The Instigator
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
imabench
Pro (for)
Losing
20 Points

It is stupid to compare politicla correctness to the rules of a religion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 11 votes the winner is...
RoyLatham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/22/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,878 times Debate No: 41056
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (84)
Votes (11)

 

RoyLatham

Con

My opponent claims it is stupid to compare the rules of political correctness to the rules of religion. He quoted my claim in his list of the top ten most stupid things said on DDO. [1. http://www.debate.org...] This debate provides him with an opportunity to argue for his proposition that the comparison is "stupid."

Pro gave no unusual context for his claim, so the primary definition of "stupid" applies:

not intelligent : having or showing a lack of ability to learn and understand things
[2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

In supporting his claim [1] Pro argued that conservative opposition to abortion, recreational drugs, and gay marriage are akin to religious rules as well. That's generally valid, but irrelevant to the proposition at hand. My claim about the quasi-religious nature of political correctness came up in a discussion of the difference between liberals and conservatives. It was rebutting the notion that liberals were all for personal liberty and have no such desires to restrict free choice on matters that impact society.

Here is my original forum post which inspired my opponent's claim of stupidity:

I think you overlook the extraordinary limitations the left wants to impose on personal freedom. This is embodied in the elaborate rules of political correctness, which match the rules of any religion. A few years ago, the book "The New Thought Police" studied the rules imposed on K-12 textbooks, by a multistate board that certifies texts. About four hundred rules of political correctness were imposed, with 90% of them liberal rules. For example, texts cannot give examples of outstanding Black athletes, never mind what reality exists. Cake cannot be used as a treat, but yogurt is allowed. Women can not be shown in supporting roles.

The PC rules are liberal goals to be imposed on society. They'll let people do what they want in the bedroom, but libs believe the kitchen and every other room in the house ought to subject to federal law. You want sugar? That's behavior that cannot be permitted. Or light bulbs or door knobs or plastic bags. Those things affect society less than abortion or gay marriage or drugs, so it isn't a question of what is "personal" versus "public." It's purely about what decisions that ought to be controlled by government.

Liberals demand outcomes according to their preconceptions, and that's far more intrusive than allowing free choice. According to libs, it is not acceptable to provide free choice because people may choose wrongly. So if there are "too few" women scientists or engineers, than society must intervene to shape "free" into what they demand.

The other relevant point is that it is acceptable for conservatives to favor abortion (Goldwater), gay marriage (Log Cabin Republicans), or wider drug legalization (Buckley) and keep conservative credentials. It's a lot more difficult to Liberals to oppose any of the liberal social agenda. How many people know that Harry Reid wants to roll back Roe v. Wade? He can't talk about it.
[3. http://www.debate.org...]

In the forum post, reference was made to [4. Bruce, Tammy, "The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds," Three Rivers Press, 2003] Bruce's book is only a convenient example, since it list hundreds of the rules.

Pro also argued in his claim of stupidity that the rules of political correctness are not like religion because they are not written down and are not organized. Few of the rules of religion are written down and well organized. Christians cite the Ten Commandments, but Christian sects go on to derive intricate rules that govern everyday life. Does "thou shalt not kill" apply to abortion, capital punishment, war, and self-defense? Believers do not always agree, but they all arrive at rules. Most religions are not nearly so succinct as the Ten Commandments. Shinto has thousands of parables without formal lists of rules. [5. http://en.wikipedia.org...] In general, religious rules govern matters as what believers should eat, how they organize their lives, and many seemingly inconsequential details. Political correctness mirrors that.

This is not a troll debate. Pro has the burden to prove that comparing political correctness to is not merely inaccurate or inaccurate in some way, but is stupid. In accepting this debate, both sides agree not to use personal attacks, insults, or obscenity. Arguments relative to the debate must be made within the character limits of the debate.
imabench

Pro

"My opponent claims it is stupid to compare the rules of political correctness to the rules of religion. He quoted my claim in his list of the top ten most stupid things said on DDO."

Quick clarification: Episodes function by only posting stupid quotes that were said within the last two weeks. Your quote was in the list of the top ten stupidest things said on DDO within the past two weeks.




"In supporting his claim [1] Pro argued that conservative opposition to abortion, recreational drugs, and gay marriage are akin to religious rules as well.

I most certainly did not. I mentioned that conservatives opposed things like abortion, drug legalization, etc to illustrate the point that it is not just the left or even mostly the left who are opposing personal freedoms, whereas in your quote you implied that the left were "extraordinarily" trying to restrict personal freedoms.

That part of my rebuttal was not the argument against comparing the rules of poltical corectness to that of a religion, it was an argument against the notion that the left are the ones trying to impose extraordinary restrictions on personal freedoms like you claimed.




"Few of the rules of religion are written down and well organized. Christians cite the Ten Commandments, but Christian sects go on to derive intricate rules that govern everyday life."

Just about every religion in the world has some sort of holy book or a collection of holy texts which all have lessons or rules that it dictates people should live their lives by, and all of those rules are written down at some point within those holy texts or holy books which are the centerpieces of religious instruction.....

The left and the right in the US do not have such a holy book or collection of holy texts where all of the rules the parties try to enforce are written down or listed in any fashion like that of any religion.




"In general, religious rules govern matters as what believers should eat, how they organize their lives, and many seemingly inconsequential details. Political correctness mirrors that."

How does political correctness mirror that though? If you ask anybody on this site what the rules of political correctness are, most of the responses you will get will be 'What the hell are you talking about?' or something similar....


============================================================================================


I have the BoP to prove that comparing political correctness to the rules of a religion is stupid. I maintain that such a comparison is stupid to make because

1) There is no set of formal laws and rules that the left lives by and tries to enforce like that of a religion. The same is true of those on the right

2) The left nor the right have any sort of holy book or collection of holy texts center to their beliefs that at one point explicitly lists the rules that people should live by or try to enforce

3) The rules of religion deal with who you should worship, how you should worship them, what your ethical and moral code should be centered around, etc........ Political correctness does not dictate how people should worship or who they should worship, among other things that religious laws dictate

4) The rules of a religion can often be easily recalled and recognized (like the 10 commandments) whereas people question whether or not the rules of political correctness are even a real thing.
Debate Round No. 1
RoyLatham

Con

Political correctness mirrors religious orthodoxy

The principle of political correctness (PC) is that by controlling language people's thinking can be aligned with a desired ideology. Political correctness in the modern context is defined as:

conformity to a body of liberal or radical opinion on social matters, characterized by the advocacy of approved views and the rejection of language and behaviour considered discriminatory or offensive. [6. Oxford Dictionary of New Words, 1997]

Another definition makes the point in terms of orthodoxy:

marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving especially race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology. [7. Random House Webster’s College Dictionary 1991 ]

PC has been around for a long time, especially in association with religion. Prof. Hughes, in his academic study of the history of PC, emphasizes the comparison:

Puritanism ... has considerable and enduring relevance to political correctness, since it encapsulates strictness in morality with a Pharisaic attitude of being “holier than thou,” combined with an unhealthy curiosity, even an inquisitiveness or inquisitorial attitude concerning the “lapses” and “nonconformity” of others. Not for nothing has political correctness been stigmatized as the New Puritanism. [8. Hughes, Geoffrey, Political Correctness: A History of Semantics and Culture (The Language Library) , Wiley-Blackwell, 2009]

Orwell's novel 1984 introduced many people to the concept of language controlling thought and action through newspeak. The novel was written in 1949, but Orwell already had an example to draw upon.

...political correctness first emerged in the diktats of Mao Tse-Tung, then chairman of the Chinese Soviet Republic, in the 1930s. But over half a century later it had mutated, rematerializing in a totally different environment, in an advanced secular capitalist society in which freedom of speech had been underwritten by the Constitution for two centuries, and in American universities, of all places. As Christopher Hitchens acutely observed: “For the first time in American history, those who call for an extension of rights are also calling for an abridgement of speech” (in Dunant, 1994, pp. 137–8). [8. op cit]

Political correctness places extraordinary restrictions on personal freedom

Ordinary restrictions on personal freedom include laws against violent crime, the enforcement of contracts, and mundane things like traffic codes. Extraordinary restrictions are long lists of prohibited word uses and incentives or laws to bring obedience to liberal social goals. In this context, "extraordinary" means "beyond the ordinary," not "unique in history."

1. The rules of political correctness are obeyed

Pro argues there is no set of formal laws and rules that the left lives by and tries to enforce like that of a religion.

Is it okay for a leftist to tell racist or sexist jokes, fail to recycle, have no concern for global warming, and oppose welfare programs? No, it is not acceptable. We are not discussing whether the rules are good or not, it is whether they constitute a code. Many religious rules are good –there's nothing wrong with “do unto others ...”-- while others are just symbolic. For example, recycling aluminum and lead are perfectly sensible rules, while recycling glass bottles and banning Styrofoam are purely quasi-religious symbolism. (Styrofoam is inert, so it would make as much sense to ban rocks.) Keep in mind that rules are not necessarily laws. Social pressure is a way of enforcing rules.

The war over political correctness in speech was fought the 80s and 90s, and the people favoring free speech lost. Political correctness is now ingrained in language. Political correctness has now moved to enforcing behavior: requirements for recycling, bans or punishments for smoking, outlawing ordinary light bulbs, banning dissenting speakers on college campuses, enforcement of academic speech codes, and so forth.

2. The rules are written down

Pro argues that there is no holy book or collection of holy texts center to their beliefs that at one point explicitly lists the rules that people should live by or try to enforce. For this to be a valid distinction from religion, religious codes must be written and political correctness not.

Pro's model is that the way a religion begins is with someone writing a book of rules and then everyone adopting it as the center of a religion. Quite the opposite, religions begin with traditions, myths, and rules, and eventually someone codifies them. The Christian Bible was not written until after the death of Christ and Christianity was well established. The rules of political correctness began in academia before they were written down, but now they are well documented.

For K-12 textbooks, the rules were formally codified in [9. "Reflecting Diversity, Multicultural Guidelines for Educational Publishing Professionals" by Karen Baicker, 1993]. There are large numbers of PC style guides from states and agencies. Liberal educator Diane Ravitch compiled a long list of PC requirements from the style guides. [10. "The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn," Vintage, 2007, Appendix 1]

For newspapers, the rules are embodied in the Associated Press Stylebook. [11. http://tinyurl.com...] For example, the AP banned “illegal immigrant” [http://tinyurl.com...] and restricted the use of “Islamist” [12. http://tinyurl.com...]. The semi-official status of the Stylebook pressures journalists to conform to the rules of political correctness.

On university campuses, written speech codes have been adopted and are strictly enforced. [13. http://thefire.org...] PC is imposed from the top down, so the universities are key to imposing the orthodoxy. Violators are subject to sanction and required "sensitivity training."

3. Political correctness dictates behavior

I didn't claim that political correctness was a religion or that it mirrored every part of religion. I only claimed that the rules of behavior prescribed by political correctness mirrored rules of behavior characteristic of religions.

Rules of worship are not part of all religions, but there are always rules of behavior. Buddhism and Jainism do not require worship any God, but they prescribe behavior. The Jains have very strict rules mandating vegetarianism and forbidding the killing of animals, even insects. Some religious rules deal with worship, but most deal with behavior. Only four of the Ten Commandments deal with worship, the rest with social behavior. The Puritans, to which political correctness is most often compared, had elaborate rules of behavior well beyond the Commandments. Puritans forbid their adherents for attending theater, and in England Puritan power grew to eventually getting theater banned.

