There are no discussions or actual exchanging of information for a probable middle ground. Instead of trying to decide who of us is right, we should probably find a solution to the problem with the information that both of our sides have.” So instead of moving forward with a new understanding of the topic, these arguments often become more like complaints. Not only are these frustrating because no one is debating or discussing the topic with any actual information about the real story while also mistreating each other to come out on the ‘right’ side of the argument, but no one steps back from the argument and says, “You know what? You’re right, this is a real issue that we’re looking at. I can’t tell you how many times I see these arguments about something that people saw on some media, and all they do is state their opinion and then other people jump in to attack their opinion. One of the most frustrating things I find in arguments in the sake of the first amendment, is the fact that we are using all of these debate no-no’s while we also are not trying to decide on a solution. This makes the freedom of speech unequal, meaning that only certain people have the right to say what they want, but others do not. Donald Trump can say whatever he wants at his rallies, but if an African American or Muslim says something in his rally that Trump does not agree with, they are removed-sometimes very violently. Yet, if others use this kind of tactic against the bullies, it’s not right. This use of our right makes it seem as though our forefathers were trying to provoke bullying and a lack of empathy among our youth and others. I’ve heard high schoolers at my practicums insult someone, and when someone tells them they shouldn’t have said that, they throw their hands up and say, “freedom of speech,” as if it takes back the insult they just gave. We believe that the freedom of speech can bubble anything we say into a safe bubble that doesn’t have the ability to hurt others. If people disagree, we believe that we can just explain that we have the right to say whatever we want, which also makes us incredibly insensitive to others.
#Freedom of speech how to
They also know how to identify and rebut against fallacies (or misconceptions of information that are worded so it sounds as if it supports your side) when their opponent uses them. Good debaters also know how to identify the reliability and credibility of the sources they get information from, to ensure that it is accurate and useful.
#Freedom of speech pro
In fact, competition debaters must prepare debates for both the pro or con side of a subject (along with rebuttals against the opposite’s side) and the side that they will publically debate is decided before the competition with a flip of the coin. Yet we, as modern Americans, are using this right to speak our minds completely incorrectly.Īny official debater knows that there are more than two perspectives or opinions to a problem, and that it is important to know as much about one side as it is to know about the other. We put the best minds at the time together to decide what we wanted to declare as ours-and the freedom of speech was the first thing we wanted.
We fought for this freedom with the lives of so many in the past. But there’s a price that comes with this freedom that we Americans are so proud of.
0 kommentar(er)
