Debate Info

No freedom of speech Free speech
Debate Score:21
Total Votes:26
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 No freedom of speech (3)
 Free speech (8)

Debate Creator

ObiWan(11) pic

You have things backwards. There should be NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Nomenclature: Who do you suppose benefits from freedom of speech laws?

I'll tell you who: people who are blatantly wrong. Free speech permits you to be completely wrong and yet still indoctrinate others into the belief that you are correct.

If what you say contradicts the established scientific facts then you should not be permitted to say it. Why would you even want to? If society followed this simple rule there would be no debate about global warming or evolution, religion would not be destroying us, the political system would function correctly, poverty and homelessness could be tackled and the American people wouldn't have been fooled into believing a completely bullshit story about who was responsible for 9/11.

Free speech is the last bastion of liars. It is the best defence power has of remaining in power, because it can ensure its speech drowns out the speech of activists and revolutionaries. If only people simply weren't allowed to say things which are not true, the world would be a much better place.

Nomenclature:Absolutely not. Moderators are simply terrible for any debating platform because they oppress the free flow of ideas. What you will find on sites like Reddit and DebatePolitics is that if a moderator seriously dislikes your opinion they will manufacture an excuse to ban you. Furthermore, the people who seek moderator jobs in the first place are precisely those who want the power to ban the ideas they do not like.

Obi Wan Kenobi: I looked at your debates, you have one about how there should be no free speech. Do you not see why the exact argument you made against moderators oppressing the free flow of ideas can be made about the government moderating the public's speech?

What you will find in countries where there is no free speech is that if an authority figure seriously dislikes your opinion they will manufacture an excuse to arrest you. Furthermore, the people who seek law enforcement jobs and to become government officials in tyrannical countries where there is no free speech in the first place are precisely those who want the power to ban the ideas they do not like.

Nomenclature thinks that you can end tyranny by ending free speech, he thinks that if you can just force everyone to tell the truth and hear only the truth that the lies of governments, corporations, and snake oil salesmen will finally be exposed. I have a number of reasons why this is "blatantly wrong"

 In order to enforce these speech laws you need to have a GOVERNMENT, Governments don't care if the public knows the truth or not, they only care about one thing: POWER

The very people who are in charge of MODERATING the speech which enters the public sphere are those who will abuse these speech laws the most, and it doesn't matter at the end of the day if the speech laws are based around what is scientifically correct, evidence can be fabricated, and the scientific consensus has been wrong before. If there where speech laws based on what is AGREED UPON by the scientific community thenpeople like Einstein or Tesla would have been shut down before they even started. 

Add New Argument

No freedom of speech

Side Score: 4

Free speech

Side Score: 17
No arguments found. Add one!

Nomenclature thinks that you can end tyranny by ending free speech

Nomenclature would also let a foreigner whop off his willy if it felt multicultural or Marxist to do so.

Side: Free speech
Antrim(1306) Clarified
1 point



Side: No freedom of speech

You do want freedom of speech. (Waves hand)

You do want freedom of speech.

(Waves hand)

Side: Free speech

Liberals do not want freedom of speech for the reps. Facebook is a very good example of that. Facebook Jail is where all the reps go when their banned because a snowflake reported them.

But Facebook denies and says their nothing wrong or against the rules when you report a liberals post of hate speech, I reported something not long ago it was something a lib said. It was on the lines of the president and a killing. And Facebook said it does not go against are rules. But last time I checked it's a federal crime to threaten the president or any high government official, are their immediate family.

NathanAllen! Be yourself and let no one tell you otherwise!

Find me on CreateDebate at

or at DebateIsland at

Proud Trump supporter and an American fighting war lord!

Side: Free speech

FREE SPEECH ALL THE WAY. Without freedom of speech, people cannot know if what someone is saying is true. Without freedom of speech, creativity and the exchange of ideas are choked to death.

Take North Korea. Its propaganda says that their government is the best, that America is evil, and that South Korea is full of suffering. Here's something they say about Americans: they kill babies for fun.

But because the people of North Korea have closed media, they have no idea if this is true or not. They are forced to believe this for lack of any other news.

Before you say freedom of speech is bad, consider North Korea. Consider the Soviet Union. And then formulate your answer.

Side: Free speech
1 point

To oppose freedom of speech on the basis that people will say things blatantly wrong is to admit you have no faith in your version of truth to be persuasive enough to beat all the wrong statements. And if your official truth can't convince anyone other than you then it's a fail which needs replaced with a new message anyway.

Side: Free speech
0 points

Oh wow, people are starting to see that atheists are arbitrary.

Who would have thought?

Side: Free speech
ObiWan(11) Disputed
2 points

This has nothing to do with atheism. Superstitious beliefs like christianity are arbitrary as there is no way to actually know they are correct. Any assertion based on religious belief is arbitrary. Religion in fact, is often used as an excuse for entirely subjective things and social constructs to be seen as real tangible things, because they are supposedly mandated by God and not merely the contrivances of the human brain. In this way Religion is not only arbitrary, but it is designed to eliminate any sense of what is arbitrary and conceptual and what is tangible, if you give the supreme and ultimate reality an identity and a consciousness of it's own then you can make subjective things and conceptual things and social constructs into universal law, which is why religion has been a tool of the Sith for thousands of years and is quite useful in keeping the masses in line. It is the supreme and ultimate form of mind control, you don't even know the difference between objective reality and conceptual contrivances of the mind because you think things like "morality" are universal laws, this is why you are arbitrary now get out of my debate you Tuskan breaded poop stick.

Side: No freedom of speech
TzarPepe(793) Disputed
0 points

You don't understand what "God" is, which is why you are in fact the one who is superstitious, not me.

Merriam-Webster defines "superstition" as...

"1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation

b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition

2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary"

Merriam-Webster defines "God" as...

"capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality"

If you do not accept that God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality after now receiving evidence, the dictionary agrees with me that you are the superstitious one.

Side: Free speech