The Instigator
Max.Wallace
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KhalifV
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Freedom or Political Correctness, choice or command.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
KhalifV
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,211 times Debate No: 60378
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (2)

 

Max.Wallace

Pro

My definition of freedom is that you can say whatever you want, and whoever hears it should be able to laugh it off, the old sticks and stones mentality.

My definition of political correctness is that if you say anything offensive, and a power hungry entity such as Al Sharpton or Ellen hears you, you will be torn down.

Political correctness is a nanny mentality, both for the nanny, those with power, and the poor offended adult child.

The first amendment rules!!!!!!!!!!
KhalifV

Con

I'm assuming first round is for acceptance since you merely defined terms.
I will be arguing that you should not be able to go around saying what ever you want. I'm not a big fan of how you defined political correctness, but I find it preferable to your version of freedom.

I await your arguments and good luck :)
Debate Round No. 1
Max.Wallace

Pro

A## you me? Your lead in was weak, to put it mildly. I would have preferred an honest battle instead of you supposition of the context of this debate.

So you are against the first amendment? I am only reading your words, no assumptions by me.
KhalifV

Con

My apologies for the delay, I just returned home.

The resolution:
I shall have to kindly remind my opponent that the bulk of the BoP is on him to establish that freedom as defined, is prefarable to political correctness. As con it is my job to negate his argument. I must merely keep him from affirming the resolution, which we can refer to as proposition X; this doesn't neccesarily entail that I must establish ~X. However I will try to do so.

Pro made a vague argument, all be it poorly formulated.
1st amendment: " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

In context, the framers did not have hate speech in mind. This is addressing the right to freely criticize institutions. In England, there was a strict penalty for criticizing any governmental institution.
So to answer, I am delighted with the 1st amendment, as far as it's established and contextual purpose.

Since my opponent has made no real arguments, I shall only offer one argument now.

C1: Utilitarianism:

P1) We should prefer to behave morally.
P2)That what maximizes well being, is moral.
P3) Engaging in political correctness maximizes well being, in comparison to it's negation(which in this context, is freedom to say anything)
C1) We should prefer to engage in political correctness as opposed to uncensored free/hate speech.

P1: Through evolutionary biology, we derive that an individual acts to fulfill self-preservation.
An a given group, individuals in aggrogation striving for self preservation, will culminate in the aggrogate good of the group. For example, on average killing people in a society, can be said to be wrong in society X, because it will cause a decline in well being for the victim and associates of the victim, however in regards to the murderer, not murdering is preferable because the penalty for murder is severe. Being moral works out best for everyone, so that's why we should do it.

P2: Utilitarianism is inherently how we think. For example, in any hypothetical scenario X, we choose how to act in scenario X because it will work out the best for the most people. Just like if a killer breaks into your house and attemps to murder your family, you would kill them, on the basis that the aggrogate well being is increased.

P3: Being nice to people is, on average, better for well being.
This is obvious. When one is nice to another, both parties are happier and more mentally healthy, and thus more likely to be more physically healthy i.e (Psychogenesis).

C1 follows.
I look forward to pro's rebuttals.

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
[2] http://www.csus.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
Max.Wallace

Pro

In order to win this you will need to organize your friends to vote, or create some clandestine clones, or Avatars as some may like to refer to themselves.

OK so here we go, swinging away with words, yeeeeee haaaaaaa!

BoP= using something someone else said and quoting it as fact. That is how you prove something? Someone else said it so it must be true. To me that means you just follow blindly. Quotations from any school cited as evidence is not necessarily fact.

Hate speech, which you wish to be on the deciders side of, is speech that you hate, is it not? The framers left it out because ANYONE CAN FIND A PERSON THAT SAID SOMETHING THEY HATE. That would be a total waste of taxpayers dollars to pursue, in a court of law, which speech is hateful and which isn't. It will never end, but there will be lots of wealthy capitalist lawyers defending, and offending, both sides. You may be a law student.......... if sticks and stones of feelings are a market opportunity.

Your ideas....

"P1) We should prefer to behave morally.
P2)That what maximizes well being, is moral.
P3) Engaging in political correctness maximizes well being, in comparison to it's negation(which in this context, is freedom to say anything)
C1) We should prefer to engage in political correctness as opposed to uncensored free/hate speech."
You wrote it.

Behaving morally is what you wish to define, as well as what is hateful speech and what isn't? Most tyrants ascribe to the same behavior.

