That freedom of speech must include freedom to offend

Judge: Bi0Hazard    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Bifurcations
Reasoning:
CON forfeits, so I have no choice but to choose PRO as the winner. PRO has the advantage here anyways since people get offended all the time without the other knowing it, so freedom to offend is stuck with freedom of speech. I really can't see how you could argue against this unless you mean threats by offending.

Feedback:
CON, do not forfeit debates. People who forfeit are the losers. I am thinking there was a reason CON didn't participate.
PRO, Good Job, I can't compare yours to the opponent but I think you did great.

---

1 user rated this judgement as good
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional

Judge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Bifurcations
Reasoning:
This should be fairly self-evident as pro made an effort and con, frankly, didn't. Despite this I wanted to offer some feedback to both sides.

Feedback:
The usual neg line in these debates is that when you provoke people into attacking you, you often get attacked. Grossly offensive speech, therefore, is a legitimate limitation on freedom of speech, as it promotes positive social values.

Such positive values are promoted in three ways, which typically form the three kinds of arguments you see in these debates: first, if you propagate hate and offensive language, affected individuals or groups may retaliate against you or others they may see as being in league with you. Think Je Suis Charlie. Second, you encourage others to offend them also, and you can get a sort of peer pressure going on that, should it reach a critical mass, can lead to mass attacks. This is what neo-Nazis do a lot with their rallies, and the recent arrests outside the German AFD headquarters are a more mild example. And third - this is a more nuanced point - on a more personal level, if you tell somebody they're worthless, often, they actually don't retaliate but rather start to feel worthless. This is why many countries ban incitements to suicide, for example. If you're a newer debater, these general pragmatic points will serve you particularly well because the impacts are all fairly clear.

A bit of feedback on the aff case.

I think it's a mistake to exclude hate crimes from the discussion by definition. Indeed I don't think there's any need for definitions at all in this debate, as it's all fairly self-evident. My rationale here is that your only justification for the definition is a legal standard, which is also subjective. Con could justifiably challenge this and then you're forced to explain why you don't support anything too offensive but do support things a little bit offensive (not necessarily an easy line to draw). When you justify that standard it undermines the rest of your case.

Your first argument is interesting because you're almost pressing con to present a counter-model, something like "what would be grossly offensive to an ordinary person in the position of the affected individual" to dispel this argument. I feel like this is maybe even too obvious a line and as neg I'd be afraid you're baiting me for something lol. It might be a good idea to just outright say what you're arguing against here is censorship of legitimate ideas. Sometimes good ideas might be, or might be seen to be, offensive to some people. By framing the point not around subjectivity but an absolute outcome, you shut off the immediate rebuttal. Censorship is definitely the strongest aff line.

I felt like your point 2 was almost like a follow-on from point 1. There wasn't much analysis to it but it was still substantive because it backed up your previous point. Just a bit unsure about structure here. I particularly liked the part about the views becoming insulated and not disappearing, which I felt was a good bit of nuance.

Point 3 was solid. Again I felt like more analysis would have been better. One example would have been enough, and you can always keep a second up your sleeve if you need it in later rounds. I think this point could have been troubling had the debate worn on, as in both of your examples, the larger institution held a view that, at least to us in the western world, would probably be considered offensive. As an alternative, consider analysing how personal beliefs are - often - socially constructed, so such institutions construct the meaning of "offence". For any kind of progressivism, therefore, a degree of offence is necessary. I think this was the point you were driving at, but it needed a few causal links there on the analysis side of things. Maybe with more rounds this would have come out anyway though.

Regardless, good case :)

---

1 user rated this judgement as a vote bomb
1 user rated this judgement as constructive

Judge: DebatingAngel
Win awarded to: Bifurcations
Reasoning:
Good going pro! every one is proud!

---