Does all debate have to be restricted by controversy?

Opening Argument

In this debate, you can argue for or against debate being restricted by controversy. If you choose Pro, you will argue that most debate can be harmful to discuss without harming or restricting the person stating the debate topic, ie. Jim Crow in the 1950's. If you choose Con, you will be arguing that no matter how controversial an issue is, the public has a right to be informed regardless what happens as a result of the topic mentioned. Any middle ground arguments can be negotiated in the comments. Thanks, and good luck!
Points For:


Points Against:


Votes: 0

Rounds: 3

Time Per Round: 48 Hours Per Round

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3



  • Round 1 | Position: For
    NopeNope 158 Pts
    I except your debate. I am agents restrictions on debates. I believe in a democracy and if the public is to make a good decisions in which is in their best entrust they should be fully informed.
  • Round 1 | Position: For
    I believe that the public should be able to know about information if it’s contoversial or not controversial.
    DebateIslander and a lover. 
  • Round 1 | Position: Against
    I will take the Con side, in that no matter how controvercial an issue is, the public should still know about it. According to a statement shared by the University of Pennselvania, an Ivy league College, it is the “right of the public to be informed . . . which is the foundation stone of the American system of broadcasting.” This sets aside some basic groundwork for my argument, in that if a public is informed, it will make better decisions and informing the public is a basic goal set for news stations. In that case, I will bring up several controvercial issues, and explain why they needed to be shared over news, and how they affected us today. The first ideal issue is the issue over Jim Crow. Blacks were afraid to speak out in the 1900's for fear of retribution / lynching, however, news channels were a much different battleground. News channels were required at the time (1927 - 1987) to show both sides of an issue, as supported by the Radio Act of 1927, which would later become the Fairness Doctrine. News reporters were in fear of being retributed by the public, but their words in Brown v. Board of Education set the public with a new standard of viewing black people. After 1969, racism was present, but not in its original full swing. If we restricted debate such as the original debate on racism by controversy, would channels be meeting the standards set out for them in 1927 or accurately portray an issue of importance? If we restricted debate, we would recieve a less informed public and a media setting a selective standard of what can or can't be shared, but when everything is shared, no matter what it brings to the channel, works for the greater good by establishing groundwork in future issues.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017, All rights reserved. | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch