frame

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.





How Should Social Media Handle Hate Speech, Racism, And Antisemitism?

Debate Information


Social media platforms have a responsibility to handle hate speech, racism, and antisemitism by implementing policies and tools to effectively address and eliminate these forms of abusive content. This can include:

  1. Developing community guidelines that clearly define unacceptable behavior and consequences for violating these rules.

  2. Implementing advanced moderation techniques such as machine learning algorithms and human moderation teams to quickly identify and remove harmful content.

  3. Providing reporting mechanisms for users to easily flag abusive content for review.

  4. Offering educational resources and tools to users to help them better understand the impact of hate speech and how to combat it.

  5. Working with civil society organizations and experts in the field to develop effective strategies to combat hate speech and promote online safety.

It is important to balance freedom of speech with protection from harmful content, and social media platforms should strive to find a solution that promotes free and open discourse while also promoting safety and respect for all users.

Dreamer



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    Social media platforms have a responsibility to handle hate speech, racism, and antisemitism by implementing policies and tools to effectively address and eliminate these forms of abusive content.


    It is important to balance freedom of speech with protection from harmful content, and social media platforms should strive to find a solution that promotes free and open discourse while also promoting safety and respect for all users.


    I agree , why is it people like Jules Korngold are allowed to post up content glorifying , gloating and taking immense pleasure in the annihilation of Palestinians surely the hatred and promotion  of racist pieces  towards Palestinians should not be tolerated on site , here is the vile hate piece posted up by Korngold and totally supported by fellow Palestinian hater Excon .....



    nDU41G2AQANZEpng

    JulesKorngold 464 Pts   -  January 31

    Argument Topic: You're Boring Me


    @Nomenclature 

    I'm gonna watch Israel bomb Gaza on the news.  Bye.





    Nomenclature
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    Could you please clarify where this alleged responsibility derives from? What moral considerations prevent someone from creating a discussion platform open to everyone, with any views, intentions and posting styles?

    I think that the real responsibility is on the users: if you do not like how a certain platform functions, then you are free to avoid it - but you are not free to boss others around, telling them what they can or cannot do in their private lives.

    To your last point, there is no such thing as "harmful content", and any content can only be harmful in a very specific context. Safety is automatically provided by the nature of one being separated from other users with the screen and hundreds miles of physical space, and respect is to be earned, not automatically granted.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar
    Could you please clarify where this alleged responsibility derives from? What moral considerations prevent someone from creating a discussion platform open to everyone, with any views, intentions and posting styles?

    What Jules is vying for is a world where, if he doesn't like what you're saying, he can cry racism and have you banned and/or your content removed. The Israelis -- and their American stooges -- have been doing this for decades. I was reading a story just days ago where an English vicar was severely reprimanded for "anti-Semitism" because he'd claimed to members of his parish that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks. When you're dealing with the Israelis, any criticism of their policies or disagreement with their narrative becomes "anti-Semitism" and they demand you are physically punished for it. It's insanity on steroids.

  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 810 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Responsibility

    @MayCaesar
    Websites are responsible for banning hate speech because it can lead to a hostile environment and create a space where people feel intimidated or threatened. Hate speech can also lead to discrimination and violence, which can be damaging to the safety and wellbeing of users. Additionally, hate speech can lead to a breakdown in communication and impede the free exchange of ideas and opinions. Finally, websites can be held legally liable for allowing hate speech to be posted on their platform.
    NomenclatureDreamer
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @JulesKorngold
    Websites are responsible for banning hate speech because

    Because nothing. The US supreme court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is constitutionally protected speech. I don't have to like you, and I especially don't have to like you when you're trying to rationalise child murder and apartheid, so take a long walk off a short pier buddy.

