CreateDebate


Debate Info

9
36
I Support Freedom of Speech Liberal Faux-rage
Debate Score:45
Arguments:34
Total Votes:48
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 I Support Freedom of Speech (6)
 
 Liberal Faux-rage (15)

Debate Creator

HighFalutin(3202) pic



Boycott Boycotters- I Stand With Laura Ingraham

Laura Ingraham




Here's a list of advertisers who have pulled ads from Laura Ingraham's program simply because she mocked David Hogg's lament over 4 university rejections. David Hogg is one of the primary spokesmen for the Stoneman Douglas Highschool shooting and gun banning advocate.

op Laura Ingraham Advertisers
1. @sleepnumber
2. @ATT
3. Nutrish
4. @Allstate & @esurance
5. @Bayer
6. @RocketMortgage Mortgage
7. @LibertyMutual
8. @Arbys
9.

What many don't realize, most of these complaints are generated by a few people using thousands of sock/fake accounts to give the appearance of a lot of pe

I Support Freedom of Speech

Side Score: 9
VS.

Liberal Faux-rage

Side Score: 36
1 point

Here's a list of advertisers who have pulled ads from Laura Ingraham's program simply because she MOCKED David Hogg..

The above companies and others are now on my boycott list for going along with the faux-rage the left employs to silence and censor those who have OPINIONS they disagree with.

Hello H:

You're right... She shouldn't be boycotted for her OPINIONS. She should be boycotted because she MOCKED him.

excon

Side: I Support Freedom of Speech
Anomally(23) Disputed
4 points

Pretty sad Excon when a guy who acts demon possessed and goes on giant F bomb rants is your hero. So far your list of heroes are noted Jew killers and haters, Communists, and an F bomb child. At least you can now die in peace. I couldn't live with myself personally.

Side: Liberal Faux-rage
3 points

Mocking does not boycott equate. Is he an untouchable now because of the tragedy? He is now a political operative being used and funded by the left and, therefore, fair game. "Mocking" is mild compared to what the left hurls in the right's direction and you don't see the right always trying to boycott, ban, and silence the opposition.

Side: Liberal Faux-rage
pinnacle19(36) Disputed
2 points

and you don't see the right always trying to boycott, ban, and silence the opposition.

You sir, are the very definition of a liar.

The right spends 90 percent of each day harassing left wing posters and trying to have them banned. I have personally been banned from this very site several times because of it.

The fact of the matter is that you are utterly ruthless liars.

Side: I Support Freedom of Speech
excon(14666) Disputed
1 point

Mocking does not boycott equate.

Hello again, H:

That's an opinion apparently NOT shared by her advertisers..

Certainly, they're NOT required to follow the lead of a 17 year old, unless, of course, they AGREE with him.. Is that on the KID or the CEO's, who one presumes are adults??

excon

Side: I Support Freedom of Speech
MUNDYMAN(2) Disputed
1 point

The boycott is not justified. Hogg has become a prominent spokesman for his cause, and L. Ingraham displayed a lapse in judgement for mocking him during these tragic times, but that doesn't mean Hogg now is justified in acting like an untouchable with an inflated sense of entitlement who has the right to slash and burn anyone who mildly mocks him. His sense of entitlement over university admission reminds me of Hillary's sense of entitlement over being elected. The left believes it deserves to have power and get exactly what it wants. If well-known leftists are foiled in their ambitions, some get get very nasty in a public way. Nasty is what we've got here now.

Side: Liberal Faux-rage
marcusmoon(586) Disputed
1 point

Ingraham displayed a lapse in judgement for mocking him during these tragic times.

No, she did him a favor. Ingragam did not humor him, patronize him, etc. She is the first person I saw treat that little boy like an adult.

A real man would suck it up and would never complain about rejection in public. Certainly any man who complained about a personal disappointment in the midst of acting like a self-righteous ass would be mocked.

Welcome to manhood, you self-aggrandizing twerp.

Side: I Support Freedom of Speech
3 points

Laura Ingraham did Hogg a favor his family and friends were apparently unwilling to do for him. Hogg should be grateful to her. People should have been making fun of him before this.

Hogg is a sheltered and ignorant little boy who is apparently not smart enough or mature enough to recognize that he is just an ignorant little boy trying to play an adult's game in an adult's world. It is not his fault. He cannot help that he is young and sheltered, but the only remedy is to be treated like an adult.

From all the coverage I saw, Ingraham was the ONLY person to do so.

Lesson: People who are ignorant of their subject matter, unable to apply logic to the few things they do know, and spout off loudly and publicly will be mocked, especially if they don a mantle of self-righteousness.

Part of reality is people making fun anybody who says stupid things in public, and Hogg said many stupid things in public.

Hogg is somehow unaware of how ridiculous (worthy of ridicule) it is to complain about his school requiring clear backpacks in light of the charges of murder he levels at the NRA and gun owners. Sillier still is that he says the school's requirement is a First Amendment violation, partly because it is more appropriate to cite them as Fourth Amendment violations, and partly because his opposition to Second Amendment rights indicates he does not particularly understand what Constitutional mechanisms combine to protect all rights.

His main message boils down to "I want and Oompa Loompa, and I want it now! Anyone who tells me it is a bad idea to give me an Oompa Loompa is an evil person!" His self-righteous rants clearly indicate that he believes the government has magic powers to give him the Oompa Loompa of complete safety without having to address practical issues, legal limitations, or risks of unintended consequences.

If this were not childish enough, he seems to be unaware of how ridiculous it is to complain publicly about being rejected by top tier universities when he has been demanding that everybody else stop what they are doing so that they can implement his unrealistic solutions.

Somebody should have made fun of him earlier so that he would have spent less time acting foolish in public. Someday he is going to watch footage of his teenage self, and groan in embarrassment.

Side: Liberal Faux-rage
1 point

@marcus

Somebody should have made fun of him earlier so that he would have spent less time acting foolish in public. Someday he is going to watch footage of his teenage self, and groan in embarrassment.

I agree--which is exactly why it is not sensible nor responsible to put kids in the spotlight like this. They are being used as 'pawns' in a larger game, and are not aware of it. What they say now, publicly, is never going away--even though many of these kids views are bound to change significantly over the next 10 years or so.

People should call a spade-a-spade on the agenda, which is to use these kids as 'human shields' in order to advance a pre-planned policy program. The gun regulationists should not be doing it, and the pro-gun advocates should not 'go with it' as though it were a legitimate move.

Side: Liberal Faux-rage
2 points

MathFan,

...it is not sensible nor responsible to put kids in the spotlight like this. They are being used as 'pawns' in a larger game, and are not aware of it.

Yep.

People have long used children (and old people) as the excuse for their agendas, as marketing tools, and as bargaining chips. They do it with censorship, and the push against free speech (what if kids see/hear this?)

I am so happy I grew up in the days before impromptu mass media and universal on-line publishing. Even without the for-profit publishing and TV networks, there would still be all the YouTube clips and podcasts.

What they say now, publicly, is never going away--even though many of these kids views are bound to change significantly over the next 10 years or so.

What is too bad is generally these kids have never been told that they will change more in their 20s than they have in their teens. That is a handy piece of information to have when somebody is handing you a microphone.

I went through the entire American political spectrum in my 20's: Democrat, Socialist, Communist, Environmental Crazy, Anarchist, Republican, Libertarian. The saddest fact is that this boy is 17, yet he still has no idea that HOW you solve a problem is important, and just demanding that somebody do something is likely to end badly. This is a basic lesson he should have learned by now. Don't they teach history in school anymore?

Side: Liberal Faux-rage
1 point

You can't fight the power of the rich, you can only work around it.

Side: Liberal Faux-rage