The main focus of the first debate was whether or not the freedom of speech is adversely influenced by political correctness and it involved students of the Faculty of Economics. Although in the beginning it seemed like a lost cause to defend the necessity to apply political correctness in the social environment (as the initial voting was totally against it), after a series of arguments presented by the proponents and opponents and a heated discussion which engaged even the members of the audience, the final voting wasn’t so obvious any more. Apparently the zest of proponents planted the seeds of doubt resulting in a relatively equal vote with a slight advantage of those against.
The second debate involved students of the Faculty of Law and posed the question whether the freedom of speech should be limited by any external conditions. The discussion seemed like a quest in search of an elusive, red line that separates free expression from hate speech. The elusiveness of the red line, as many of participants observed, is even strengthened by a number of factors such as irony, sarcasm, sense of humour, artistic license, etc. The conclusion was that legal rules are not precise enough to offer a clear definition what is or isn’t offensive and where are the limits. The final voting, however, with an overwhelming majority, called for the existence of such limits.