  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 810 Pts   -  
    Hate speech is not constitutionally protected in the United States. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech, but it does not protect speech that is considered to be offensive or hateful. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that speech that is considered to be directed at an individual or group of individuals and intended to incite violence or hatred is not constitutionally protected.
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 810 Pts   -  
    In 2003, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Virginia v. Black that a Virginia statute prohibiting cross-burning with the intent to intimidate was constitutional. 
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 810 Pts   -  
    The Supreme Court does not allow hate speech. The Court has held that certain types of speech are not protected by the First Amendment, including speech that incites violence, makes true threats, or promotes a particular crime.
  • anarchist100anarchist100 782 Pts   -  
    They should do nothing, the truth is under no obligation to avoid being unkind to any group, nor does any person or group have such wisdom as to be able to decide with absolute certainty that something is untrue and that there is no truth to be gained for the advancement of society by open debate on the issue, and even if they did, being able to find out for oneself what is true though logic is essential for any tolerable existence.

    Social media platforms should only be banning things that prevent Free and open debate, such as logical fallacies.
    JulesKorngoldNomenclatureDreamerjack
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 810 Pts   -  
    Social media platforms should only be banning things that prevent Free and open debate, such as logical fallacies.
    Your post is a fallacy - hate speech is not "debate."
  • anarchist100anarchist100 782 Pts   -  
    Social media platforms should only be banning things that prevent Free and open debate, such as logical fallacies.
    Your post is a fallacy - hate speech is not "debate."
    What qualifies as "Hate speech"?
  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -  
    @JulesKorngold
    I reckon they should be able to filter out radical untrue baloney especially when people cut and paste it because they dont have the gusts to actually say it but say oh well thats what they said.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar
    Websites are responsible for banning hate speech because it can lead to a hostile environment and create a space where people feel intimidated or threatened. Hate speech can also lead to discrimination and violence, which can be damaging to the safety and wellbeing of users. Additionally, hate speech can lead to a breakdown in communication and impede the free exchange of ideas and opinions. Finally, websites can be held legally liable for allowing hate speech to be posted on their platform.
    First, banning "hate speech" is exactly how you create a "hostile environment and a space where people feel intimidated or threatened" - ever been to a country like China where people have to walk on eggshells all the time because of all the outlawed ways of self-expression?

    Second, a debate website is exactly where people should expect to have their positions challenged, making them often feel intimidated or threatened. If you want to be safe from psychological discomfort, then go not to a debate website, but to cat channels on Youtube.

    Third, even granting all these dangers that you listed, I still do not see why preventing them should be a responsibility of the platform owner. Are you responsible for every single thing every single guest at your house says, and do you have to protect other sensitive guests from hearing something they are uncomfortable with?

    Finally, the extent to which websites are legally liable for allowing "hate speech" is the extent to which they are harassed by a tyrannical government, and opposing such harassment is noble in my view.

    Nobody dragged me to this website against my will. If I feel disturbed by its content strongly enough, I always have the option to close the tab and go somewhere else. See how ridiculous this is? People who have the choice not to go to this website choose to go here, then start demanding that the website is changed to their liking so everyone who came for this particular website could not longer have what they wanted. It is like buying a book, reading it, getting upset and then demanding that the book is taken out of all stores and replaced with a rewritten version that you like.
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 810 Pts   -  
    Websites ban hate speech as it violates their terms of service and can create a hostile and unacceptable environment for their users. Hate speech can also be illegal in some jurisdictions and can lead to lawsuits or other legal consequences. Additionally, promoting hate speech goes against the values of many companies and communities and can have a negative impact on their reputation. By banning hate speech, websites aim to maintain a safe and respectful online space for all users.

