Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Do we not go about being "civil beings" by adhering to social order? Isn't "civility" nothing more than not being offensive to others, or not violating the responsibility of our socially contractual obligations? Do you ACTUALLY not use hate speech because you just choose not to, or is it out of your personal moral obligations, and how much of those obligations is actually shaped by social morality?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
You are correct. The person who said the hateful things has to deal with the consequences of being a social outcast, or even a pariah. Although it's not against the law to say hateful things, the consequences can make a person not welcome in the vast majority of social circles. It is not the government that has decided that what that person did was hateful, it was society at large. It is not the government who decides what constitutes hate speech, it's society. Eventually, because of social attitudes and norms, hate speech will be more than just a social taboo, it will be a violation of the law.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
It may actually be the powerful hateful people that is actually causing the American public to think of hate speech as a crime. It's not an unpopular idea in America.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the no cost or charge in exorcise thereof peaceful assembly; or “To shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense” the no cost or no charge of speech, or of the no cost or no charge of press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition government for a reminder of grievance, and to set right grievance.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redress
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abridge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I do not think the government officials themselves are the problem. The problem is the system itself, and the incentives it creates. Even the most well-meaning member of the government still is subjected to those incentives. I have been an anarcho-capitalist ever since I realised that; it does not matter how small the government is, how libertarian and non-interventionist it is - it is still a malevolent institution twisting the people working in it. I do not see a better variation of democracy than "wallet democracy", where everybody votes with their wallets - and that is the unrestricted free market.
As for why the society needs unrestricted hate speech... It should be obvious. Aside from the negative effects of restricting it, it in itself is extremely valuable, because it keeps people on their toes and regularly challenges their most fundamental beliefs. However disagreeable hate speech is, it still requires one to think in order to properly dismiss/destroy it. Beliefs that are unchallenged wither and turn into weak dogmas, that can be easily shattered by a compelling enough narrative. Beliefs have to be tempered in fire in order to stay strong and sharp, and hate speech provides just that fire.
It also hardens people psychologically. People living in societies devoid of any aggressive speech grow to be weak, naive and innocent. They can break down under a minimal psychological pressure, because they are not used to dealing with harsh rhetoric. I was severely bullied at high school, and while I by no means endorse bullying, which is hate speech taken way too far - it is important to let people get into soft conflicts and have them deal with them. Conflict is an inherent part of life, and if you do not learn to handle it properly early on, then you will break under pressure at the most crucial moments in your life.
There are other considerations too. One of them is the fact that "hate speech" cannot be properly and objectively defined. Some of the statements that we nowadays take for granted in the past would be considered hate speech. One scientist was burned at a stake for being so offensive as to suggest that geocentrism was not a proper interpretation of the scientific observations.
Anything you can possibly define as "hate speech" today may one day turn out to be a nearly unquestionable truth, however unlikely it may seem nowadays.
I do think there are valid arguments to censor hate speech, some of which I outlined in my first comment - however, I do not see them as standing up to the counterarguments, both negative (censoring hate speech is bad) and positive (not censoring hate speech is good).
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
You have stated that hate speech is not a right several times, on this debate and on the debate "Is there a fine line between free speech absolutism and hate speech?" But that is a fallacy. Hate speech is a right. As @MichaelElpers stated, that is the whole reason why free speech is created. Without free speech, you would not be able to state your opinions without giving evidence or facts. Like you have done.
Here is the First Amendment of US law.
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.
Before you say that you do not live in the US so that doesn't count, most other countries have a similar thing.
So I suggest that before you type "Hate speech is not a right", pause for a moment and think 'oh yeah, actually it is." It would save you a lot of time.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
That amendment is not without limitation. We cannot make threats towards other people, and we cannot incite a riot. Some people may argue that words can't hurt people, but obviously the founding fathers knew that when words are used for malicious purposes, they can be very harmful. Those limitations to our freedom of speech were built into the constitution for people's protection. The constitution is a "living document". That means it can be used to reflect our modern society and our political and social feelings. Since the constitution can be changed to reflect modern social logic, it can also be changed to reflect people's feelings toward hate speech, and how it is now viewed as a crime. Our words can be harmful, and our forefathers knew it!!
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Could you demonstrate why or how hate speech is not or cannot be categorized as harmful speech? It seems we agree there are some limitations to our freedom of speech, but what exactly is it about hate speech that keeps in the category of freedom of expression? Are we not in agreement that the American public can eventually decide that hate speech is a form of expression that is to harmful for us to allow?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Gimme some time to get back to you on your last post. You made some valid points that I think should be addressed a little more in depth, but I got multiple people making arguments against me in multiple threads, and I'm going ham with all the holiday stuff at the moment right now. And this ones kinda difficult for me because I'm trying to make arguments against what I actually believe here, so...... I'll get back to you though.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Understandable. I myself like to take a few days before responding to large comments, as there is always a lot to process in them.
@YeshuaRedeemed
You don't have the moral right to snap at people either, yet here you are. "Moral right" does not mean anything and is a purely subjective category.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
How are you defending yourself by throwing accusations around? Besides, nobody was attacking you in the first place, people just objected to your arguments.
Why are you here on a debate website, if you block people in case of any disagreement? This is a debate website; know what that means? It means that people having different opinions discuss things.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Please stop making this point! I already proved it is not true. Besides, you shouldn't block someone just because they have a different opinion for you. Ignoring everyone who has a different opinion to you will not serve you well in life.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you want to be left alone, then do not intentionally seek debates on the Internet. Nobody forces you to come to this website, for example, and you are free to leave any discussion at any point you want.
