CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
The Left can't stand the freedom of religious expression when they saw a nativity scene celebratng Christmas on public land.
This is the total double standard and hypocrisy of the Left when it comes to censoring things they are offended by. They have no problem with out public College displaying our president Trumps severed head on their walls for all the students to see. Gee I wonder why they are not worried about offending someone?
Can you imagine the type of insecurity and dysfunction to be offended by a nativity scene?
They are offended because it reminds them that they are unrepentant sinners, and bound for hell. It really interferes with their ability to sleep at night.
I will use the same argument the Left uses. If it is hate speech or hate art, it should not be on public grounds.
If the Left were not such total hypocrites, and if they censored their Left wing propaganda on Public land and publuc walls, I would be more understanding of their claims.
THEY ARE TOTAL HYPOCRITES WHEN IT COMES TO ISSUES OF FREE SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
I agree with you. I sincerely ask you: do really believe that there should be free speech even if it is offensive? Should there be no regulation on speech ? Couldn't someone describe hate speech as offensive free speech?
I believe hate speech or hate art should never be on our public campuses or land. That type of speech and so callt Art incites riots, bloodshed, destroyed property, etc.
Celebrating our Christian heritage with a religious symbol, IS AND NEVER WILL BE CONSIDERED HATE SPEECH BY ANY SANE HUMAN BEING.
It may be offensive to very insecure bigoted elites whose goal it is to separate any mention of God from our nation, but these insecure extremists have no right to censor anything they don't like. THAT WOULD BE BIG BROTHER IN ACTION!
I do not believe so called offensive speech or expression should ever be banned if the people in a community vote to allow it on their public land. Sane Americans have the common sense to distinguish between hate speech and so called offensive speech.
Yes, I agree. I guess what I am pointing out is how delicate this subject is. Hate speech is offensive speech. But nowadays people are offended by everything. So it is difficult to find what is truly offensive or not. And when someone feels insulted, it is absurd to say that he shouldn't feel insulted. That is just the way he feels. And yes it is a psychological indicator of an internal issue but we all have our insecurities. We cannot control people's insecurities.
I ask you another question: you know that picture I showed you earlier, for a lot of French it is not offensive. It is funny and they will say "come guys, learn to laugh at yourself ". But there is a group of people for whom it is offensive and not funny. When you look at it, it doesn't explicitly incite violence. It stirs the pot and could lead to violence. It offends people but it isn't like the " behead Trump".
If the majority voted it (Charlie Hebdo example) to be acceptable, should that group of offended people accept it? Would you accept it ?
If people were to vote that "slut shaming" is acceptable, should I accept it? Should your wife or daughter or sister accept it ? Would you look into their eyes and say accept it?
You can't just sit there and hope that the majority of American are not insane.
This is what you have been conditioned to think by the Left.
In order to brainwash Americans into censoring our most basic religious freedoms, the Left had to make you fear that if we allow religious expressions of symbols such as nativity scenes, we would all of a sudden have symbols of witch craft all over our public lands. LOL
GET REAL! It would take majority community of witches to vote for such ludicrous things. That will never happen and if it did, guess what woud happen? People would choose not to live their, people would choose not to shop there and the town would have to take down the controversial symbols or face going bankrupt.
Now here you are putting fear into people by suggesting that if we allow the freedom of offensive speech, we will have communities voting to allow signs calling people sluts.
Your logic would sacrifice our free speech in order that the one will never be offended? Do you want to live in a police state filled with Big Brother Gastopo looking for offensive speech. You can bet the speech they call offensive would only be Conservative speech. GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT. KEEP THEM OUT OF OUR LIVES!
Now I relaize that we have judgmental hateful fools on the Left who would hang a severed head of Trump on a public College wall, but that would fall under Hate Art and should never have been allowed.
Where did I say that I wanted to censor religous expression ?
If you want to wear a burka, why would I stop you ? If people want to pray outside in the park, who am I to tell them no.
I'm sorry. I don't understand...I probably wasn't very clear. I did let myself be emotionally taken away. Could you quote me so that I can explain ? Where is our point of disagreement exactly?
I am not arguing about freedom of religious expression.
I am pointing out that what we define as hate speech is speech that necessarily caused offense. All hate speech is offensive. I understand that we can't censor speech because it's offensive. What is offensive is subjective.
But hate speech is not allowed. So we already don't have the right certain offensive speech.
All I was asking is whether, you believe that speech like that of Charlie Hebdo should be allowed in public schools for example ?
This question was not at all in response to your argument about religious expression. It was a simple random question.
And I Agree that I don't understand how the students who posted the severed head of trump on public ground weren't prosecuted... It is unacceptable.
Wow...I am shocked by such behavior. I couldn't be more disappointed; these are people who a giving liberals a bad reputation. I do hope that you know that not all people who aren't Trump fans are like that.