    Hate speech is not considered freedom of expression in most countries. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right that allows individuals to express their opinions and ideas without government censorship or retaliation. However, it is not an absolute right, and limitations on speech may be imposed in some cases, such as if it incites violence or discrimination against individuals or groups based on their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. This type of speech, often referred to as hate speech, is not protected by freedom of expression and may be regulated by law.
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 810 Pts   -  
    What qualifies as "Hate speech"?
    Do your own research.  I'm not your personal secretary.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @JulesKorngold

    Ahh got it hate speech is what Kornfed and Excon  decide is hate speech which doesn't include Kornfed telling the site of the enjoyment he  gets  from watching Palestinians been blown to bits ..... 
    Nomenclature
  • anarchist100anarchist100 782 Pts   -  
    What qualifies as "Hate speech"?
    Do your own research.  I'm not your personal secretary.
    You said that hate speech isn't debate, now back it up.
    Nomenclature
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    Websites ban hate speech as it violates their terms of service and can create a hostile and unacceptable environment for their users. Hate speech can also be illegal in some jurisdictions and can lead to lawsuits or other legal consequences. Additionally, promoting hate speech goes against the values of many companies and communities and can have a negative impact on their reputation. By banning hate speech, websites aim to maintain a safe and respectful online space for all users.

    Hate speech is not considered freedom of expression in most countries. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right that allows individuals to express their opinions and ideas without government censorship or retaliation. However, it is not an absolute right, and limitations on speech may be imposed in some cases, such as if it incites violence or discrimination against individuals or groups based on their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. This type of speech, often referred to as hate speech, is not protected by freedom of expression and may be regulated by law.
    I have addressed all of these points already and would like to see counter-arguments, rather than reiteration of the same points.

    Your latter point, if accepted, leads to the situation where everyone bows to arbitrary tyrants around the world. In China criticizing the government is considered a high offense and not a part of freedom of expression - does every social media platform then that is open to Chinese users have to ban criticism of the Chinese government? 
    I find it puzzling that people on the free West nowadays are begging to go back to tyranny. One of the main selling points of the Internet in the first place was that it would give voice to those unable to express themselves in the societies they were living in - and nowadays people seem to want to suppress all voices that they find distasteful. They look at places like China or Russia where people with unpopular opinions get jailed or are found in pieces in garbage containers, and think, "Hmm, why can we not be like that as well?"

    Many people would find the opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict you have been expressing here "hate speech". How would you like them running the social media platforms you speak on? Oh, but you think that it would not be them running them, but you and the like-minded people, right? Classic mistake... And the first victims of communist revolutions around the world were always the most staunch communists themselves.
  • BoganBogan 419 Pts   -  
    I was once banned from an Australian debate site for what neo-Marxists call today "hate speech" along with the rest of the people with nationalist views who oppose anti white racism.     That particular site had been a very good and lively site for a decade before it was taken over by an arch Neo Marxist, who banned "hate speech". and who removed the accounts of any contributor "guilty" of it.   That site stagnated into a leftist only bubble where they all just sat around agreeing with each other.   Unsurprisingly, it got too boring even for the Neo-Marxists who were left and the site eventually closed shop.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @JulesKorngold
    Hate speech is not constitutionally protected in the United States

    As per usual, you're completely and objectively wrong.

    Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated by the government due to the fundamental right to freedom of speech protected by the Constitution.[1] While "hate speech" is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States

  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Myths can be harmful.

    I was reading an article that said it was white supremacy not hate that leads to atrocities. That being said myths are needed for people to believe white supremacy.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer
    That being said myths are needed for people to believe white supremacy.

    Yes, and a great idea would be for you to stop reading books about "conspiracy thinking" and find some academic work on political mythology. Some fantastic work has been written about how the public is manipulated through myth-building.

    Dee
  • Luigi7255Luigi7255 695 Pts   -  
    I can always make a social media platform where hate speech is not only allowed but encouraged but I wouldn't. It's the website's choice to police what others say, and you can dislike that, but it's ultimately their choice. I would be angry at my ban if I got banned off of, let's say, Tumblr, but I wouldn't be angry at Tumblr itself because they ultimately decided that I wasn't fit for their platform.
    "I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 810 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Done

    @Luigi7255
    I reported several hate speech posts here.  Aarong deleted them.
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    Argument Topic: There is no vulcan race, humans will commit logical fallacies.


    Have you read Sam Harris the End of Faith how he explains we would need a supercomputer the size of the universe to eliminate all logical fallacies. The idea behind is when we make over a certain number of comparisons we are sure to make logical errors.
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: I hope I didn't make any hate speech you had to report.