4. Everyone knows PC rules

Pro claims "people question whether or not the rules of political correctness are even a real thing."

Let's see if readers know political correctness. Identify the PC term in each pair: waitress or server, Mrs. or Ms., prostitute or sex worker, retarded or mentally challenged, terrorist attack or man-caused disaster. Which is politically correct, using: paper or plastic bags, gasoline or electric car, water or Coke [tm], bicycle or SUV, disposable plastic water bottle or reusable metal bottle. Nearly everyone knows what the PC answers are, even if they don't conform.

The Hawaiian religion (pre-1800) had over 400 rules for which violation merited the death penalty. [14. http://en.wikipedia.org...] Stepping on the king's shadow was a capital crime. A commoner possessing any yellow object committed a capital crime, because all yellow objects were deemed property of royalty. The ruling class also comprised the priestly class, and the king was considered divine. Everyone learned the rules without having a written language.

PC is a code of orthodoxy given by an elite that governs speech and behavior, mirroring religion.

imabench

Pro

1) Definition of PC

"The principle of political correctness (PC) is that by controlling language people's thinking can be aligned with a desired ideology. Political correctness in the modern context is defined as: conformity to a body of liberal or radical opinion on social matters, characterized by the advocacy of approved views and the rejection of language and behaviour considered discriminatory or offensive"

When you take a definition of Political Correctness that DIDNT come from before 1998, the definition of it is:

"Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

If you consult the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the definition of Political correctness is "Agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people"
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

So your claim that Political correctness is defined as something meant to encourage people to lean more liberal on social issues is blatant cherry-picking of the definition of what 'Political Correctness' means..... To be politically correct begins and ends with not using language and terms that are offensive and derogatory towards others..... Thats all it is




2) PC comparison to Religion

"PC has been around for a long time, especially in association with religion. Prof. Hughes, in his academic study of the history of PC, emphasizes the comparison: Puritanism ... has considerable and enduring relevance to political correctness, since it encapsulates strictness in morality with a Pharisaic attitude of being “holier than thou,”

Clearly Prof. Hughes is giving a horrendously biased perception of what it means to be politically correct...... People dont act politically correct to emphasize a strictly uphelp morality or to think they are better then other people.... People act and talk politically correct because they dont want to offend people or look like an insensitive idiot.....




"Orwell's novel 1984 introduced many people to the concept of language controlling thought and action through newspeak"

Using language to control thought and action only works though when the government is heavily involved in enforcing people to use the language in question to control all of their thoughts and actions and punishing those who dissent from using it, and that is not true with the US and political correctness




3) Political correctness 'restricts personal freedom'

"Ordinary restrictions on personal freedom include laws against violent crime"

Roy..... People dont have and never have had the personal freedom to commit violent crimes...... Try again




"the enforcement of contracts"

Enforcing contracts literally has nothing to do with political correctness though.

"and mundane things like traffic codes"

Do you have any actual EVIDENCE to back up these ludicrous claims by any chance? Traffic codes are not enforced nor were implemented by the use of language meant to not be insensitive or hateful to others..... There is absolutely no connection between the two.





4) The 'rules' of Political Correctness

"Is it okay for a leftist to tell racist or sexist jokes, fail to recycle, have no concern for global warming, and oppose welfare programs? No, it is not acceptable."

Of course its acceptable.... Just because someone claims to be leftist it doesnt mean that they have to gear their entire lives and lifestyle to mirror their political views..... Thats as stupid as claiming that its wrong for a rightist to advocate for more gun freedoms even though he does not own a gun.....

People arent enslaved to their political views where they absolutely and always have to practice everything they preach.




" recycling aluminum and lead are perfectly sensible rules, while recycling glass bottles and banning Styrofoam are purely quasi-religious symbolism"

So it makes sense for you that people should recycles aluminum and lead...... but if they recycle glass bottles, then THAT is quasi-religious symbolism? Youre not even making any sense anymore, youre just drawing all of these arbitrary lines between right and wrong based on no evidence or reason at all, and youre acting like everyone feels this way too and that this is all common knowledge.....




"The war over political correctness in speech was fought the 80s and 90s, and the people favoring free speech lost"

Do you have any evidence for this or is this all still unsubstantiated babble that isnt worth even correcting?




"Political correctness has now moved to enforcing behavior: requirements for recycling, bans or punishments for smoking, outlawing ordinary light bulbs, banning dissenting speakers on college campuses, enforcement of academic speech codes, and so forth."

Recycling, smoking, and light bulbs dont have a single thing to do with the use of safe language Roy.





5) The rules are 'written down'

"There are large numbers of PC style guides from states and agencies"

Claiming there are large numbers of these guides and then only listing one thing from 2007 that cant even be investigated or clicked on doesnt substantiate the claim that there are rules of political correctness....

Political correctness itself is by definition the use of language meant to not accidentally be offensive or insensitive to someone else.... Listing examples of politically correct words to substitute over more inflammatory ones are just examples of the definition, they are not a code of laws that are enforced or preached.




6) 'Political correctness dictates behavior'

" I only claimed that the rules of behavior prescribed by political correctness mirrored rules of behavior characteristic of religions."

No you didnt.... Your quote in question stated:

"I think you overlook the extraordinary limitations the left wants to impose on personal freedom. This is embodied in the elaborate rules of political correctness, which match the rules of any religion"

You flat out stated that the rules of political correctness match the rules of any religion, you in no way specified that you were referring ONLY to rules of behavior between the two of them......