Well being as long as it is yours, and as for those that say hateful things and behave immorally in your judgment, should contribute to your prosperity through laws detrimental to their well being. God Khalif has spoken. Read it and believe it.

I will summarize your last 2 ASSumptions quickly, you are a qualified decider of what is hate and what isn't? In your dreams, and in free folks nightmares, as you sound like every dictator that ever was.

Evolutionary biology, do you mean natural evolution, which is made by the god of chance?, or do you mean man made evolution in which man is god? Totally unnatural in my mind, but to those that see themselves as god, it works just fine, right?

I look forward to more of your politically correct justification of tyranny.
KhalifV

Con

No, BoP = Burden of proof, it means you have to affirm the resolution, not me.

No, hate speech = "
  • Speech that advocates or encourages violent acts or crimes of hate.
  • Speech that creates a climate of hate or prejudice, which may in turn foster the commission of hate crimes. "
One may define morality, how they want, but I gave a rational, established definition and argued it, if you have a different definitin please define it and defend it.

NO, not just my well being, I'm arguing that we should be concerned with everyone's.


Sorry, I meant to say, evolutionary pschology. Why people behave the way they do, from an evolutionary perspective.

Now, will you please give a cogent, constructive argument, that attempts to affirm the resolution.
Debate Round No. 3
Max.Wallace

Pro

Burden of Proof, is nothing but acquiescense by capitulators to the format of this debate site, like yourself, a clear winner. BoP was never an issue for me to join the debate, only a matter to be judged by the capitulates. Your judge is who, they? Why subject yourself to the whims of vampires? They can suck of you, and you them, and suck some other suckers in also to bolster the powers that be, from the Ivory Tower. You need to slow down and sound out slowly what I say, in order for you to recognize the cognitzation of it. Slow down please.

Speech that causes folks to resort to violence is not the fault of the speaker, it is the fault of the folks that resort to violence, they are the weak, and foolish, usually.

Well being? Their version of it or yours? What is well being? Happiness or health? Why are they often times such polar opposites?

Evolutionary psychology is the most evil science, it makes freudians feel like gods.
KhalifV

Con

Definition Of BoP: "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning.[3]"

You are making an affirmative assertion, you must prvide a rational defense for your assertion; it's my job to negate.


"Speech that causes folks to resort to violence is not the fault of the speaker, it is the fault of the folks that resort to violence, they are the weak, and foolish, usually."

The speech is what caused them to resort to violence. And it's the speakers intention to excitte violence, when making such speaches. If everyone was nice, then we would not be in such a situation.

."Well being? Their version of it or yours? What is well being? Happiness or health? Why are they often times such polar opposites?"

Yes we should try to act in a way in which the most people are in maximal states of health and joy. They are not intrinsically at odds.

"Evolutionary psychology is the most evil science, it makes freudians feel like gods."
What? What does that have to do with anything? Freudians have largely been discredited, apart from the unconscious motives. But what does that matter?

I ask pro, once again, to make a congent and constructive case in order to affirm the resolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
Max.Wallace

Pro

Khalif the tyrant has spoken, follow the rules or you will be broken.

the rules are subjective, but always the rule followers win.

Khalif has spoken.
KhalifV

Con

Pro has failed to produce a convincing argument to affirm the resolution.
I have provided argumentation against the resolution.
Clear con win
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
Max.Wallace
the con plays the same card all the cons play to judge me as a loser. clear con win! what an effin freakshow.
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
Max.Wallace
I expect you will win, congrats! what an accomplishment?
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
Max.Wallace
I have no idea what made me put the lemon juice on my face, but damn, when I opened my eyes it hurt like hell.
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
Max.Wallace
I actually do cover my face in lemon juice when debating you, as I know it will protect me. lol!
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
Max.Wallace
I will only say that I admire your intelligence and youthful exuberance, just please have an open mind, which sometimes is not PC.
Posted by KhalifV 3 years ago
KhalifV
Post your argument!!!!!
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
Max.Wallace
good night K. just consider it please.
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
Max.Wallace
of course not.
Posted by KhalifV 3 years ago
KhalifV
Don't care
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
Max.Wallace
have you noticed only white fingers pointing are image options here? sir?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by YaHey 3 years ago
YaHey
Max.WallaceKhalifVTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct=Pro was hostile and Con remained level headed. Arguments= Pro didn't make an argument for their case, and really only argues against burden of proof. Sources= Con was the only side to use sources.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
Max.WallaceKhalifVTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro didn't provide any sound arguments