    I try hard to be respectful, but I can slip up.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer

    You're extremely respectful and polite, which makes it even worse when you post ridiculously naive arguments. It makes me feel guilty when I mock your grasp of reality.
    Dee
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  

    Yes that's true , you're going to live a long safe life wrapped in cotton wool as you run away from more robust forms of argumentation.

    Point being in your recent debates on climate change you ran a mile to my challenges to your arguments as you felt offended from past encounters, being offended is not an argument, unfortunately on here the majority ( Americans) go around like Victorian Sunday school teachers looking for and taking offence everywhere.

    You only wanted people to agree with your climate debates , no differing views were even addressed , what a way to live 
    .
     
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @JulesKorngold

    I haven't seen hate speech from you,

    True but , we have all seen it from you .......


    nDU41G2AQANZEpng

    JulesKorngold 464 Pts   -  January 31

    Argument Topic: You're Boring Me


    @Nomenclature 

    I'm gonna watch Israel bomb Gaza on the news.  Bye.


    Note:  I encourage you to report hate speech and harassment by Dee and Nomenclature.  Aarong has deleted several of their posts and is considering banning them.


    Nonsense , actually the one who may get banned is you with your 41 hate debates so far  and counting .....



    nDU41G2AQANZEpng

    JulesKorngold 464 Pts   -  January 31

    Argument Topic: You're Boring Me


    @Nomenclature 

    I'm gonna watch Israel bomb Gaza on the news.  Bye.

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @JulesKorngold
    Note:  I encourage you to report hate speech and harassment by Dee and Nomenclature.

    Jules, I can genuinely say that you are one of the most childish and abominable people I have ever encountered. You're not even bothering to hide your personal vendetta. Predictably, you specifically encouraged @Dreamer to report myself and Dee, not to report hate speech generally. That is absolutely not on. You can't attempt to co-opt people into your disgusting scheming to have other users banned. 

    Hopefully, aarong will see this and rid his site of your toxic presence.

    Dee
  • jackjack 447 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @JulesKorngold

    Predictably, you specifically encouraged @Dreamer to report myself and Dee

    Hello hater:

    He did???  OMG!!  Are you serious??  He "ENCOURAGED" her?  Wow..  Encouraging should NEVER be allowed on a debate site.

    Du*de!

    Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha

    excon, Encourager in Chief
  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @JulesKorngold

    Social media platforms have a responsibility to handle hate speech, racism, and antisemitism by implementing policies and tools to effectively address and eliminate these forms of abusive content. This can include:

    Social Media when based in America and its territories is at liberty to address and question in America and its territories the connections made by all to established justice. Not just its customers. This fact held above the First Amendment in all priorities of human law and its practice. Being it Legal or Malpractice.


  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited February 2023

    "All men are created equal by their creator."

    When it is by declaration of whole truth a mans one creator is the act to assume command as a President to the Consitutional United States of America, this one state of the union never to exist with a man or women’s liberty to seek and ask all others to call him as President, or her as Presadera of these same and equal united states of America, be the true, be it by lie, be it by birth, and be it by own death. Under no condition of fact does a popular vote of those held in the constitutional united states of united republic, with all its liberties including those taken on justice, break the rank, order, and condition set by ratification and sonority in American Standing United States Consitutional Right.


    Daffy duck- (blowing raspberries and laughing) - Bing video

    Truth is like a gun, one must only know how it is held for it to become intentionally lethal.


  • anarchist100anarchist100 782 Pts   -  
    Dreamer said:

    Have you read Sam Harris the End of Faith how he explains we would need a supercomputer the size of the universe to eliminate all logical fallacies. The idea behind is when we make over a certain number of comparisons we are sure to make logical errors.
    We need to be aware that we are not logical creatures and that we think in ways that are not logical but serve to simplify the world so as to better understand it, the more voices are heard the better chance we have at finding out how to think logically, how to think correctly is still a mystery, one that we should all be looking to find out.

