a vote bomb
1 comment on this judgement
This judgement seems to be uninformed by default given that you didn't even read the whole first round.

I did give examples for current restrictions on free speech, such as hate speech or the incitement of violence. Also, I didn't not allow PRO to respond - he forfeited...

Posted 2019-03-05 04:50:31
2019-03-08 09:30:47
Ellie122333Judge: Ellie122333
Win awarded to: Johannes
I believe that Johannes should win this debate because of numerous valid reason. They provided reasoning behind their answers which was very strong. They were also very persuasive and got me in their side. The whole debate seemed very strong sided towards Johannes because he had a powerful beginning speech which made the other person forfeit the debate.
0 comments on this judgement
2019-03-11 05:13:53
Natasha17Judge: Natasha17
Win awarded to: Johannes
2019-03-11 18:24:34
AcerJudge: Acer
Win awarded to: Johannes
This round is going to have to go to con for me. Pro's constructive argument was abysmal, and when asked in cross-ex, the pro simply forfeited. As a very flow-oriented judge, and even as someone who was reviewing the actual arguments, this round was clearly won by the neg.

limpfisch: Even when you're going down, go down swinging, and don't forfeit, as unnecessary forfeits will almost always make you lose the debate.

Johannes: Great offensive argument, but try to come up with more specific examples of when limited free speech was a good thing.
0 comments on this judgement

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 4000 characters per round
  • Reply speeches
  • Uses cross-examination
  • Permissive Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 1 week
  • Time to vote: 1 month
  • Time to prepare: None
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