DEBATING CANCEL CULTURE AND DE-PLATFORMING : BOYCOTTING PEOPLE’S RIGHT

TO FREE SPEECH OR SAVING THE WORLD FROM BAD IDEAS?

Speaker 1 (Pro-Cancel Culture).

Hello, smart people. Well, here we are dicussing finally about cancel culture. Let me start by telling
you what I mean by cancel culture. Cancel culture, at its core, is withdrawing ( )
or not giving the support from individuals or entities because their actions or statements, we believe,
are bad and dangerous, and are bringing harms and potential harms for people.

No-platforming, means we don’t give them the stage. We don’t give them the platform. We should
deny these individuals a platform to express their views, particularly ( ) when
their opinions run counter to prevailing ( ) social norms.

For example,
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________

This is important that we don’t allow them to speak anywhere, including on campus. It is not stealing
the right of freedom of speech. It is about saving the world form bad ideas because people are
sometimes very very easy to manipulate.

Speaker 2 (Against Cancel Culture)

Thank your clarifying the definition. I understand that accountability and responsibility are
important. But cancel culture often devolves ( ) into a mob mentality that
suppresses dissenting ( ) voices. Majority can destroy what they think is not
right according to them.

Let's consider the perspective of deplatforming those with opposing views to the majority on the
issue of
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________

If we don’t allow them to speak about ________________________, it risks

stifling ( ) diverse opinions. It kills freedom of speech, and and it discourages (
) open dialogue, hindering the free exchange of ideas. If they can’t speak about it, people will not
know
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Speaker 3 (Pro-Cancel Culture)

I agree that open dialogue is vital, but when those opposing views
perpetuate ( )h
armful ideologies or contribute to the marginalization of certain groups, it becomes a question of
protecting vulnerable communities. Cancel culture can be a tool for marginalized voices to push back
against harmful narratives.

In the case of ____________________________, it is wise for us to not let Mr/Ms

_____________________ to speak in _________________. Because if we let him/her, the audience will
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Speaker 4 (Against Cancel Culture):

While it's important to protect marginalized communities, cancel culture can be weaponized (
) against anyone with views outside the mainstream.

Take the example of someone expressing an unpopular political opinion about

___________________________________________; they might face severe consequences. They can lose
the opportunity of ______________________________. They might lose livelihood. What if because of
the cancel culture, no one will give them jobs anymore? And if they are wrong, why not let the law
decide. We can’t be the judge. We can’t be the tyrants.

Speaker 5 (Pro-Cancel Culture)

True, but there are instances where individuals with opposing views may use their platform to
amplify ( ) harmful stereotypes, hate speech, or promote discriminatory
practices. Remember the case of _______________________? She/he said
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Cancel culture becomes a response to ensure ( ) that such voices are not given
undue influence or normalized. About the law, of course we don’t give punishment. Law will decide.
We just need to do our part. To educate people by not letting them access to bad ideas.

Speaker 6 (Against Cancel Culture)

Wow. Wow. Wow. Why not let ideas fight in an open stage and see which one is better? How would
people know which one is good idea and which one is bad?

We should not let the people live in an echo chamber where only one perspective
prevails ( ). It's through robust ( ) debate and
conversation that society can grow and evolve.

Suppressing opposing views, even if they are unpopular, kills the progress of understanding and
tolerance.

Look at us. We can talk like this only, regardless of our view on the issue of
_____________________________________. We can still talk. Why? Because we are not cancelled. We
are not de-platformed.

Come on. Get real.