    We cannot just abandon logic entirely and live blindly.
  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature @JulesKorngold ;I can genuinely say that you are one of the most childish and abominable people I have ever encountered.

    Yes but you call every one here and I mean every one and thats on a good day childish so your lost your bark on that one. name one other person than your self in the world that isn't childish according to you. 

    jack
  • Argument Topic: It's called free speech for a reason

    I believe in total libertarianism, which means, I don't care if someone say smth online, you're too sensitive if you truly believe hate speech can affect your life, all they should do, is blend out those contents for ppl who most likely to be triggered by them
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @Barnardot
    name one other person than your self in the world that isn't childish according to you. 

    Barnie, calling you childish wouldn't be accurate, because 95 percent of children have better spelling and grammar than you do. Calling you childish would be an undeserved compliment.

  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 810 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Hate Speech Is Harmful

    @Yo_mom_literally

    Hate speech can have a variety of harmful effects on individuals and society as a whole. Here are some examples:

    1. Psychological harm: Hate speech can cause psychological harm to individuals who are targeted by it. It can lead to feelings of fear, anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem. It can also cause a sense of isolation and can make individuals feel unwelcome in their communities.

    2. Discrimination: Hate speech can contribute to discrimination against individuals or groups based on their race, ethnicity, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, or other characteristics. This can lead to unfair treatment, marginalization, and exclusion from certain opportunities.

    3. Violence: Hate speech can also incite violence against individuals or groups. It can create a hostile environment and can embolden those who are prone to commit acts of violence. In extreme cases, hate speech can lead to hate crimes.

    4. Polarization: Hate speech can contribute to a more polarized society. It can create an "us vs. them" mentality and can lead to a breakdown in communication and understanding between different groups.

    5. Limiting freedom of expression: Hate speech can limit the freedom of expression of those who are targeted by it. It can make them hesitant to express themselves freely, and can limit their ability to participate fully in society.

    Overall, hate speech can have significant negative effects on individuals and society as a whole. It is important to combat hate speech and promote respect, understanding, and inclusivity.

  • jackjack 447 Pts   -   edited February 2023

    Overall, hate speech can have significant negative effects on individuals and society as a whole. It is important to combat hate speech and promote respect, understanding, and inclusivity.

    Hello J:

    I don't disagree at all...  Hate speech HURTS.  It's UGLY.  It's anti-American. 

    But, freedom isn't all warm and cozy.  It has SHARP edges.  It's not NICE.  Nice would be where you're protected from the evils in the world.  Nice doesn't get rid of them.  It just hides them.

    Besides, I don't  really KNOW what hate speech is..  Do the haters on here really HATE?  I think they do, but maybe they don't.  I can't see into their heart.  How much DO haters hate anyway?  A LOT or just a teeny bit?  How much IS a teeny bit of hate?  Can you hold it in your hand?  Should we punish a teeny bit of hate more than we would a boatload?  Do you hate any body?  Should you be allowed to?  Should your right to hate be taken away?  How would you do that anyway?    Do I hate the haters here?  I DO..  Should I be prevented from saying so?  No, of course not.

    Do you serve freedom more by banning speech, or by exposing it and confronting it head on like we do here every day?

    excon




    NomenclatureDee
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  

    How Should Social Media Handle Hate Speech, Racism, And Antisemitism


    I think the best option against bigots like Exconvict  , Kornfed , and MineSpaForceFed is follow the example of of people like Nom  and 
    I, we  see it as a duty to address bigotry everywhere and call it out for what it is..


    Nomenclature
  • KekeeKekee 23 Pts   -  
    It should not. Let's say if someone is racist or hateful towards you on Twitter all you need to do is block the guy and he will stop bothering you. 

    The other solution is simply to leave. If I am sitting with people and start feeling pissed off I am not wasting my time trying to argue I would simply leave and do something fun
    RobertoDuranDee
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch