#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
The right will lose free speech only one way. At the same time the left does
Truth
Side Score: 4
|
We'll still have ours
Side Score: 2
|
|
Bronto lie counter: #103 Bronto implies he is pro free speech, and free speech will end for the left and right: in reality, his trolling threads and sock puppet accounts, lack of ability to defend himself are transparent attempts to stifle opposing positions and speech through attrition. Side: We'll still have ours
Of course; this is why I reply to you, explain what you're doing, how you're doing it: often make an argument and try and engage by giving people like you the ability to respond and reply. That you decide not to do that, and instead simply troll; intentionally misrepresent, ignore the argument, pretend as if your opponent makes a different one or otherwise wail around like a cretin is not something that is under my control. I do, however, always give you the benefit of the doubt that you're next reply won't simply be an attempt to fling poop, or won't lead you to an angry rant and half a dozen angry private messages where you call me names because you can't emotionally deal with someone disagree with you. That you continually let me down in that regard, is also not under my control. Side: Truth
FEC Democrat pushes for controls on Internet political speech The FEC deadlocked in a crucial Internet campaign speech vote announced Friday, leaving online political blogging and videos free of many of the reporting requirements attached to broadcast ads — for now. While all three GOP-backed members voted against restrictions, they were opposed by the three Democratic-backed members, including FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel, who said she will lead a push next year to try to come up with new rules government political speech on the Internet. I can't believe Progressives would want to control free speech can you ? http://www.washingtontimes. Side: Truth
Because it's a ridiculously outrageous lie that you can't support without rampant dishonest or misrepresentation so bad that it borders on dishonesty. As you're a flagrant troll, it is unsurprising you try and make this argument. True to form; you go and do exactly what I said you'd do. Firstly, the claim that the left is trying to "stifle free speech" by citing the FEC is most assuredly exactly the misrepresentation I'm talking about. Like normal, you are simply throwing whatever shit you want into the open, making no argument, not justifying what you're saying and simply relying on implication to make you're point. If you had read the entire link, it would be clear that this is not controls to stifle free speech, prevent people from talking, or having much of a significant effect on what you or I can say (contrary to your implication), and is more about trying to create rules that prevent election campaign rules being circumvented by campaigns running pseudo blogs. But of course, you knew that. So, we have the misrepresentation; we have the lack of any sort of cohesive argument; and you deliberately going into the article and snipping out text, but ignoring the next two paragraphs that pretty much refute what you're saying. Side: Truth
40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities American Millennials are far more likely than older generations to say the government should be able to prevent people from saying offensive statements about minority groups, according to a new analysis of Pew Research Center survey data on free speech and media across the globe. Get over it the Left wants to oppress free speech ! How many times do you need to be made a fool ! Side: Truth
I particularly like the way you are repeatedly shown up for your misrepresentation, lies, adolescent tantrums; your inability to cope with people disagreeing with you and your repeated attempts to change the subject rather than defend your position. If you look at our last 20 replies, for example; most of these are me explaining how you're wrong; and you ignoring pretty much everything I say. Even the last two; I'm sure you got to the point where you are completely unable to respond, and so had to say something to make yourself feel better. So in this respect, in terms of making people look a fool; I'm pretty sure that I'm about 25:0; me providing a detailed explanation that shows how wrong you are, and you acting like an idiot in order to deflect it. But, lets look at that your source. Firstly, there is the idea that the poll is accurate: it's surprising how accurate polls are thought to be when they support their position. It's all surprising that you think because people answered something in a poll they would be up for limiting free speech in reality. Lets ignore that though; you're also implying that "Millenials" are democrats. Even if you look at democrats; it's basically 35%. Or that "Non-whites" are at 40% support for that. Lets also note that the majority of Democrats, AND millenials do not want to allow that speech it also undermines your position. Finally, drawing the conclusion that this is about "suppressing opposing speech" in the most broad sense of the word is simply idiotic. It is you basically drawing the worst and most obscene conclusions on the opinions of people poll. If you draw the best and most reasonable conclusions: it could be as simple as 40% of people support particular hate speech laws for various forms of incitement against minorities, especially when in a wider public forum: Something that many liberals are generally in support for (including me). So again, no: this doesn't even begin to support your conclusion. One of these days you have to start being less lazy and actually try and justify your position rather than throw random arguments out to change the subject. Side: Truth
The Democrats’ Assault on Free Speech from 2014 Democrats who control the Senate say they’re more interested in repealing the free speech protections the First Amendment guarantees to all Americans. Their goal is to shut down the voices of their critics at a moment when they fear the loss of their fragile Senate majority. And to achieve it, they’re willing to devote roughly half of the remaining legislative days before November to this quixotic anti-speech gambit. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ Maybe you disagree with Politico Side: Truth
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ The above is not from Politico ? Side: Truth
Last time I checked, an Opinion Piece (google what that means) by Mitch McConnell is certainly not evidence that the democrats are trying to stifle free speech! You were using it as evidence; and that was hilarious that you didn't realize it was an Opinion Piece! Hey! Why not try and repeat the link a bunch of times; maybe the words will magically morph and it will support your position the 12th time you post it! Side: Truth
FEC Democrat pushes for controls on Internet political speech The FEC deadlocked in a crucial Internet campaign speech vote announced Friday, leaving online political blogging and videos free of many of the reporting requirements attached to broadcast ads — for now. While all three GOP-backed members voted against restrictions, they were opposed by the three Democratic-backed members, including FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel, who said she will lead a push next year to try to come up with new rules government political speech on the Internet. I can't believe Progressives would want to control free speech can you ? http://www.washingtontimes. Democrats are not trying to oppose free speech Side: Truth
I can tell you've given up and conceded that you're talking rubbish when you stop replying and start just copying and pasting your previous argument! I dealt with this one previously! I can't wait to see what recycled argument that I've already refuted you post next! Side: Truth
|