You are initiating all these discussions yourself, and then complaining when people respond. Sounds absurd, does it not?
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Nobody forces    discussion   website   example  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Nobody forces    discussion   website   example  
  Relevant (Beta): 59%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Nobody forces    good place   thyroid cancer   discussion  
  Relevant (Beta): 49%  
  Learn More About Debra
Best wishes......
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 18%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 75%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Best wishes    nbsp      
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: hate speech    isnt love speech   actual harm   isnt hate speech  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
Whether the constitution prohibits laws from being passed or not is irrelevant. There have been restrictions placed on our rights to gun ownership because the bulk of the American public agree that it should be that way. Aside from that, there is nothing in the constitution barring us from changing the constitution so we can change our laws. It is up to our society, not our founding fathers or the dried ink on an outdated document. You said it yourself that it doesn't matter how small or non-interventionist a government is, but we disagree on what truly causes our liberties to be taken from us. If our society no longer agrees with the merits of our liberties, no document will stand in the way of our liberties being taken from us. This is where I feel your argument falls short. Aside from that, you have done nothing to discredit the merits of barring hate speech. You have mentioned a little about the worthiness of protecting hate speech, but you could have expounded on that aspect more. I'm sick of playing devils advocate here, so I will outline an argument that I believe will hold up to more robust scrutiny.
Reasons we should not limit hate speech.
1. Limiting hate speech will do nothing to actually stop hate, but it may magnify it!!
Laws that restrict hate speech cannot truly be enforced everywhere, especially in our homes. Parents can still teach their children to fear and distrust others, and their hate can still be passed on. Restrictions on freely expressing hate speech in public may be seen by hateful people as a means of the people they hate to oppress them. This may actually cause the hate to be worse, as it may rectify their mistrust for others (although only in their minds, but still a real threat to them).
2. Limiting hate speech may discourage people with anger issues from being honest about their hateful feelings, therefore they may be discouraged from being honest about their violent feelings!!
Is this really the time to discourage people with anger issues from being honest about their violent feelings? Will driving the violent culture on the fringes of our society further underground actually serve as logical option to curb hate or violence? Should we perhaps encourage a society of openness and acceptance where people can feel open to express their anger, and we can have an honest discussion about those feelings? Outlawing the speech used by the culture of hate that exists in our society is akin to ignoring the tactics of the hate culture that functions on the fringes of our society because no laws can stop their hate, but it can agitate their fears and resolve.
3. Hate can be philosophically discredited, laws that restrict hate speech cannot!!
It can easily be demonstrated that hate is illogical and only comes from unfounded fears and ignorance about other people. It can also be shown that the ideals of hateful people are illogical and only emotionally driven, and they have no basis in fact. It can be proven to hateful people that the ends to their means are not justifiably of sustainable. But taking the time to actually engage in the conversation with hateful people is what is truly required to actually quell the hatred they are afflicted by. Laws that restrict hate speech cannot do that at all.
It is my belief that those are three very robust counter arguments to limiting hate speech because they do not rely on appealing to a constitution or legal precedents that are not static and are subject to change as society's ideals change. If it is society's belief that hate must be overcome, then it is society's duty to actually do the work that is required to truly overcome hatred. Passing laws that limit hate speech is only a means for society to hate people they believe are hateful. It actually encourages more hate.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: hate speech    hateful people   violent culture   fringes of our society  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
Number one in a state of the union. Hate speech is already regulated in laws that are placed in a larger united state. A right to common defense has restriction not because any majority of the American public agrees as a united state that it should be that way. Gun regulation is established so that the responsibility of lethal force can be more easily weighed in civil litigation.
Number two in a state of then union. Free Speech dictates that we regulate speech in the form of press and spoken words as a basic principle in governing. Hate speech is protected under grievance, in protection the general principle is that action can be taken to ensure safety. Things such as refusal to permit general open public expression of grievance. Independence mall and the United States Court system are legal precedent in a state of the union between precedent and basic principle.
There have always been laws which regulate types of hate speech. The idea of removing legislation from restrictions of United State are to expand the ability to seek new revenues form conviction in governing. As these revenues are to absorb additional cost to expanding liberties taken.
Free Speech is a form of spoken grievance that can be proven by a person to not carry a charge or cost. The point is set around a basic constitutional right to peaceful assembly. Can all towns and city's undertake the task of independent mall as united state, no. Civil proceedings make this fact a legal precedent in creating governing.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Hate speech    general principle   new revenues form conviction   additional cost  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Freedom of speech    peace   end   cost  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Now when I hear the word the first thing that comes to my mind are all the hangings (or lynchings if you prefer) that happened in the Western movies I watched with my grandpa when I was a kid. I also think of the fact that it was the preferred method of execution of people who had been sentenced to death.
My good friend on the other hand immediately went to the hanging off black people. She comes from a different background. She didn't watch Westerns. She also grew up with her family history. Her grandma told her of the time when they lived in Alabama and her brother (my friend's uncle) came running into the house saying tthe Klan was afterr him and were going to lynch him. Her grandma said at that point her parents grabbed what they could left Alabama never to return.
Now some people called lynching a hate word and to some it is because of personal experiences, while to others it is just a word that means hanging.
There is another word like the notorious N word. While most would agree it is a word we just don't use if you are not black. There is a problem with labeling the word as a hate word. In the black community the word is used on a regular basis as a term of in alot of cases as a term of affection.
There are so many words like those words that where one person will be completely offended but another isn't. The other person isn't not because their being insinitive or racist but because they are saying or hearing the word from a different perspective.
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: President Trump    Western movies   good friend   method of execution of people  
  Relevant (Beta): 82%  
  Learn More About Debra