Free Speech Debate - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate News And Just About Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Free Speech Debate
in Politics

I believe that you should be allowed to say what you want as long as it does not incite violence or intentionally cause physical harm. Examples of these are telling people on Facebook to shoot someone or yelling "fire" in a building that is not burning. If you disagree with me, feel free to debate me.
joecavalry
  1. Do you agree with the first amendment?

    11 votes
    1. Yes
      90.91%
    2. No
        9.09%



Debra AI Prediction

Against
Predicted To Win
56%
Likely
44%
Unlikely

Details +


For:

46% (11 Points)


Against:

54% (13 Points)



Votes: 2


Voting Format: Moderate Voting

Rounds: 3

Time Per Round: 24 Hours Per Round


Voting Period: 24 Hours


Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

Voting


Arguments



  • Round 1 | Position: Against
    someone234someone234 606 Pts
    edited August 8
    This guy says 'so long as it doesn't incite violence' and what if it incites inciting violence? etc? where exactly do we draw the line?

    We draw the line as the point where the speech is necessary in order to have a happy and sustainable peaceful society where those that will contribute to the society are rewarded and those that work against it are punished. Simple as.

    The other side's first poster (who made this debate) is actually supporting limiting free speech and admits that speech and be extremely dangerous when not controlled.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • Round 1 | Position: For
    So the word choice here is interesting, so before I begin my argument, let's define what incite really means:

    in·cite
    inˈsīt/
    verb

    1. encourage or stir up (violent or unlawful behavior).

    2. urge or persuade (someone) to act in a violent or unlawful way.

    So an example of inciting someone to incite violence would still be inciting violence because it is encouraging violent behavior. Let's take a look at the phrase "can you tell someone to tell someone to shoot up a school". This would be inciting someone to incite violence. However, note that the person who would say such a thing would be still encouraging violence against a school, or else they wouldn't be saying the phrase.

    One question for you Someone234, while we're on the topic. Do you think that hate speech should be banned? 

    Hate Speech: Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, or trauma.
  • Round 1 | Position: For
    Firstly only the U.S. has a protected right to free speech and it's fine the way it is, nothing needs to be changed.  As evidenced by what other countries have done by implementing "hate speech" laws they clearly do NOT have free speech and have created a whole new set of problems unnecessarily.  
    The limits of free speech are calls to action or violence.  Hate speech hurts people's feelings boohoo tfb.
    Agility_Dude
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • Round 2 | Position: Against
    This is pointless now. These two opponents are both saying they support restricting speech and then say that's 'free'.

    What they say is to only restrict direct incitement to violence but they don't realise how far back the chain goes. You bully someone, they grow up to abuse their spouse and children emotionally (not even necessarily physically) and a ton of lies too. We shouldn't moderate lies? Oh right you're allowed to moderate lies in the media because of special rules too.

    What you will find is that the (sorry to say it) mentally stunted individuals who say 'we want free speech' are merely too simple minded to grasp how far back the chain of verbal abuse goes in creating the monsters who shoot schools and who abuse their families and friends as well as coworkers. A culture of toxicity, brutality and injustice occurs when we don't stop cruel speech. Debate Island is a perfect example of well restricted speech whereas 4Chan is a perfect example of the disgusting things people will say when they can get away with it (just look at the 4chan 'b' board if you're over 18). This world is full of mentally sick, putrid individuals who must be tamed and the only way to do that is to restrict their ability to verbally abuse, taunt, brainwash or anything of that sort.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • Round 2 | Position: For
    This is pointless now. These two opponents are both saying they support restricting speech and then say that's 'free'.

    What they say is to only restrict direct incitement to violence but they don't realise how far back the chain goes. You bully someone, they grow up to abuse their spouse and children emotionally (not even necessarily physically) and a ton of lies too. We shouldn't moderate lies? Oh right you're allowed to moderate lies in the media because of special rules too.