7) Everyone 'knows' the rules of Political Correctness

"Identify the PC term in each pair"

Again Roy, there is a difference between examples of being Politically Correct and what the alleged 'rules' of Political Correctness actually are.....


"PC is a code of orthodoxy given by an elite that governs speech and behavior, mirroring religion."

- 1 - Political correctness was not something given by 'an elite', its a fad that caught on by people who didnt want to use language that could be insensitive to others
- 2 - It does not govern one's speech or behavior since being Politically Correct is entirely voluntary with no punishments given to those who choose to not use it
- 3 - The rules of religion regulate more then just speech and behavior, they also regulate who you should worship, how you should worship, when you should worship, what you can and cant do on certain days, what you should believe in, how you should and shouldnt live your life, etc.

Debate Round No. 2
RoyLatham

Con


1. Current definitions encompass language and behavior


Pro claims “To be politically correct begins and ends with not using language and terms that are offensive and derogatory towards others..... Thats all it is “ He then gives two current dictionary definitions to support his claim. The first of Pro's dictionary definitions is from the Free Online Dictionary, which right after the part of the definition he cites gives:


Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters.


And


political correctness - Can be an insult, accusation, joke, or the name of an effort to change a society by means of wide-ranging but often small-scale cultural reform.


[15. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...]


His second citation is to the current online version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Right below the part of the definition he cites is the “full definition:”


conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated


[16. http://www.merriam-webster.com...]


The full definitions do a reasonable job of conveying orthodoxy (overconcerned ... to the exclusion of other matters and the mission (effort to change a society and language and practices … should be eliminated) behind political correctness, which parallels religion.


However, it's not true that dictionaries give definitions that are “all it is.” For example, golf has a dictionary definition as “an outdoor sport ...” That doesn't include the extreme fanaticism of some golfers reflected in David Cook’s book “Seven Days in Utopia, Golf’s Sacred Journey.” that includes a now-famous (well, famous in some quarters), “How can a game have such an effect on a man’s soul?” [17. http://tinyurl.com...]


The dictionary says nothing about golf ever being akin to a religion, but it isn't stupid to make the comparison for those who have gone overboard in their dedication. In the case of political correctness, the relationship is much closer to religion to start with. The dictionary tells us it is about an effort to change society through both language and practices. We should not expect the dictionary to provide an essay on the level of fanaticism.


2. PC moral superiority is akin to religion


Pro claims “People dont act politically correct to emphasize a strictly upheld morality or to think they are better then other people [...] they dont want to offend people or look like an insensitive idiot.....”


Pro discounts the Professor of English History who provides a documented study. Christopher Hitchens observed it was a repressive restriction on speech. Noted liberal educator Diane Ravitch wrote a book including a compilation of the elaborate rules. To this list we can add Charles Derber, a liberal Professor of Sociology at Boston College, who wrote “Morality Wars: How Empires, the Born Again, and the Politically Correct Do Evil in the Name of Good.” He compares the political correctness movement directly to morality movements like born-again Christianity. [18. http://tinyurl.com...]


Pro's response is no more than his personal opinion that there is nothing more to PC than being sensitive.


Let's test Pro's claim. Under political correctness, it is unacceptable to refer to a female restaurant server as a “waitress” and a male one as a “waiter.” The first attempt at a politically correct terminology was “waitron,” to be used for both. That didn't catch on, so “server” has been adopted instead. So what is insensitive about saying waiter and waitress? Most people understand why some sort of racial or ethnic slur is insensitive, so there's no problem being against it. But it takes a lecture in PC doctrine to explain why waiter and waitress are insensitive. That's akin to religious training.


To believe in political correctness, you must first believe it is morally unacceptable to distinguish between men and women. Politically correct speech includes long lists of gender neutral terms. It is politically incorrect to call Meryl Streep an actress; political correctness demands in written rules actor be used universally. Few people would guess they are being insensitive jerks by calling her an actress, which is why there must be lists and lectures to attempt make the point.


Political correctness often allows insensitive, even outright vile, insults of conservatives, Christians, rich people, capitalists, men, Americans, and white people. [19. http://tinyurl.com...] In other words, there is selective concern for “looking like an insensitive jerk.”


Pro wrongly claims that though control through language only works if enforced by government. I gave Puritanism as the historical example of thought control tied to language. The enforcing agent was religious authority rather than government. Modern Islam is a contemporary example of religious control; insults of their holy figures can put you on a death fatwa.


I also gave three mechanisms of the formal enforcement of political correctness in our society: government standards for textbooks, politically correct style guides, and campus speech codes. We know that the mechanisms work, because political correctness is largely obeyed.


3. PC restricts freedom


Pro says, “Roy..... People dont have and never have had the personal freedom to commit violent crimes...... Try again”


Restricting people from freely bludgeoning there neighbors is a restriction on freedom. The restriction has always been in place, so it is ordinary. Ordinary means “what is commonplace or standard.” I gave other examples of ordinary restrictions on personal freedoms. The rules of political correctness are outside of the normal restrictions on personal free speech and actions, so they are extraordinary.


I claimed that leftists conform to the rules of political correctness. Of course liberals may depart from political correctness, just as Jews or Catholics can depart from their orthodoxies. I cite liberals opposed to PC censorship. Nonetheless the orthodoxy exists and is imposed through rules for textbooks, style guides, and campus rules on speech.


My point is that we observe that most liberals choose to conform to political correctness, just as we once observed that Puritans conformed to Puritan orthodoxy.


4. Political correctness governs behavior


Controlling how people may speak is controlling behavior. Say the wrong thing and language police will require you to take “sensitivity training.” [20. http://tinyurl.com...] [21.http://tinyurl.com...] [22. http://tinyurl.com...]


The Fort Hood massacre was carried out by radical Islamist Nidal Hasan, who openly preached jihad while serving as an Army officer. So why wasn't Hasan drummed out of the military before he got to killing soldiers? The climate of political correctness made people fearful of reporting and prosecuting radical Muslim behavior. It fact, the Army praised Hasan's jihadist rants as “diversity.” [23. http://tinyurl.com...]


The president of Harvard was fired for merely suggesting the possibility that psychological differences between men and women account for there being more men than women in some branches of science. Noted liberal Harvard jurist Alan Dershowitz described it has an act of political correctness. [24.http://tinyurl.com...]


Pro claims that political correctness governs only language. The two definitions I cited encompass behavior. Pro's definition sources actually include “wide-ranging cultural reform” and “languages and practices.”


I compared recycling done for sound economic and ecological reasons with recycling done solely for the quasi-religious principle that recycling is always good.


----


Pro dropped a number of points, and he used personal insults. Pro complained that he could not click through to some of my sources. It's unfortunate that some of the best work is not free, but that's not a good reason for excluding it from debate. Libraries have the books.




imabench

Pro

1 - Definition of Political Corectness

"The full definitions do a reasonable job of conveying orthodoxy"

Just because both definitions include the word 'belief' in them it does not mean you can jump to the conclusion that Political Correctness = Religion..... Political Correctness is the belief that certain language can be offensive to people, which is a complete fact that. Religion on the other hand is a belief in worldly supernatural, all knowing beings who can control everything, which is a totally different kind of belief to be talking about.



2 - Moral Superiority

"Pro's response is no more than his personal opinion that there is nothing more to PC than being sensitive."

Its not a personal opinion that PC is nothing more then being sensitive since the definition of Political Correctness is literally the understanding that certain terms and language can be offensive to others and that people can choose to be sensitive about their word choice as to not offend others on accident.




" Under political correctness, it is unacceptable to refer to a female restaurant server as a “waitress” and a male one as a “waiter.” "

Its perfectly acceptable to refer to a waitress as a waitress and a waiter as a waiter since there isnt an inherently evil connotation with the words 'waitress' or 'waiter'....



"But it takes a lecture in PC doctrine to explain why waiter and waitress are insensitive"

Theres a difference between words being slightly, even completely unnoticeably insensitive like using 'waiter' instead of 'server', and words being very visibly insensitive like using referring to anybody by the color of their skin. Political Correctness isnt practiced by people who want to make sure everything they say is completely neutral to everyone, its practiced by those who only want to make sure that what they say is acceptable to a reasonable degree.... And referring to waiter as a waiter or a waitress as a waitress is still reasonable to do.




"To believe in political correctness, you must first believe it is morally unacceptable to distinguish between men and women. Politically correct speech includes long lists of gender neutral terms. It is politically incorrect to call Meryl Streep an actress; political correctness demands in written rules actor be used universally."

You have an absurd idea of what political correctness means then, since there is nothing morally unacceptable with referring to Meryl Streep as an actress because she is quite literally an actress and because there is nothing wrong with calling a female actress an actress.





"Political correctness often allows insensitive, even outright vile, insults of conservatives, Christians, rich people, capitalists, men, Americans, and white people."

Roy, that is literally the exact opposite of what political correctness is, and a source listing statements that liberals have slung at conservatives doesnt prove that political correctness allows people to act atrociously towards white conservatives..... In fact each and every one of the examples in that list you sourced are cases where people are NOT being politically correct.




"Modern Islam is a contemporary example of religious control; insults of their holy figures can put you on a death fatwa."

But its the governments of those Predominantly Islamic nations that enforce those crazy fatwas. If the governments didnt enforce death fatwas on insulting holy figures then there wouldnt be any way for death fatwas to be enforced at all on those who insult Muslim Holy figures.....




3. PC 'restricts freedom'

"Restricting people from freely bludgeoning there neighbors is a restriction on freedom."

And its a sensible one too.

"The restriction has always been in place, so it is ordinary. Ordinary means “what is commonplace or standard.” I gave other examples of ordinary restrictions on personal freedoms. The rules of political correctness are outside of the normal restrictions on personal free speech and actions, so they are extraordinary."

Yeah, but that doesnt mean that PC restricts freedom because people can CHOOSE to not be politically correct if they dont want to be. Its completely voluntary!

If people want to voluntarily use safe language to not offend other people, then political correctness isnt the one curtailing their freedom because the person is voluntarily deciding to censor himself, its not being forced upon him to be politically correct.




" the orthodoxy exists and is imposed through rules for textbooks, style guides, and campus rules on speech."

Its not imposed though. Using politically correct speech is nothing but a recommendation for people to use a certain type of word choice if they want to avoid being seen as a hateful hick to his peers.





"My point is that we observe that most liberals choose to conform to political correctness, just as we once observed that Puritans conformed to Puritan orthodoxy."

Thats the equivalent of saying that since we observe that bad drivers choose to not use their blinkers, and that Puritans choose to believe in Puritan orthodoxy, then you can compare bad driver habits to the rules of any religion......





4. Political correctness 'governs' behavior

"Controlling how people may speak is controlling behavior. Say the wrong thing and language police will require you to take “sensitivity training.”"

There is no such thing as a formal language police though, and your examples just list people or organizations going (sometimes absurdly) too far in responding to what they believed are inappropriate, prejudicial, and even racist behavior because they look bad because of the actions of their subordinates. If you go out into the street and start yelling the N-word as loud as you can, no one is going to detain you and send you to sensitivity training because youre only making yourself look bad, not anyone else. If on the other hand you use examples of killing slaves as a fun way to teach kids how to lean math, then that makes you, the school, and even the state look bad and look like a bunch of prejudiced racists, in which sensitivity training is enacted.

Sensitivity training is only used when someone's insensitivity makes a company or an entire organization look bad when it isnt. On the personal level there is nothing stopping you from going out into town and yelling racist obscenities, because there is no language police.







"The Fort Hood massacre was carried out by radical Islamist Nidal Hasan, who openly preached jihad while serving as an Army officer. So why wasn't Hasan drummed out of the military before he got to killing soldiers? The climate of political correctness made people fearful of reporting and prosecuting radical Muslim behavior"

Political correctness did not cause the Fort Hood massacre to happen like your source idiotically claims, it was just one of many things that ALLOWED it to happen. There is a HUGE difference







"The president of Harvard was fired for merely suggesting the possibility that psychological differences between men and women account for there being more men than women in some branches of science"

He resigned because in addition to his statements which sparked an uproar at him and the university which made the University look bad, he also clashed with other teachers at Harvard, and had problematic financial conflict of interest questions between him and another professor.

It was a multitude of things that caused him to resign.





"Pro dropped a number of points, and he used personal insults"

I deny that I did either of those





"It's unfortunate that some of the best work is not free, but that's not a good reason for excluding it from debate. Libraries have the books."

If I cant verify your sources then I'll treat those arguments as unsubstantiated opinions, if you want to run that risk then thats your choice, and choosing to use verifiable sources is just like choosing to be politically correct.... It doesnt make it a religion.
Debate Round No. 3
RoyLatham

Con

The direct comparison of PC to religion is made in an academic study

Using the agreed-upon definition of "stupid" the resolution becomes:

Comparing political correctness to the rules of religion shows a lack of ability to learn and understand things.

Early in the debate I quoted Geoffrey Hughes, a professor of English Language History. The Professor authored a book-length academic study entitled Political Correctness: A History of Semantics and Culture ," in which he made the direct comparison:

Puritanism ... has considerable and enduring relevance to political correctness, since it encapsulates strictness in morality with a Pharisaic attitude of being “holier than thou,” combined with an unhealthy curiosity, even an inquisitiveness or inquisitorial attitude concerning the “lapses” and “nonconformity” of others. Not for nothing has political correctness been stigmatized as the New Puritanism. [8]

The was published in 2009 by Wiley-Blackwell, a major academic book publisher, in their Language Lbrary series. So Pro is claiming that the professor, among others, is stupid. It's not plausible that the duly-credentialed Professor who studied the subject is unable to learn and understand. It's possible that the professor is wrong on some points because he analyzed or interpreted incorrectly, but it's not plausibe he is wrong because he lacks the intellectual capacity for learning. He presents his analysis coherently in the context of carefully-researched history. Pro presented no contrary expert opinion.

I think nothing more is required to conclude that Pro has lost his argument in this debate.

PC goes way beyond Pro's claim of it being a minor suggestion

Pro argues that political correctness goes no further than disapproving of racist and sexist language. He bases his whole case on two dictionary definitions that he timmed to suit his purposes. My two dictionary definitions invoked orthodoxy and behavior as part of political correctness. Looking up Pro's defintions, we find that material he excluded make them much closer to mine.

Pro argued that words do not have meanings beyond their dictionary definitions. I gave the extreme counterexample of the word "golf" upon which the dictionary goes no further than it being an outdoor sport played with clubs. I cited a popular book that compares golf fanatics as being comparable to religion. Less extreme, definitions of "Puritan" say they were about simplifying worship and eliminating remnats of Catholicism in Protestant worship. That come no where near even a modest understanding of what the Puritans were. Dictionaries are not the end of understanding a subject, they are barest beginning of understanding. I cited a half dozen books and dozen or so articles and news stories that describe political correctness. Pro used no references other than his two dictionary definitions in the entire debate.

The resolution refers to the "rules of religion." At no time did I claim that political correctness is a religion; it is not. The comparison was limited to mirroring certain aspects of religion. A key point of comparison are restrictions on language designed to reinforce behavior. A religious person avoids language deemed blastphemous and strives to conform to the behavior pattern of his orthodoxy, and he believes that a person who does so is more moral than a person who does not. A political correct person avoids gender-specific and other language and he strives to conform to the behavior pattern of his orthodoxy, and he believes that a person who does so is more moral than a person who does not. Religons demand certain behaviors, so does political correctness. A behavior example is that political correctness demands recycling, and the demand applies in even in cases that make no sense from the viewpoints of ecology or economics.

No of this argues which behavirs are good or bad. I think most of us would agree that religious orthodoxy demanding honesty is good and that political correctness orthodoxy prohibiting use of racial slurs is also go. How much of an orthodoxy is not elevant to our debate. The debate is where an orthodoxy of political correctness exists.

Pro made specific arguments as to why comparisons were "stupid":

Pro argued the rules of PC are not written down and well organized

We know that in fact complex religious orthodoxies were obeyed in socities that had no writing. I pointed to the complex rules of the ancient Hawaiian religion, obeyed espite there being no writing and hence no scripture. To this day, religious orthodoxies are obeyed by people who have no system writing.

But the rules of PC are written down for the purpose of enforcement. There are written in requirements for state school textbooks, in the styleguide for the press, and as campus speech codes.

Pro claimed that the average person is completely unaware of the rules of political correctness. I posed a short test as to which of two alternatives was politically correct. Everyone knows. Pro admitted people obey, but they can't list the rules. Sure, that's the whole idea of ingraining an orthodoxy into language, per newspeak.

Pro argued that only government can bring about compliance, and PC has no government enforcement

Social pressure alone can bring about compliance. Most of religious orthodoxy is voluntary or is enforced only by social pressure, for example the manner of dress adopted by the Mennonites or the Jewish practice of returning home by sundown on Friday. In the extreme, Muslim practices of honor killing are carried out in non-Muslim countries (google the phrase "Muslim man kills daughter"). Fatwas are carried by Muslim fanatics in non-Muslim countries. Being voluntary does not made a strict orthodoxy any less of strict orthodoxy.