As for the rest, I believe we agree... Maybe you can help me understand why everyone chose this side, when we all agree that there should be a limit on free speech... Most say that as long as it does not incite violence it's fine. I agree. That is a limit though...
What is wrong with my logic ? I know that not all offensive speech incites violence towards others. But doesn't hate speech originate from offended people? Maybe that is where I'm wrong...?
You are the minority of people who will admit how barbaric it is for a public college to display Trump's severed head on their walls. It sends a very huge message to impressionable students.
This is why young people more often vote for Democrats. They have been conditioned by Liberal professors to think the way the Left wants them to think.
When they get older and wiser, start paying taxes, they many times switch to republicans.
I understand your concern for offensive speech, but if we were to go down that road of "politcal correctness" it leads to Big brother Government taking more control of the people when it is the people who are suppose to lead this nation, not big government.
Who would decide what speech is offensive? Do you want more boated government agencies creating a new dictionary of politcal correct speech?
Yep. Because when the left says "Islam is peace", I find it offensive, because Islam isn't peace. It's death. See how that works? If we begin silencing speech that we don't like, "The future is nasty", "That's racist!" and the word "Islamophobia" will be gone from speech or met with prison time as anti Conservative hate speech.
There is only limited free speech in most societies as one will find out if you start to spout your opinions in public from your soapbox, then it becomes hate speech or some other term which carries consequences varying on the country you're in .
Free speech is a figment of some idealistic academic's romantic imagination.
Dermot, you'll know what I mean when I say that anyone who exercises their right to free speech by going up the Falls Road and making a pro Orange Order speech, or sets up a podium on the Shankill propounding the merits of a United Ireland would probably meet with an untimely death.
Even at so called liberal Universities anyone perceived as having right wing views is ''denied platform''
Hi Antrim , yes I wouldn't recommend forcefully expressing yourself in Nothern Ireland on the old soapbox 😊
People talk about freedom of speech and yet there are so many things you cannot say in public without incurring the wrath of the wagging finger brigade .
Why are liberal universities so afraid of right wing views at least let the one holding these views express them
I agree with your first sentence but then I don't understand your position. Clearly, Berkeley's censoring of right wing speech goes against their beliefs. But from your first sentence, I feel that you mean that whether offensive speech is a right or not, the offended will find a way to censor. Tell me if I misunderstood. If I didn't misunderstand. what is the point of recognizing it as a right then ?
I find the words white privilege offensive, so no more using it in a sentence. Hell, everything liberals say is offensive. I guess they can't talk anymore. The end.
yes. People should try and retain from rude comments but depending on how you were raised or your personality your view may differ. People should be allowed to say how they feel without being attacked for it.
True. It really cracks me up, how liberals say they believe in free speech, then turn around and say that you cannot say something because it's offensive. Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Absolutely. And that should include on a debate website, though I understand we play by the owner/moderator's rules in here.
And note, an individual still has to face the ramifications from whatever they said. If you commit libel or slander then you're still subject to the law. But you still have a right to say it and get yourself into hot water.
One has the right to put forward their views, irrespective of whether someone finds it offensive or not, for what is offensive to one need not be offensive to another.
In today's society offensive is such a broad term in the sense that you could say you like chocolate ice cream over vanilla, I say that's offensive and racist and in some cases I can have your post taken down for something so ridiculous. Unless it is truly hurting someone, I think we should have free speech.
I chose this side but I actually am presenting a sideless argument.
What exactly does offensive speech englobe? Most examples on the other side are about religious expression. I will talk about another issues because not all speech is religiously inspired.
What about verbal abuse ? There are children, wives, husbands, and workers that are verbally abused, "continuously offended".
What about high school kids called fat or stupid or sluts? This speech is offensive. Should that be allowed?
What about on the street being called a "prostitute" for wearing shorts? This type of speech can actually sometimes be religiously inspired. Is that an acceptable use of free speech?
The line between free speech and hate speech is offense. Although there are people who can use the offense excuse to censor speech.
I believe that we should be able to freely express our ideas and thoughts but when our speech is directed at others there should be a minimum of respect and civility.
Since respect is subjective, it is difficult to regulate. It is then easier to just allow all speech but then no one should be surprised to receive a punch or a violent response.
Free speech is a responsibility.
For example, let's take Charlie Hebdo. What are your thoughts on this type of speech? (refer to supporting evidence)
As long as no threats are made against another, or incitement to violence, or lies told that could harm someone financially, or otherwise, you should be able to say anything you want. The fact that someone might be offended is not an issue. Our Constitution does not give you the right to not be offended. Deal with it, snowflakes.
Before I answer your question, I will that nothing justifies the Charlie Hebdo killings.
The Muslims responsible definitely didn't do it because they felt complimented by Charlie Hebdo's work. Although, some say the attack was more symbolic. Free speech is representative of French culture. If you want to attack the French, attack their freedom of speech. That will definitely be a punch in the gut.