    What you will find is that the (sorry to say it) mentally stunted individuals who say 'we want free speech' are merely too simple minded to grasp how far back the chain of verbal abuse goes in creating the monsters who shoot schools and who abuse their families and friends as well as coworkers. A culture of toxicity, brutality and injustice occurs when we don't stop cruel speech. Debate Island is a perfect example of well restricted speech whereas 4Chan is a perfect example of the disgusting things people will say when they can get away with it (just look at the 4chan 'b' board if you're over 18). This world is full of mentally sick, putrid individuals who must be tamed and the only way to do that is to restrict their ability to verbally abuse, taunt, brainwash or anything of that sort.
    you don't need a right or to defend speech you agree with, you do need it to protect "cruel, toxic, brutal" speech.  Those can be ignored and avoided as well as being subjective in some instances.  Not being able to mentally handle this is about the individual and not the speech.  I'm not sure mental abuse qualifies as free speech do you?  Bullying is harassment I'm not sure why you think that has anything to do with free speech.  You've conflated very specific and dissimilar topic with free speech.  There seems to be a bit of confusion on it's definition by some.  If you look at the comments I posted some links about the limits of free speech, which when examined aren't really speech but words used to compel, call to action etc, it's the 3rd one down, hope that helps.
    someone234Agility_Dude
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • Round 2 | Position: For
    So there are two arguments being said here, and I will address each of them. The first is that free speech cannot have by definition any speech that is restricted. Now note that in my first argument I didn't say that I supported free speech, just that I supported your right to say something with a few exceptions. However, I do believe in free speech, assuming that it is defined in the same way that my belief is. I believe that free speech is my belief, as you can have what is considered a free country with some rules. I don't think that this is pointless, as it is still a free speech debate as long as we disagree and argue about our disagreements with what speech should be banned and what shouldn't.

    Now the second is that a history of abuse and toxicity will turn a person violent. Now actually I have an anecdotal story of this from my life. I'm a little ashamed of it, but I will still talk about it. Now earlier this year, I was in grade 8 (not a good time). I was basically a loser and I got angry at a lot of things that people would say/do to me. I would get mad about it the most when I was going to sleep. I started to have violent thoughts about what I should do in response. It affected my behavior for a short time when it got the worst. With all of the thoughts swirling in my head, a third grade took my hat that I was wearing from another seat, and I went berserk. I rushed to his seat and shoved him against the wall. It turned out that I banged his head against the wall too. I felt sick after it. And this is the thing. Unless you actually do violent things in real life or in a realistic video game, that sickness will turn you off from doing it again every time. That's why people ought not to do bad things to others unless those things are being done to them. Now the point of this is that you are only going to do violent things if you are subjected to violence. In that story the adrenaline started leaving me after a few seconds, and I realize now that it was my problem to fix, not his. Yes, he was being well, a third grader taking my hat like that, but it was such a little thing in the grand scheme of things that what I did was unjustified. I am ultimately responsible for my own actions. I believe that if I continued I should have gotten help, but the sickness that I got was the help I needed to get out of it.

    Another issue is that even if it wasn't my problem, it would be so difficult to make regulations restricting speech. Note that adults and teenagers and children care about things differently, and children can care about some things adults care about and vice versa. And the speech itself is never harmful, it's always the action associated with the speech that is harmful. You also give the example of online speech, which I don't think is valid. If someone says to me online "F*** you B***!", and if I get offended by it instead of laughing at it, I could just get off of that website or turn off my computer. Even in real life I can just walk away. It's easy.
    someone234Applesauce
  • Round 3 | Position: Against
    Is it a fact or not that words affect people against their will? Who would choose to get offended? Who would choose to be misinformed? Who would choose to be verbally discriminated against?

    Take a look here for the details of the experiments, I'll be pasting the overall summary below: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4727455/
    "In two experiments, exposure to threatening pictures along with unrelated negative words produced a greater reduction in long-term autonomic reactivity to those pictures than exposure alone. In Experiment 1, in an unselected sample, SCR to previously exposed aversive IAPS pictures was attenuated a week later in a follow-up session. However, both SCR and HR deceleration at follow-up were reduced to pictures that were earlier viewed with unrelated negative labels compared to pictures that were viewed with a fixation cross, and SCR was also reduced compared to pictures that were viewed with related negative labels or neutral labels. Similarly, in Experiment 2, in a sample of spider-fearful individuals, SCR to previously exposed spider pictures was attenuated a week later in a follow-up session. However, at follow-up, SCR was reduced in the group who earlier viewed the pictures with unrelated negative labels compared to the exposure-only group. Together these results suggest that exposure alone attenuates autonomic reactivity to aversive pictures, but that exposure plus unrelated negative labels enhances this attenuation. Finally, this attenuation generalized to novel pictures in spider-fearful participants in Experiment 2 but not in the nonselected participants in Experiment 1.

    The finding that negatively valenced words were more effective than neutral words is consistent with the fMRI finding that amygdala activation to evocative pictures decreases in the presence of negative but not neutral words (Lieberman, Eisenberger et al., 2007). According to this and other similar studies (e.g., Hariri et al., 2000Lieberman, Crockett et al., 2007Lieberman et al., 2005), emotional reactivity to evocative pictures is dampened while one engages in linguistic processing of those pictures (see also Borkovec et al., 1998). Here we show for the first time that negative words can also have a lasting (1 week) effect on emotional reactivity. In the presence of negative words, aversive stimuli may be processed in a deeper and more symbolic manner, allowing the ameliorative effect of the words on emotional reactivity to last long after the words have disappeared. Previous work has shown that emotion regulation may produce a rebound effect, leading to poorer mood and performance subsequent to the regulation, because such effortful processes deplete cognitive and self-regulatory resources (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998Wegner, 1994). The current paradigm, however, did not require any intentional self-regulation. Thus, negative words may allow a different form of emotion regulation that in some cases may have beneficial long-term effects, particularly when the words are used in a way that does not interfere with emotional processing (i.e., introduced after initial exposure).

    Some may argue that the more arousing and salient nature of negative words relative to neutral words may also play a role in their long-term effect. Animal studies have shown that extinction is enhanced when a “concurrent excitor,” another arousing stimulus in addition to the to-be-extinguished stimulus, is present during exposure (Rescorla, 2000Thomas & Ayres, 2004). Increased arousal during extinction learning, by administration of a noradrenergic agonist (Cain, Blouin, & Barad, 2004) or glucocorticoids (Soravia et al., 2006), may also enhance extinction learning. Thus, negative and unrelated words may provide some additional arousal that enhances the effects of exposure to aversive stimuli. Given that in both experiments, SCR on Day 1 was not different in the exposure-only and the negative-label conditions, it is unlikely that the enhanced effects at Day 8 in the negative-label conditions were due to increased sympathetic arousal during exposure to the pictures on Day 1. However, the current study design does not allow a measure of arousal in response to the words. It may be the case that high-arousal words facilitate deeper and more complete processing relative to low-arousal words or no words.

    Exposure treatment for anxiety disorders has been in large part modeled after experimental findings of classical fear conditioning and extinction in nonhuman animals, particularly rodents. Extinction of fear in humans seems to follow some of the same learning principles (Davey, 1992) and relies on similar neural systems (Delgado, Olsson, & Phelps, 2006) as extinction in rodents. However, unlike rodents, humans have the capacity to think symbolically and use language to navigate through the challenges of daily life. Classical conditioning studies in humans have demonstrated that verbally transmitted information alone can reduce the expression of conditioned fear (Davey & McKenna, 1983Delgado et al., 2004; but also see Davey, 1992). However, until now no study had examined the effect of language on the outcome of exposure treatment. Although the current study utilized only a rudimentary form of exposure treatment, it demonstrates for the first time that affective language facilitates exposure-related attenuation of auto-nomic reactivity to aversive and fear-relevant stimuli.

    Some limitations of the current study warrant mention. First, because we did not collect self-report measures of affect, we do not know whether subjective indices of fear or aversion were also reduced after exposure. However, in another study of spider-fearful individuals involving repeated presentations of visual images of spiders, both SCR and subjective ratings of fear were reduced from pre to postexposure (Vansteenwegen et al., in press). Second, because we did not find consistent effects in HR across experiments, the autonomic effects discussed here cannot be generalized beyond sympathetic arousal. Furthermore, although the current study demonstrates enhanced exposure effects with affective labels 1 week after treatment, it remains to be determined whether this effect is maintained over longer intervals of time. Additionally, given that verbal communication during therapy does not typically consist of reading single words, follow-up studies need to be conducted with complete sentences, read out loud by the participant, or presented in auditory form, to simulate a therapist’s voice. Similarly, clinical trials would need to be conducted to determine whether the addition of negative language to exposure in vivo can also enhance treatment outcome.

    The way linguistic stimuli were used in the current experiments is distinct from the way language is used in cognitive therapy to reduce fear and anxiety. In cognitive therapy, language is used before and during therapy to help create a calm environment (see Thorpe & Salkovskis, 1997). In the current experiments, however, words were introduced after initial exposure to allow emotional reactivity to develop, at least initially. Furthermore, in cognitive therapy language is used to shift appraisals of feared stimuli away from threatening to benign or nonnegative. In our study, the type of language most beneficial was negative and unrelated to the content of the aversive stimulus. These discrepancies raise the need for future studies that specifically compare the current approach with cognitive therapy.

