Week 1 - Couch Potato vs. Guy Compton Open

[FromTheSouth]

This thread is for the debaters only. It will remain open until Sunday at 6 PM CST.

Couch Potato will be affirming the topic.


Resolved: The rights of the individual to join exclusive, voluntary associations outweighs society's goal of eliminating discrimination.

 

[Brilliant Human Being]

Before I start, best of luck to you GuyCompton.

Resolved: The rights of the individual to join exclusive, voluntary associations outweighs society's goal of eliminating discrimination.

I'll start with a brief introduction, then we can go from there.

Introduction​

I'm going to be arguing that the rights of an individual to join exclusive associations does outweigh society's goal of eliminating discrimination.

As an example, I shall use the most obvious example that comes to my mind, the BNP (British National Party). If you don't know who they are, basically they are an extreme right-wing political party who recently won some seats in various councils in England and the European Parliament. They are relevant to the topic in question because they are widely regarded as being fascist and racist. Their leader, Nick Griffin, is a Holocaust denier, a claim he has desperately tried to refute.

Anyway, there's the background to the group I'm going to be focussing on here, but I think that my arguments can quite easily be realted to any other group. Basically, what I take from the question is that it is a moral quandary of freedom of speech.

In Britain and America, and many other countries in the world, we pride ourselves in giving everybody the right to free speech, no matter what race, sex, height, age, weight, beliefs, whatever. My argument is that: What right do we have to tell people they can't have a public platform, TV time, etc, even if they have ridiculous and offensive beliefs?

You can't stop someone joining a group of their choice just because you don't agree with them.

Again, best of luck to Guy and lets have one hell of a debate.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

Best of luck to you as well, Couch Potato.

1. Introduction​

I'd like to start my argument off with talking about hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, Lyndon LaRouche, and Neo-Nazi groups that are in existence today. The KKK is a hate group primarily stationed in the South, that has been around since the aftermath of the Civil War. Their purpose is to attempt to advance the white race by using violence and intimidation towards others. It could even be argued that they are an American terrorism group. They have a history of lynching and even murdering to get their point across. They also pass out hateful literature, usually leaving it on the doorsteps of people. There are approximately only 6,000 members, which is a far cry from the 6,000,000 members there were in the 1930s, but the issue lies in the fact that the group has a history of violence, and they will go to whatever means are necessary to get their point across.

Lyndon LaRouche is a fascist whackjob who has started the "LaRouche Movement" in which his followers and believers go ahead and rabblerouse the public, promoting their hateful points of view. LaRouche is a failed presidential candidate, and rightfully so. He's nuts. His followers spread lunatic theories and fundraise for dubious causes. LaRouche discriminates against basically everybody. He says that women are holding men back. His group attacks every minority group, including blacks, Asians, and Hispanics. He supports the beating of gay people with baseball bats in order to stop the spreading of AIDS. Like Hitler and the Nazis, he and his followers act on conspiracy theories, and they'll even resort to thuggery to get their point across. Lately, they've handed out literature comparing Barack Obama to Hitler, and it's led to problematic situations across suburbia.

The Nazi movement still has some supporters today. Neo-Nazism is a political movement that exists all around the world, where the followers seek to revive Nazism in some kind of form. They'll go to any sort of length to get their point across, including murder. The Neo-Nazi movement is full of many outspoken people, and is one of the biggest hate movements out there today.

As an example, I shall use the most obvious example that comes to my mind, the BNP (British National Party). If you don't know who they are, basically they are an extreme right-wing political party who recently won some seats in various councils in England and the European Parliament. They are relevant to the topic in question because they are widely regarded as being fascist and racist. Their leader, Nick Griffin, is a Holocaust denier, a claim he has desperately tried to refute.

Here's the thing, as extreme as their viewpoints may be, are they really fascist? People have extreme viewpoints, but I don't see the BNP, based on the research I've done, really hold back or hold down others, or use violence to get their point across. Could it be that they're just really right wing?

In Britain and America, and many other countries in the world, we pride ourselves in giving everybody the right to free speech, no matter what race, sex, height, age, weight, beliefs, whatever. My argument is that: What right do we have to tell people they can't have a public platform, TV time, etc, even if they have ridiculous and offensive beliefs?

I think there's a line. I think that when you go around calling people hateful slurs, pass out hateful literature, spraypaint swastikas, burn crosses, knock over and damage gravestones, and even resort to violence and murder, there needs to be limits, restrictions, and regulations to shut down what is going on. Everyone has a right to free speech. But obviously, people cross that line, and that is truly the issue here.

 

[Brilliant Human Being]

Here's the thing, as extreme as their viewpoints may be, are they really fascist? People have extreme viewpoints, but I don't see the BNP, based on the research I've done, really hold back or hold down others, or use violence to get their point across. Could it be that they're just really right wing?

I think there's a line. I think that when you go around calling people hateful slurs, pass out hateful literature, spraypaint swastikas, burn crosses, knock over and damage gravestones, and even resort to violence and murder, there needs to be limits, restrictions, and regulations to shut down what is going on. Everyone has a right to free speech. But obviously, people cross that line, and that is truly the issue here.

In my opinion, I consider the views of the BNP, specifically their leader Nick Griffin, to be borderline fascist. This is a man who once said that all blacks look and walk like 'ape men' and bans membership to his part of anyone who isn't whte.

Obviously, there are going to be extreme cases in every situation where a group of people take it upon themselves to take things to a whole new undesired and quite frankly horrible level. However, do organisations like the KKK, or the LaRouche Movement, or even neo-Nazi parties across the world, not have the right to air their views in a public place? The sad thing is, people do cross that line, which ineveitably turns people off their cause.

Obviously, for a neo-Nazi group to air views in Germany is ridiculously offensive, but seriously now, in a world where most countries consider one of their main liberties to be the freedom of expression, then surely extreme right-wing political parties, or racist groups, should be allowed to say what they feel, up to a certain extent?

 

[Turd Ferguson]

In my opinion, I consider the views of the BNP, specifically their leader Nick Griffin, to be borderline fascist. This is a man who once said that all blacks look and walk like 'ape men' and bans membership to his part of anyone who isn't whte.

Well, if that's the case, then there's major problems in England where Englishmen allowed these people to get elected and hold even the tiniest bit of influence. It basically sounds like a case of Lyndon LaRouche, except they actually let him get elected. Americans ignored that guy, and people in England should have ignored Griffin and his party.

Obviously, there are going to be extreme cases in every situation where a group of people take it upon themselves to take things to a whole new undesired and quite frankly horrible level. However, do organisations like the KKK, or the LaRouche Movement, or even neo-Nazi parties across the world, not have the right to air their views in a public place? The sad thing is, people do cross that line, which ineveitably turns people off their cause.

I don't even think that racism should be protected under freedom of speech. I think when a person goes out there and starts shoving hate speech down the throats of other people, it has potential to incite a fight against people who are being offended by what is being put out there.

The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire, stated that "fighting words" are not protected under freedom of speech clause. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [which] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

It is also not protected under freedom of speech to incite someone else to incite a crime. If Billy Bob Klansman states to a black person, "I bet you wouldn't attack me, N-----", well, he technically incited him to incite a crime. If there is a protest where "hanging N------" is promoted by their point of view, is that inciting a crime?

It's not becoming to go ahead and state your hatred on another group just based on their skin color, nationality, or religious beliefs, and it also sets a dangerous precedent for the racist points of view to be handed down to the next generation. America has made advances in society to go ahead and be more accepting of people, regardless of what group they fall under. There's no reason to have such a feeling towards someone, especially if that person is a law abiding citizen. As America continues to strive for a culture where there is next to no racism, perhaps its time to start outlawing hate speech and putting stiffer penalties on hate crimes. I'm sure when our forefathers came up with the idea of "freedom of speech", they didn't intend it for morons in white hoods to burn crosses and spit their vitriol towards their fellow man. At the very least, we, as Americans, need to discredit whatever hate speech is being circulated out there, and ignore whatever these people say and hope that their words carry the amount of weight they're supposed to have: none. Hopefully in turn, these people look like even bigger idiots than they already are.

Obviously, for a neo-Nazi group to air views in Germany is ridiculously offensive, but seriously now, in a world where most countries consider one of their main liberties to be the freedom of expression, then surely extreme right-wing political parties, or racist groups, should be allowed to say what they feel, up to a certain extent?

I would say that it's ridiculously offensive for neo-Nazi groups to air their views anywhere, but especially in Germany. There are people all around the world who have been affected by the Holocaust, either survivors themselves or children of survivors. I would say it's really preposterous for the Nazi point of view to still be existent today. But it does, and the neo-Nazis are some of the worst out there in expressing how they feel. Swastikas on synagogues and knocking over headstones just scratch the surface... they're known for doing a lot worse.

Extreme right wing parties and racist groups are apples and oranges. Some people can be right wing and not be racist. Sure, the ones that are way to the right are out there with their viewpoints, but they're not going out there and slamming black people and Hispanic people with all sorts of racial slurs. If people feel their viewpoints are wrong, they either argue against them, or ignore it.

Racist groups are really nothing more than a detriment to society, and they all act out in violence if they decide to really start to push buttons and really get underneath the skin of who they're trying to offend. But the more attention these people get, the more weight their words hold, and they strive for that. Even if their words can't be restricted by law, it should be getting to the point where the public restricts them by flat-out ignoring them.

 

[FromTheSouth]

In this round, Guy Compton attempted to pin his negating of the topic based on what might happen when one of these groups is given too much power, or is allowed to incite people with their speech.

Couch Potato's counter argument was that these groups still have their speech protected. That's fine and dandy, except, as Guy Pointed out, that inciting violence is not protected speech.

My main problem here is that you guys ignored the topic. Guy showed that some of these groups were harmful, and Couch Potato never really debated that point. If he would have pointed out the the Shriner's, the King High School football booster club, and the 4H are all EVO's and do wonders, along with the thousands of other organizations like them, for society, he could have swayed this back in his favor, how he didn't, and I am only judging based on what I read.

Guy Compton gets the win.

Neither of you stayed on point too well, but what you wrote was good enough.

Guy gets 35 points
CP gets 32

 

[Minor League Brian]

I have to give this one to GC, and it ended up being a lot.

GC used facts, and a handful of them. That's what won him this argument.

Potato, to me it just seemed like you were arguing with merely your opinions and no real researched knowledge. I know I hate researching, but for something like this its a necessary thing. I feel if you had thrown in a few more supporting facts to your stance, and beefed up your side you'd have had a much better shot at winning.

I scored it 32 GC and 24 Couch Potato.

 

[gd]

Winner: GuyCompton

As FTS said, you kind of strayed away from the topic, but it was still all well and good. GC was able to use more facts and info though and definetly used it to his advantage here.

Points:

GC - 35
CP - 30