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.
You should not protect the majority because they aren't oppressed and should protect the minority because of oppression. You have to let some crime and damage go to protect groups.
So if a minority attacks a straight white male that's okay but if a straight white male says something offensive that's not okay? Violence is okay but simply expressing views in a peaceful manner is not? You think the answer for oppressed minorities is to oppress the majority? You are a mental nut case.
So if a minority attacks a straight white male that's okay but if a straight white male says something offensive that's not okay
Yes. It looks like you understand correctly. It's the price whites must pay for past racism. You are collateral damage. It's nothing personal. Understand?
But just in case you are not a troll, I am not to blame for anything my ancestors may have done, none of my ancestors owned slaves or where nazis, and the west has no slaves, we're still waiting on africa, the middle east and some asian countries to free theirs.
So if a minority attacks a straight white male that's okay
Who says that's OK?
If a straight white male says something offensive that's not okay?
No. Hate speech is illegal in the United States.
Violence is okay
Again, who told you this? Misrepresenting everything you talk about is not debate. It is just being a dickhead. Why should you be allowed to speak if you use that privilege to misrepresent the speech of other people?
Some limits on expression were contemplated by the framers and have been defined by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Starting in the 1940s U.S states began passing hate speech laws. In Beauharnais v. Illinois the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state of Illinois's hate speech laws. Illinois's laws punished expression that was offensive to racial ethnic and religious groups.
If I said that alcohol is not illegal in the US, I bet you would cite the 18th Amendment as proof against me.
Your quote is from the 1940’s. If you scroll down on your same source, you will see that in 1969 the legal test changed:
“Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.”
Lol. No it isn't. The quote explains that hate speech laws were first introduced in the United States in the 1940s, which explains why the author has used reference material from the 1940s. Hate speech is not legal in the United States and the relevant case law proves it.
You must of missed my quote that illustrates the legal test formulated in 1969. Hate speech is not illegal. What can be illegal is speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence. A great deal of hate speech does not fit this test. A great deal of non-hate speech does. Hate speech is not illegal.
You must be referring to something other than Snyder V Phelps
The judge in that case ruled that the speech under review did not meet the legal requirements to be classified as hate speech. If it isn't hate speech then your right to use it is protected.
I understand that you define hate speech as speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by. But no one here defines that as hate speech. The judeges who decided the Westboro Babtist Church was free to protest funerals of dead soldiers did not believe the Church was not involved in hate speech. They believed that hate speech should be tolerated so long as it does not meet the above legal test. That’s why, in 2017 in Matal V Tam, which was determined unanimously, Justice Alito wrote:
“Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.’”
It was implied when this guy said that only the oppressed should be protected and some crimes should be excused that he considers hate speech more egregious than an "oppressed" person stealing from or assaulting a non oppressed person.
Hate speech is illegal in the United States.
First of all no it's not and second of all I wouldn't care if it was.
Misrepresenting everything you talk about is not debate
Practice what you preach.
Why should you be allowed to speak if you use that privilege to misrepresent the speech of other people?
If that's grounds to take away someone's right to speak then you would be stripped of it as well. Also viewing speech as a privilege is a weak and domesticated mentality, if you think it's acceptable or normal to let other people control what you can say then you are part of the reason fascists and tyrants exist, you pathetic docile sheep like creature.
It was implied when this guy said that only the oppressed should be protected and some crimes should be excused
This sounds very much like you are desperately seeking justification for making up your own information.
First of all no it's not
First of all yes it is. I advise you to learn about your own laws. How is it even possible that I am English and know more about American law than you do?
Some limits on expression were contemplated by the framers and have been defined by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Starting in the 1940s U.S states began passing hate speech laws. In Beauharnais v. Illinois the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state of Illinois's hate speech laws. Illinois's laws punished expression that was offensive to racial ethnic and religious groups.
This sounds very much like you are desperately seeking justification for making up your own information.
No, that's just my interpretation of what he said, he seems to be more worried about stopping me from speaking then he is about stopping transgender people from hitting me with their purse and stealing my DNA force.
How is it even possible that I am English and know more about American law than you do?
Because laws are a social construct, I only care about knowing real things. And yes certain things are banned in certain states but in general you are not going to get punished for hate speech unless it gets to the level of harassment.
I do not misrepresent the speech of other people
Really? Maybe you are just too stupid to understand it then, because 9/10 when you attack me or mathfan or bronto it is like you are making it up as you go along, it's either deliberate misrepresentation or you just can't understand anything we say.
You are an actual liar.
Sure, I lie sometimes, but only when I am trolling. When I'm being serious I may still say fucked up things but I don't lie unless I am playing a part in an alt account.
you do not even understand your own laws.
They aren't my laws, other people made them up and told me I have to follow them. Also I don't identify as an American, I identify as a reptilian grey hybrid from andromeda.
Speech is not a social construct, it is communicating by making sounds with your mouth. The meaning of the sounds you make with your mouth is a social construct, but "speech" is not a social construct and I never said it was.
Speech is objectively real, it is when you produce vibrations out of your face hole to communicate. The meaning of certain sounds that you make with your mouth is an inter-subjective social construct known as "language" because the same sounds might mean something completely different to someone who speaks a different language, but it is still objectively real that people engage in "speech" and that speech exists.
Speech is objectively real, it is when you produce vibrations out of your face hole to communicate
Noise is material, but not all noise from your face hole is speech. You admit that language is a social construct, but there is no speech without language. When a person who was born deaf makes noises with their face hole, that’s not speech. That’s noise. It is only when the meaning of noise is mutually agreed on (social) that communication occurs. That’s also when speech occurs. It’s a social construct.
Well, you'll forgive me for taking the side of Justice Breyer over an immature internet troll who thinks people should take his statements of fact seriously when they are supported by literally nothing.
it is communicating by making sounds with your mouth.
Weird, because most species do that, yet we are the only ones who use speech. What a puzzler. If only there was some way that you could be talking utter nonsense. That would solve this conundrum. But alas, you are speaking in an authoritative tone, so clearly you know exactly what you are talking about.
Speech is not a social construct, the meaning that you attribute to speech is, you can nit pick at semantics as usual but at the end of the day how can you deny that? Communication is real, but when you say "table" and think of a piece of wood held up by "legs" that could mean "fruit" to some hypothetical entity that speaks a language where "table" means "fruit"
Is this your interpretation of "real debate"? When I debunk you over and over and you just ignore everything I write, and then repeat the exact same statement again? Cool beans.
the meaning that you attribute to speech is
The meaning of speech is what defines it as speech in the first place you halfwit. Otherwise it is just gobbledegook. It is just a random series of sounds.
You really haven't thought this through, have you?
you can nit pick at semantics as usual
Explain to me how it is even possible that you could try to drive an arbitrary wedge between speech and the purpose of speech, and then IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE ACCUSE ME OF SEMANTICS?
I can't take anything you say seriously because you're a fool.
Weeeeeeelp I am not going to waste my time with you so you can talk shit and argue semantics, if you don't think I am worthy of a real debate and you refuse to move on then you aren't even worth me reading your shit or finishing this sen
Ever hear of a child that learned to speak on their own?
Ever speak to someone in Japan? Can you understand them? No. That’s because the speech that humans in Japan made up and taught there kids is different than the speech that was made up and taught to you.
But he didn't say what you claimed he said, so either you are a liar or you don't understand how to read English. Pick one. I don't much care which it is.
Because laws are a social construct
You were wrong. Hate speech is illegal in the United States.
Really? Maybe you are just too stupid to understand it then
Your words mean nothing because it is obvious that you are an imbecile.
It's okay to hurt white people to correct past wrongs. It's the price whites have to pay to make things right. What it's our fault that all white people are inherantly Nazis?
Express a view which is at odds with the looney left's agenda and the post is downvoted into oblivion.
The indignant blustering champions of free speech on here omit to explain that such liberty of expression should only be available to those who broadly agree with their own narrow minded standpoints.
These bigots graphically illustrate why free speech is, to a greater or lesser extent a meaningless term within all societies.
Elected politicians who have expressed their deeply held views on such issues as unregulated immigration have been physically attacked and/or hectored into silence by the hypercritical lefties.
"Free speech certainly doesn't exist on this site. Express a view which is at odds with the looney left's agenda and the post is downvoted into oblivion."
I disagree with these two lines, as the downvoting doesn't in any way silence these views, meaning their freedom of speech remains intact. Sure it pushes their arguments to the bottom of the page, but it's pretty easy to scroll down. I don't see people's arguments being removed by the site's owner, and I don't see the banning function being abused very much. People have the freedom to downvote as much as they like.
You would be right to because they are the precise opposite of the truth. Right wing politics cannot survive honest debate because it is irrational, which is why those on the right always do their best to make debate dishonest. Whatever you say, they will claim the precise opposite, which has the intended effect of either confusing observers or making them believe both ends of the spectrum are as bad as each other.
Free Speech can be found many places. People who are taking part in free speech often never realizes they are attached to it due to the total lack of value of any kind. What is being addressed with the question "We should not allow free speech in our Counties." Is in fact talking about the right to file grievance, and it understanding to that right of stating grievance, this has very little to do with free speech.
The arguing point and agenda is against impartial Constitutional Separation, and to replacement it with a verbal claim of law enforcement. As this is something a mass exposure through media can prove it is capable of. This is because the expense of impartial civil liberty has a higher cost of commitment to time, effort, recording, and self-value of responsibility. Not all cost to the public are measured in money alone as the agenda claims.
Law is a written grievance that has been filed as petition of fact, recorded in public separation by United States Constitutional order. Every law must undergo Constitutional scrutiny or complex law making will impose double jeopardy as standard to achieve retribution sold as justice.
An example: Gay Marriage is illegal. A person ask Why? The answer is I do not know. this was a test. The Constitutional answer is. Gay marriage, or any union other than a man an woman require no witness by Federal Standard of legislation in common defense to the general welfare. this is due to the fact that man and woman alone in a room can fabricate a new Citizen of that Nation, no matter how risky adding a person on their own to the Nation. this is reason to uphold Separation from all others.
The free speech took place due to the publics lack of self-value created in the test of knowledge of United States Constitutional order.
"Express a view which is at odds with the looney left's agenda and the post is down voted into oblivion."
I think, much like someone else pointed out, this is inaccurate. It is still quite possible to read down voted arguments. I do however find there are certain people who lean right who don't just down vote but outright ban any dissenting opinion. That would be an example of someone who is at odds with freedom of speech.
We don't need more speech. We need a liberal religious system that doesn't include any god. The answer isn't secularism or Christianity. Those systems have failed in the West.
@ Sitar;-Agreed, but as this site bears witness, there will always be those who will either openly or covertly undertake to stifle the free expression of any view which does not wholly, or at least broadly agree with their own dogma.
On this site we can observe the banning or elimination of opposing counter arguments by downvoting, right or left, anyone who has ran foul of the extremists.
In the real world we can observe this suppression of freedom of speech in such totalitarian states as China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Chile, to name but a few.
To deny someone 'platform by banning them you have clearly admitted that you lack the ability to persuasively present a rational and reasoned counter argument.
To erase opposing opinions by multiple downvoting is the sign of a close minded bigot who would prefer to put a bucket over his/her head so they're unable to consider any viewpoint other than their own.
You are a misogynist that allows and supports rape culture. I'm not a government employee, nor am I obligated to tolerate your abuse and hatred of women..............
OK so "I have to confess to censoring people in the past. I was wrong, I'm sorry, please forgive me." was complete bullshit. You really are a complete retard arent you haha.
"I have to confess to censoring people in the past. I was wrong, I'm sorry, please forgive me" is still bullshit but yeah you're too fucking stupid to even consider it.
On this site we can observe the banning or elimination of opposing counter arguments by downvoting, right or left, anyone who has ran foul of the extremists.
Hello A:
Nahhhh.
I'm a lib. I've NEVER banned anybody. I AM permanently banned, however, by two right wingers on this very site. I dunno WHY you'd wanna use this site as your example..
Besides, up or down voting isn't a good measure of who wants what, cause you don't KNOW who voted.. And, it means NOTHING... Being banned means you can't even offer your opinion..
“The right to representation using or abilities to speak is a United States Constitutional Right. Precedent by law. It is an elaboration on a public common defense.”
The impression is a Country can control Free-Speech? This is not true, a dictator ship suppresses liberty to expressing self-value. Real United States Amendment Free speech holds no self-value as a qualification by address to Constitution. This is a misinterpretation of the legal head start to judicial separation the First Amendment was seeking by law on its ratification. A presidential State of the Union was not held here for decades. Only Political.
The United States Constitution itself will argue you cannot in any uncertain terms stop free speech. Therefore, we the people to form more perfect union. When derived by constitution say free speech is a text of language which holds not self-value. It will always be that a word cannot defend itself, and representation must be allowed.
The truth held as self-evident, all words are created equal. Their creator is language. Their purpose is meanings of understanding. Free-Speech is not what you are questioning. It is speech made with a self-value, and the Constitutional right is our right to bestow liberty when known text is given and directed.
“The right to representation using or abilities to speak is a United States Constitutional Right. Precedent by First Federal law of the Land. It is an elaboration on a public common defense.”
We should allow free speech in our countries because everyone should have a say in what they want and what they believe. If we are are silent you'll never get what you want. And always just go with others and have other people walk all over you. And if we have a voice stand up for what you believe in not just stay silent, wont do you any good. You have a voice so use it.
All Countries have free speech. It is Constitutional representation to common defense many Nations lack in impartial separation. This is a State of the Union.
It depends how you define free speech, if you define it like: "anyone can say anything he wants all the time" like it was answered to me, there isnt a single country in the world that does that, and it is normal; how would it be if I went to the US and started screaming "burn gay people", "blacks arent human" "christians are stupid" . I'd be shot, or at least someone would take me to court
Free speech is not a yes or no question, its a scale that needs to be well balanced
“We should not be directed to believe we can stop free speech. We separate free speech to insure a level of safety to all people.”
Free speech is not what you believe free speech should be. Free speech is only what any person can give direction on to other in such a way to establish what has been said has no consequence of assigned cost, or self-value. It can be defend by sharable representation of what it can describe as free. Free meaning having no self-value, or assigned cost. (Hint) Donation made are not an assigned cost it is only accepted cost, or refused cost. A goal of donations set to reach is an assigned cost. This is also very true, and works with words as well.