    Although the procedures utilized in this study do not closely model any particular form of psychological therapy, they provide a rudimentary analogue of exposure treatment with and without the use of language. Some form of “talk therapy,” particularly cognitive therapy, is typically incorporated into the treatments for fear and anxiety. Empirical tests of whether the incorporation of cognitive therapy into exposure therapy for phobias improves outcome of exposure therapy have not been consistent; some indicate an added value of cognitive therapy and some do not (Craske, 1999Craske & Rowe, 1997). A potential explanation for the inconsistent results is the many confounding variables that are present when comparing one treatment component (exposure) to another (cognitive therapy); these variables include treatment expectancy, treatment duration, and therapist–patient relationship variables. The current study introduces a novel paradigm that tests the role of verbal processing in the reduction of emotional responding in a well-controlled experimental manner. To the extent that cognitive therapy can be simulated with manipulation of simple sentences, read by the participant or presented in auditory form, then variants of this paradigm can be used for more controlled investigations of the effect of cognitive therapy on exposure outcome.

    In conclusion, our results suggest that the effect of exposure therapy may be enhanced by use of unrelated negative language during treatment. It may thus be the case that cognitive therapy, or other talk therapy that accompanies exposure treatment, would be more effective in facilitating fear extinction to the extent that anxiety-provoking, rather than neutral language, is used. A broader implication of this line of research would be that perhaps part of the benefit of talk therapy is due to mere linguistic processing of aversive experiences. However, follow-up studies need to be conducted to explore these implications."


    I will also be pasting some quotes from very reliable sources that prove that whether or not we have power to control our words and ability to prevent that by threatening people with consequences, we don't have the ability to affect the power that words have over us.

    "By holding a positive and optimistic [word] in your mind, you stimulate frontal lobe activity. This area includes specific language centers that connect directly to the motor cortex responsible for moving you into action. And as our research has shown, the longer you concentrate on positive words, the more you begin to affect other areas of the brain. Functions in the parietal lobe start to change, which changes your perception of yourself and the people you interact with. A positive view of yourself will bias you toward seeing the good in others, whereas a negative self-image will include you toward suspicion and doubt. Over time the structure of your thalamus will also change in response to your conscious words, thoughts, and feelings, and we believe that the thalamic changes affect the way in which you perceive reality."
    https://psychcentral.com/blog/words-can-change-your-brain/

    The following soruce has religious connotations and is speakign of nearly supernaturla power of words. Whether or not I agree with it, it is good evidence so I'll just mention it:

    "Japanese scientist, Masaru Emoto performed some of the most fascinating experiments on the effect that words have on energy in the 1990’s. When frozen, water that’s free from all impurities will form beautiful ice crystals that look exactly like snowflakes under a microscope. Water that’s polluted, or has additives like fluoride, will freeze without forming crystals. In his experiments, Emoto poured pure water into vials labeled with negative phrases like “I hate you” or “fear.” After 24 hours, the water was frozen, and no longer crystallized under the microscope: It yielded gray, misshapen clumps instead of beautiful lace-like crystals. In contrast, Emoto placed labels that said things like “I Love You,” or “Peace” on vials of polluted water, and after 24 hours, they produced gleaming, perfectly hexagonal crystals. Emoto’s experiments proved that energy generated by positive or negative words can actually change the physical structure of an object. The results of his experiments were detailed in a series of books beginning with The Hidden Messages in Water, where you can see the astounding before and after photos of these incredible water crystals."
    https://goop.com/wellness/mindfulness/the-scary-power-of-negative-words/

    Now let's get back to the psychology.

    "Recently, a lot of the long standing paradigms in how our brain processes language were overthrown. New and cutting edge studies that produced quite startling and different results. The one study I found most interesting is UCL's findings on how we can separate words from intonation. Whenever we listen to words, this is what happens: "Words are then shunted over to the left temporal lobe [of our brain] for processing, while the melody is channelled to the right side of the brain, a region more stimulated by music."

    So our brain uses two different areas to identify the mood and then the actual meaning of the words. On second thought, what still doesn't quite make sense is why we can even distinguish "language" so distinctly from any other sounds.

    The UCL team tried to find out about exactly this. They played speech sounds and then non-speech sounds, that still sounded similar to speech to people. Whilst measuring their brain activity, they found something fascinating: "Speech was singled out for special treatment near the primary auditory cortex." In short, our brains can magically single out language from any other sounds and port it to the right "department" in our brain to give it meaning.

    This graphic also gives a great overview about how our brain process language:

    So intonation and actual wording matters, but what is the split?

    The Myth of the "55% Body Language, 38% Tone of Voice, 7% Actual Words" Rule

    You've probably heard this statistic many times before. Only in recent years have people explored again what the contents of that study were. The study dates back to 1967 had a very different purpose. It wasn't at all about defining how we process language: "The fact is Professor Mehrabian's research had nothing to do with giving speeches, because it was based on the information that could be conveyed in a single word."

    Here is what actually happened that triggered the above result:

    "Subjects were asked to listen to a recording of a woman's voice saying the word "maybe" three different ways to convey liking, neutrality, and disliking. They were also shown photos of the woman's face conveying the same three emotions. They were then asked to guess the emotions heard in the recorded voice, seen in the photos, and both together. The result? The subjects correctly identified the emotions 50 percent more often from the photos than from the voice."

    The truth, so famous author Philip Yaffe argues, is that the actual words "must dominate by a wide margin."
    https://lifehacker.com/5993267/the-psychology-of-language-why-are-some-words-more-persuasive-than-others


    "There is this overwhelming notion among a large part of society that “words don’t matter” and until action sees the light of day, then what we say does not matter. To those people and naysayers, I would love to explain to you why it is that words do matter and the profound effect they have on each and every one of us. Because unless someone stands up to those with hearts full of doubt, nothing will ever get better, and this world deserves to become a place where words can both lift us from the precipice and send us on an adventure through the lens of our neighbor.

    Words and Our Brains

    Let’s begin with how words function and process within our brains. University of College London’s Dr.Scott explains,

    “The brain takes speech and separates it into words and ‘melody’ – the varying intonation in speech that reveals mood, gender and so on. Words are then shunted over to the left temporal lobe for processing while the melody is channeled to the right side of the brain, a region more stimulated by music.”

    This new research is ground-breaking because it explains why the rhythm and intonation of a person’s voice affect us on such a deep emotional level. The reason when we listen to someone like Dr.Martin Luther King give a speech in comparison to an average person read aloud his “I Have A Dream“ speech, the two are going to give you two very different reactions. The strong and melodic manner of speaking that Dr.King gave on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial instills a sense of awe and admiration in people listening. The content of his words was only half of the magic that allowed his speech to touch millions, the other being his intonation and the rhythm in which he spoke those famous words, “I have a dream.”

    How Words Predict Our Behavior

    Words are more than simply tools for us to change our emotional state or express how we feel. Recent studies and insight from leading behavioral specialists have begun to utilize the words of people as accurate predictors of their behavior and mental state. Psychology-chair at the University of Texas Dr. James W. Pennbaker says, “The way that people refer to themselves and others is highly diagnostic of their mental state.” 

    He goes on to say that when people are being deceptive in laboratory experiments, their use of first person singular drops significantly. Dr. James explains, “Indeed, the use of “I” is one of the best predictors of honesty.” How much more can we learn by analyzing how a person speaks about themselves and the choice of words they use?

    Former FBI Behavioral Analyst, Dr. Jack Schafer sheds light on the subject by explaining that,

    “Certain words reflect the behavioral characteristics of the person who spoke or wrote them. I labeled these words, Word Clues. Word Clues increase the probability of predicting the behavioral characteristics of people by analyzing the words they choose when they speak or write.”

    So how you use your words and what you say really does speak volumes about the content of your character. So it is wise to mind your thoughts and even more so your words. They are giving off a detailed impression of who you are with every person you come in contact with. Everyone can use their unconscious to make an in-depth illustration of you when you speak to them, similarly you do too. So the next time you find yourself wanting to learn more about a person, lean in closer, and listen to the choice of words."
    https://www.learning-mind.com/the-power-and-psychology-of-words-on-our-minds/


    I will like to end with a powerful statement:

    "As Benjamin Franklin said, “Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment.”

    Choose the words that you speak very carefully because they have the potential of accomplishing nearly anything or destroying nearly anything. Just one negative comment can ruin a person’s day. A few might even ruin the person’s life. On the flip side, one positive and encouraging comment can be just enough to increase employee engagement, create healthier cultures and make more of a difference in an individual's life than you will ever know. We tend to overlook the small things in life.

    The way you speak -- the attitude and tone -- reflects the person you are and impacts everything around you. It can greatly contribute to your success or “non-success” both in business and your personal life. So next time, think before you speak. It will make all the difference."
    https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/251290

    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | 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

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch