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
There is no reason to restrict free speech that does not come down to authoritarian inclinations of people. If you do not like what someone is saying, then tough luck; I also do not like many things about the world, but it does not give me permission to redesign the world in any way I want. If you believe that someone's speech deals a real, objective damage, say, to your finances (for example, if you are a CEO of a major company, and someone falsely accuses you of sexual harassment), then you can take it to a court on those grounds - but the argument "This speech is hate speech, hence it is to be punished" does not hold, and it is up to you to deal with your psychological demons.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
That is an incredibly naive assumption. First off, something like this would be regulated by the government, meaning they get to decide. Suppose they do exactly the opposite of what those who were calling for these reforms want and make it illegal for them to say what they are saying?
Consider these phases:
"Black lives matter"
"All lives matter"
A biased agency could easily declare either of these to be hate speech.
The only thing separating it is perspective. A government in favor of police protection might declare the first illegal because it implies the cops are being unfair. On the opposite hand, a government might condemn the second because it covers and downplays police brutality.
Now consider these:
"Everyone deserves equal opportunity in education"
"We should prioritize the gifted in education"
This is more subtle, but the same principals apply. Someone might argue that the first unjustly prevents those most qualified from achieving their true potential, and the second because it unjustly privileges those from certain economic or social backgrounds.
You can not ban hate speech without a though definition of what hate speech is, and there is no way to make a determination of that which is unbiased.
======================
F**k the Qatari government.
======================
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
The question is rhetorical...
The video asks for a weigh in on the idea of city and state permits and their burden held on the liberties of expressing grievance publicly. The basic point can be summarized by saying filed grievance would not have both sides of any grievance take place simultaneously, meaning at the same time. When asking for a liberty in advance by seeking permission for a stage, a place of voicing grievance freely is asking not to be evaluated on the cost of what things may be said during that limited allotted time given.
...And the statement would be there is no need to restrict a factual issue of free speech. It has no cost and no self-value, in the 1st Amendment it is regulated by the addition of filed grievance in the change made to constitutional principles. Simplicity as a union of understanding and legal history as a guide to for a united state. This means if the talk is not held without a cost by self censorship it is a public grievance.
  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
Words do not lead to suicides; reactions to words can, however. Nobody forces you to interact with Westboro preachers, or commit suicide if you do.
You are welcome to redefine legal terms however you want, but in English Common Law there is no such thing as "hate speech", there is only "speech". You can build your own legal system if you like, and invite other like-minded individuals into it.
I am not sure why you are creating all these threads, if you are not interested in debating anything. You just keep posting the same dogmatic arguments, without any justification, and never ever change your stances based on what others say.
  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
  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
The main problem with all your arguments is that you say hate speech is not a right. Actually it is. Hate speech is legally protected at the moment, except for in some countries. If you live in a country where hate speech is protected, that would make sense. Please remember though that you are debating against users who live in countries where hate speech is a protected right.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra