CreateDebate


Debate Info

38
28
I’m soft. Clean it up. Freedom of speech, Real life.
Debate Score:66
Arguments:51
Total Votes:84
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 I’m soft. Clean it up. (21)
 
 Freedom of speech, Real life. (24)

Debate Creator

Rick_Zeta5A(357) pic



Should debates be cleaned of language and personal attacks? Real life isn’t.

Should debates be ‘cleaned’ and have bad words and negative ideas removed for you or should people be free to say what they want, regardless of the content, and let people choose to block certain people entirely?

I’m soft. Clean it up.

Side Score: 38
VS.

Freedom of speech, Real life.

Side Score: 28
3 points

Addltd is a stupid cunt, he thinks that not using naughty words is more important than free speech or being correct. Fuck you. I bet you where raised by emus and you where born with an inside out dick. I curse thee. I banish yee to the sea of infinite throbbing oscilating wank noodles. I am so sick of the pussy ass bitch shit nigger fuck. Anyone should be able to say whatever the undulating monkey tit syrup they want you dipfuck shit-tard.

Side: I’m soft. Clean it up.
Antrim(1299) Disputed
3 points

Along with a number of others on this site you are clearly suffering from the cyber version of 'Tourette's syndrome and must be among the 10% of the unfortunate wretches who have uncontrollable compulsions to use socially inappropriate language.

Are your compulsions to curse accompanied with involuntary muscular 'tics' and spasms?

Do you wet your bed regularly?

Do you have to wear special incontinence undergarments to avoid leeking your urine onto furniture and other fabrics when you pish and/or crap yourself?

Waste no time mother fucker, seek professional counsel urgently.

Side: Freedom of speech, Real life.
NumberOne(445) Disputed
2 points

Are your compulsions to curse accompanied with involuntary muscular 'tics' and spasms?

My own compulsions to curse are usually accompanied by conversations with nasty pieces of work like yourself, who laugh at their own hurtful racial slurs all day and then criticise others for cursing.

Here's a heads up, Antrim. If you walk around in life calling black people "bongos", then it is your own fault if you eventually get called names in return or end up being smacked in the mouth.

Side: I’m soft. Clean it up.
Rick_Zeta5A(357) Disputed
1 point

Socially inappropriate language deemed inappropriate by; churches, individuals, groups of minorities, the majority group, children, aliens??????? Who gets to decide what you do or do not get to use to express yourself? Should we set up an organization to set forth guidelines for thought and action that should be enforced by violence and imprisonment for all members of society?

Fascism is what you want.

Side: I’m soft. Clean it up.
Rick_Zeta5A(357) Disputed
1 point

Your sarcasm is noted, but it might also be noted that whilst irritating to read, your post is not that unlike most retorts of young adults in the throes of a hissy fit. As an adult its my duty to point out the fit and then repudiate all the incoherent babbling contained within it. That’s how adults debate in real life.

Side: Freedom of speech, Real life.
3 points

Yes, but it's almost impossible to post an opinion without one or more of the proverbial bullies making abusive and personal remarks.

As in all bullying situations it takes two parties for the bully to be successful, the bully and their victim.

If the target of the bully's unwarranted aggression goes unchallenged then the cyber bad-ass becomes emboldened and the victim is beat into the ground, metaphorically speaking, each and every time they venture to express their genuinely held view.

The bully must be confronted and this usually means responding in kind, only more aggressively.

This of course leads to a downward spiral and usually degenerates into a slanging match of profanities and obscenities.

When I first used this site I did so with the naive belief that if through reasoned and rational argument which was presented in a persuasive manner a weakness(s) in an opposing viewpoint was highlighted that was the way to proceed.

I very soon realized that the site was infested with social misfits who used it's anonymity to vent their frustrations at their failures in the real world on the unsuspecting members of the forum.

As I was not going to be bullied off the site I, like most people who feel that they have something to say, fought back.

A strict CODE of CONDUCT should be introduced slowly to give those who use foul language the opportunity to adapt to the new rules.

Anyone engaging in gratuitous obscene language should be permanently banned.

Of course they'll try to slip back in but they would soon be identified as these types of people cannot express themselves in a civilized manner for too long.

Side: I’m soft. Clean it up.
3 points

@Antrim

I agree with (essentially) everything you stated--my only suggestion that deviates from yours is to promote two sections/debate formats (rather than the open style in use now or wholly switching to a Moderated site): (1) Formal (2) Informal

Now, (1) would be Moderated, intended on approaching more Academic-level/type debate as is seen on Quora. (2) would be essentially what we have on CD as of present. Each domain would have their own appropriate code of conduct, ranging from sophisticated to open (i.e. potentially quite unsophisticated)

Side: I’m soft. Clean it up.
Antrim(1299) Clarified
2 points

That's a genuinely extremely good suggestion.

Those wishing to engage in reasoned and civilized debate could do so without being subjected to abuse by the cyber thugs.

The barroom brawlers of the site could clock into the informal section where they could curse and swear until they run out of steam.

I'll buy into that.

Side: I’m soft. Clean it up.
Rick_Zeta5A(357) Disputed
1 point

A place where children could have their ideas like Santa clause and the tooth fairy reinforced for one debate, and for the other adults can have unguided free discussions, with no artificial interventions from SJWs and religious zealots and the like. I agree, one for little kids one for adults.

Side: Freedom of speech, Real life.
Rick_Zeta5A(357) Disputed
1 point

You mean like the code of conduct that’s currently in effect that limits foul language and personal attacks on this site?

Only a person without the ability to understand language pertaining to complicated concepts would call for the thing that already exists to be implemented.

Side: Freedom of speech, Real life.
LRyuuzaki(51) Clarified
1 point

Only a person without the ability to understand language pertaining to complicated concepts would call for the thing that already exists to be implemented.

Only a fucking person who is fucking unable to fucking understand fucking anything would fucking want to fucking restrict my fucking right to fucking swear.

Side: I’m soft. Clean it up.
Rick_Zeta5A(357) Disputed
1 point

Your first mistake is the assertion that bullying on a debate site actually exists. Are any persons on this sites nervous’ systems tied directly in to the hardware of their computers? Do my harsh words and scary ideas do anything to stop you from refuting them in any way? If someone suggests you commit suicide, should you take anything they say seriously? These are all questions grown adults have to ask everyday they go through life in a society.

The problem with word police as I’ve already elucidated, is that not everyone’s language has been guided by the same authorities, so they may never use the same exact words as each other, but this alone does not invalidate the views of that person or group. People can’t be wrong simply from the viewpoint of profanity, although they may be completely wrong socially or morally in using some words. This infraction of social morality does nothing still to invalidate their point of view or opinions.

Side: Freedom of speech, Real life.
excon(12713) Disputed
0 points

A strict CODE of CONDUCT should be introduced slowly to give those who use foul language the opportunity to adapt to the new rules.

Anyone engaging in gratuitous obscene language should be permanently banned.

Hello Antrim:

Really?? Dude!! You're one of the BIGGEST offenders... I didn't know you were such a snowflake..

Shaking my head...

excon

Side: Freedom of speech, Real life.
2 points

Do any of you dipshits who down voted Andy know that he is the creator and owner of this website? Create Debate is by miles the most liberal forum of its kind on the entire internet.. Insofar as censorship and moderation are concerned. I used to be a mod over at DDO. And I can say that a great deal of the profanity and personal attacks that go on here on a daily basis would get those authors banned over there. So count your blessings, but keep it up and Andy is bound to clean things up a bit.

Side: I’m soft. Clean it up.
0 points

Yes, absolutely!

Side: I’m soft. Clean it up.
Kalamazoo(316) Clarified
1 point

Could you not elaborate?

Why do you feel that the site should be expunged of those who use swear words.

Do you think that the introduction of a less tolerant regime would detract from the site's 'anything goes' appeal?

Side: I’m soft. Clean it up.
LRyuuzaki(51) Disputed
1 point

@Kalamazoo

Addltd is an imbecile who only comes here to bitch about what words people use and drop intellectually vacuous one liner statements. He contributes nothing intellectually to the site, he is just here to censor people, make stupid debates about football that no intellectual person cares about and ban people who are smarter than him. It was cool of him to start up this website and all but now that that's all said and done he really isn't contributing anything but vile excrement from the pits of hell.

Side: Freedom of speech, Real life.

Personally I’m not offended by other people’s attacks or their naughty nouns, but some people may be. So should we all change our lauguage so that a bunch of ‘feelers’ can feel better? Or should personal attacks and bad language be filtered so that minorities of all disciplines can feel like they’ve defeated all bad ideas, and anyone with a different opinion from theirs has been removed from the conversation?

My BELIEF is that it’s a slippery slope to start labeling certain words or ideas fundamentally bad or illegal. Unfortunately some dilluded people will have enormously ignorant beliefs, but isn’t it the duty of educated people to strenuously debate these people, not declare the Ideas illegal and literally phone the thought police?

Side: Freedom of speech, Real life.
1 point

In real life, people shut you down for not cleaning up your language.

I'm certain that there are many who behave uncivilized in debate over the internet are either doing so because they lack real world experience or are so suppressed in their real world experience that they are inconsiderate of others when communicating online.

There are plenty of people besides who do not take online interactions seriously. They refuse to think about the consequences of their interactions, maybe even out of principle.

I am against censorship of the internet. I believe in the free press. The thing is, unless you own your own press you have to use someone elses press. You are not entitled to use someone elses press. They don't have to accept your money if they don't want you to use it.

People can complain about censorship all they want. I'm on their side. I don't think social media should censor. At the same time, I acknowledge they have the right to do so.

I say people should stop giving so much power and authority to these social media platforms. The internet is a lot more fun with many different websites rather than everything being consolidated to social media. Make your own website!

You know what is going to end up enslaving everyone? Showing preference to things because they are inexpensive and convenient. You don't just vote with a ballot, you also vote with how you spend your money. How you spend your time. Is it worth paying a little bit more because it helps support the local economy and keep it culturally distinct from the rest of the world? I think so. If nothing else, the production and business practices it sometimes requires to mass produce a product and sell it so much cheaper than everyone else requires unethical practices. Unethical practices are not always illegal. IN fact, many unethical practices are very legal.

For freedom of speech to work, people who are offended need to practice charity and forgiveness. If the offended don't truly believe in that spirit of free speech, they are simply exploiting those who truly do.

Side: Freedom of speech, Real life.

So religious people should be able to; teach ignorant antiquated and possible hateful ideas, and stifle others who do not hold the same viewpoint simply because they don’t endorse the words used and claim they are being harmed when free speech advocates for other religions or ideas?

Side: Freedom of speech, Real life.
TzarPepe(793) Disputed
1 point

First of all, what determines whether or not something is ignorant or hateful?

Second of all, how is stifling the opinions of "religious people" a solution to "religious people" stifling the opinions of others? What determines what is stifling?

Third of all, how are you not answering your own questions? Maybe the type of reactionary attitude is the reason why all these things happen to begin with. React against a reaction against a reaction to something else? Lets just keep slapping each other back and forth. Maybe eventually someone will give up or get knocked out.

The central figure of my faith was someone who was sentenced to death for blasphemy. There is nothing in my faith that would even assume ever being in a majority position. It is well understood by me that I am living in a very pagan society. There is no compulsion in my faith. There is forgiveness of sins, and even blasphemy is forgiven. The faith I believe in is charity, and charity does not silence those who have different cultural ways of expressing things.

Is this what you see in the world? I say you are superstitious, prejudice, and the very people you think you are fighting on the side of are the ones doing what it is you are so revolted against. People who call for justice, not knowing that it is their call for justice that condemns them. It isn't God that damns someone, they condemn themselves by their own judgement. Mercy triumphs over judgement. The statutes of God are absolute, unbreakable, and perfect.

Side: Freedom of speech, Real life.

Sorry Andy, I really didn’t know there was going to be this much aversion to non-free speech. Understandably, people can’t just run their mouths constantly spewing racist or hateful epithets. Clearly something should be done about horribly ignorant opinions and beliefs.

The problem as I see it is that horrible bigots can just clean up their language and they are good to go. They conceal their disgusting arguments in clean swearless paragraphs, which people read and may take stock in. And then what have you done to stop ignorant bullies, nothing. You’ve just made sure that they understand spreading their hate is ok, as long as they don’t use naughty words.

Side: Freedom of speech, Real life.
LRyuuzaki(51) Disputed
1 point

Clearly something should be done about horribly ignorant opinions and beliefs.

So you want to ban religious people and flat earthers from speaking about their views? No, you just want to ban people from criticizing certain groups and saying rude things. People who want to ban criticizing certain groups and saying rude things are pussies and/or tyrants who want to protect evil and stupidity for some nefarious purpose.

You’ve just made sure that they understand spreading their hate is ok

It's ok to say muhammad was a pedophile and there are rabbis who suck baby's dicks because it's true.

Side: I’m soft. Clean it up.
Rick_Zeta5A(357) Disputed
1 point

Do you believe you beliefs are horrible and ignorant lol, I was talking about racist or ‘sexist’ or inciting killing or lies that are mentally harmful like flat-earth or Mormonism.

Side: Freedom of speech, Real life.

In Real life, arguments are based on the best argument. The best argument just might happen to be a staunch personal attack. I don’t see anything wrong with personal attacks because they either will or will not be dismissed naturally because they do or do not have relevance in the debate.

In Real life people use the words they are familiar with. Just because someone’s background may not incline them to use the exact same words you use, using them doesn’t lessen the strength of said argument whatsoever in my opinion. They may judge YOUR language as incredibly biased and judgemental, and may disregard your genuine insight based on the fact that it was arrogant and sycophantic.

I suppose it could be said I am in favor of Dawinian Debating, the best argument will win because it has the most strength and merit based on available evidence, regardless of how any observer feels about the concept or the language used to convey said concepts.

Side: Freedom of speech, Real life.

The opposition has come up with the exact idea which is a microcosm for real life discourse that is happening in countries all over the world.

The idea is to have one debate where little kids can go, and someone is always watching to ensure which ideas and words are expressed. And a separate debate in which all words and expressions were allowed to be free and unguided, which I would sensibly call the adult version. I agree this should be so. The question then becomes which site do YOU as a generic user want this site to be. One which limits words and beliefs to protect certain entities, or one that allows unlimited use of the English language and its expletives. ‘ Free speech ‘. Or. ‘ Directed speech ‘

It’s as simple as that I’m my mind. Are you free, or are you free to believe whatever he says is ok to believe?

Side: Freedom of speech, Real life.
0 points

Check out 'The Belfast Forum' index.

It's totally free and you'll get an insight of a debating forum with zero tolerance for the use of personal insults and cursing.

It's fairly well subscribed and the debates, while parochial, are interesting, well, sort of.

The bad guys who step out of line on this site have all their opinions subjected to a monitor's approval before posting.

This means that their argument loses continuity and is left behind.

Side: Freedom of speech, Real life.
NumberOne(445) Disputed
1 point

This means that their argument loses continuity and is left behind.

It also enables dickheads like you to continue provoking and trolling left wing contributors with the specific purpose of having them suspended or banned. I have seen much of this on the internet. Moderation is used as a political weapon by the right to censor opposing viewpoints and indeed those who aspire to moderate online discussion often have this specific intent.

Side: I’m soft. Clean it up.

Both sides to it to each other, like 5 year olds running to mommy to have their viewpoints validated.

Side: I’m soft. Clean it up.
Rick_Zeta5A(357) Disputed
1 point

‘The Belfast forum’

Sounds like the North Korean guide to making sure everyone has the same lame dullwitted opinions.

Sounds like something I would start if I wanted to have control of all the ideas, values and wanted to exercise this opinion in an odd oversight of human thought and opinion. Sounds like fascism.

Side: I’m soft. Clean it up.