PC, however, has specific enforcement mechanisms. States enforce the PC written rules on PC in textbooks. The military reuires sensitivity training of soldiers who fail to obey the PC rules. On campuses, restrictive PC speech codes are enforced on both students and faculty.

Fear of enforcement of PC rules enabled the Ford Hood massacre. I think "enabling" is quite enough. PC rules led to the firing of the president of Harvard according to Prof. Dershowitz. Pro claimed other factors in addition to PC, but gave no evidence.

Pro argued that religions only have rules about worship and deities

I cited many counterexamples, e.g. only four of the Ten Commandments deal with worship and deities. However, there are religions like Jainism and Buddhism that have strong orthodoxies governing behavior, but no worship and no deities.

it's valid to compare only the behavior and language parts of religious orthodoxy to PC. A children's poem says "the moon is like a silver penny." The comparison is not stupid, even though major factors of mass and orbital characteristics are overlooked in the comparison.

Debate Issues

S&G. Pro doesn't use apostrophes. You're become youre. How annoying is that?

Sources. I gave two dozen references showing the meaning of PC and it's role in society. Pro offered only two dictionaries, from which he trimmed the definitions to suit his purposes. I cited everyone from Christopher Hitchens to Alan Dershowitz. Surely if the books an the subject were wrong, there would be sources saying so, but Pro had none. If PC did not enable the Ft. Hood shooter or was not the major factor in dismissing the President of Harvard, some reputable source could be cited. Pro relied entirely on his own authority.

Conduct. I made a point in the challenge of getting Pro to "agree not to use personal attacks, insults, or obscenity." He was dismissive, saying "Roy..... <denial>...... Try again" and got to "Youre not even making any sense anymore,.." and "... is this all still unsubstantiated babble that isnt worth even correcting?"

Arguments. Pro has the burden to prove that a comparison between the rules of religion and politcal correctness is stupid. He did not meet that burden.

Thanks to Pro for an interesting debate.
imabench

Pro

1) Comparison of PC to that of a religion

"Using the agreed-upon definition of "stupid" the resolution becomes: Comparing political correctness to the rules of religion shows a lack of ability to learn and understand things."

1) No it doesnt
2) Are you seriously trying to change the resolution in the very last round of the debate Roy? Come on, have some decency



"The was published in 2009 by Wiley-Blackwell, a major academic book publisher, in their Language Lbrary series. So Pro is claiming that the professor, among others, is stupid."

No, im simply claiming that they are wrong and kinda biased.... Academic professors arent incapable of being wrong either Roy, one of them said in 2008 that homosexuals are inherently selfish because they dont have children and contribute nothing to the economy http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...

Just because they are professors at prestigious schools, it doesnt exempt them from having their own moments of stupidity.




2) PC goes 'way beyond' Pro's claim of it being a minor suggestion

"My two dictionary definitions invoked orthodoxy and behavior as part of political correctness"

Your two definitions were things you dug up from pre 1990 to give your arguments a small degree of relevancy, mine were the only ones that were actually accurate and even relevant to what political correctness even means.




"Pro argued that words do not have meanings beyond their dictionary definitions"


Putting words in my mouth is a pretty sad move on your part Roy....




"I cited a half dozen books and dozen or so articles and news stories that describe political correctness."


No you didnt, what you tried to do was cite a dozen or so articles and try to pass it off as political correctness gone wild when in reality they were so nonsensical they werent even relevant to the debate.




"The comparison was limited to mirroring certain aspects of religion."

Again, no it wasnt.... Youre own quote compared the rules of political correctness to the rules of a religion, not just certain aspects of the rules of a religion, ALL of the rules of a religion.




"A political correct person avoids gender-specific and other language and he strives to conform to the behavior pattern of his orthodoxy"

Except THEY DONT. Political correctness focuses on not using words that are derogatory and offensive, not words that are gender specific......




"Religons demand certain behaviors, so does political correctness"

Political correctness only asks you to voluntary alter ONE of your behaviors, to not come off as insensitive to others.... Religions on the other hand demand so many certain behaviors you could write a BOOK about it, which is why there are holy books like the Bible and the Quran in the first place.





3) The rules of PC are not written down and well organized


"I pointed to the complex rules of the ancient Hawaiian religion, obeyed despite there being no writing and hence no scripture."

One religion in one isolated part of the world doesnt negate the fact that a common characteristic of religions is still a written code of laws for who to worship, how to worship, what you can do, what you cant do, etc.




"There are written in requirements for state school textbooks, in the styleguide for the press, and as campus speech codes"

And that doesnt make political correctness a religion.... Schools, Newspapers, and College Campuses can all receive flak if one of their faculty starts dropping the n-word everywhere, and the reason they enforce certain speech codes isnt because they want to be politically correct, its because they dont want to look bad because one of their employees is looking like an insensitive prick.....



"Pro claimed that the average person is completely unaware of the rules of political correctness. I posed a short test as to which of two alternatives was politically correct"

Examples of political correctness =/= written rules of political correctness Roy..... If I asked people the question of 'which sounds more offensive' and used your list of examples, that doesnt imply that there is a written code of laws on how to be racist, they are just examples of racism, just how like your version are examples of being politically correct.



"Fear of enforcement of PC rules enabled the Ford Hood massacre. I think "enabling" is quite enough."

Except it isnt, saying that it enabled the shooting and saying that it caused the shooting are two completely different things Roy, and to claim it doesnt is known as 'Pulling a Geo' around here.




"PC rules led to the firing of the president of Harvard according to Prof. Dershowitz. Pro claimed other factors in addition to PC, but gave no evidence."

Feel free to enlighten yourself then: http://en.wikipedia.org...

'Summers resigned as Harvard's president in the wake of a no-confidence vote by Harvard faculty that resulted in large part from Summers's conflict with Cornel West, financial conflict of interest questions regarding his relationship with Andrei Shleifer, and a 2005 speech in which he suggested that the under-representation of women in science and engineering could be due to a "different availability of aptitude at the high end'

"it's valid to compare only the behavior and language parts of religious orthodoxy to PC."

except we're NOT jsut comparing the behaviro and language aspects of religion to PC..... We're comparing ALL of the rules of religion to those of PC since that is the claim that your quote is centered around




4) Religions have rules about worship and deities

"it's valid to compare only the behavior and language parts of religious orthodoxy to PC."

Not in this scenario where you were the one who claimed that 'The rules of PC is comparable to the rules of a religion.'.... Given youre quote, we are comparing the 'rules' of PC to ALL of the rules of a religion, not just the ones you want people to look at.


=====================================================================================

S&G: 'Pro doesn't use apostrophes. You're become youre. How annoying is that? '

You really are desperate Roy...... Also, I wasnt the one who tried to cherry-picked definitions, tried to change the resolution of the debate in the final round, or misspell the title of the debate either......



Sources: 'I gave two dozen references showing the meaning of PC and it's role in society.'


Problem is though 90% of those links you posted didnt have anything to do with the actual resolution, and were simply tie-ins to arguments that were completely non-sensical......



Conduct. 'I made a point in the challenge of getting Pro to "agree not to use personal attacks, insults, or obscenity." He was dismissive.'

And being dismissive wasnt illegal.



Arguments. 'Pro has the burden to prove that a comparison between the rules of religion and politcal correctness is stupid. He did not meet that burden.'

I think thats for the voters to decide isnt it?

============================================================================================

Conclusion:

For those of you who skimmed through most of this debate (I dont blame ya) Here is what it boils down to:

Political correctness ONLY deals with the careful use of language to not be offensive to other people, the rules of a religion on the other hand encompasses WAAAAAAAAY more then that, which makes it stupid to compare the two according to Roy's quote that:

"This is embodied in the elaborate rules of political correctness, which match the rules of any religion"

I rest my case. Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 4
84 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheLastMan 3 years ago
TheLastMan
*subjective
Posted by TheLastMan 3 years ago
TheLastMan
@funwiththoughts: A religion don't have to have a God. It isn't up to other people to decide one's religion. One can call eating food is a religion because the definition is subjecting. If you don't think eating food is not a religion, that's fine. But, it is also fine if one calls it a religion. It's not stupid at all.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
@funwiththoughts, So how does having ladies in the example change the meaning of "match." You are arguing that context affects meaning, with which I generally agree, but I don't see it.

The context that of "match" for the debate was that a had given many examples of what I was talking about, and none of them involved gods or worship. Therefore it is not logical to suppose I was talking about gods or worship. I also said "rules of religion" rather than just "religion." That makes it clear that I was only talking about some subset of the properties of religion, not religion as a whole. I didn't state any one to one identity, and none exists even among religions. Clearly that wasn't the claim.
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
@RoyLatham: Since you specified fashionable "ladies", the example does not involve a man. I did not try a different definition. I specified that *in the example given* a different definition is used which does not match.

And the context did NOT change anything in this instance. In my experience, debaters only "take words independent of their context and then argue the meaning" when there is no unusual context to begin with.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
@funwiththoughts, No, in the example, the "match" is only that the colors are similar or identical. A man matching his socks to his necktie would not be fashionable, except in parts of California. Your point was that for two things to match every detail of the two must be identical. That's not true. That being disproved, you now try a difference definition that also not true. Often enough, things that match often only match in some respects. Throughout, you do not deny that the rules of PC match the rules of religion in the three respects noted. The comparison was evident not only to Prof Hughes, but to Kavitch, Hitchens, and others, including dictionaries.

The reason I'm beating you up on this is that it is common for debaters to take words independent of their context and then argue the meaning as if there were no context, claiming in effect that every key word ought to be defined every time it is use. That's not the way language works. Language can be clear from context without posting footnotes with every sentence.
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
@RoyLatham: In the example you give, "match" means that two things go well together or complement each other nicely (in this case the women believe that their shoes should be the same color as their handbag). At no point in the debate did you argue that political correctness and religion work well with each other, but rather that they are similar. Nor did you claim, at least in debate, that political correctness IS a set of religious rules-on the contrary, you agressively denied having said anything of the sort, insisting you were only comparing them.

@TheLastMan: a) PCness, at the very least, has no god or superhuman power. b) saying a word is "hard to define" does not necessarily give more or less credence to any one usage.

@wordy: This might be valid if not for Roy's repeated insistence that he had never claimed PC was identical to religion, both in the debate and in the comments.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
"Match" does not in itself say what it is about the two things that match. Fashionable ladies worry that their shoes match their handbag. No one hears that and concludes that the handbag must be the same size and shape as a shoe. When they "match," what matches is the color. Obviously saying rules "match" does mean every rule in one set is identical with every rule of another set. Instead the reference is to matching what every set of religious rules has in common: they are prescribed by a moral elite, subscribing to the rules is implies moral worth to the subscribers, and the rules are not all required to be logical.

Suppose a set of rules is presented, by an anthropologist. How would one know if they were religious rules or not? Certainly the test would not be that they are identical to the known rules of an existing religion. The test would to match the nature of the rules.
Posted by wordy 3 years ago
wordy
"To say something matches itself is a redundancy"- It's still correct. When is repeatation necessary? Repeatation and analogy is necessary to make something understandable. For an example- Mr.X doesn't know that Islam is a religion(or atleast he doesn't consider Islam as religion). But, he knows what religion is. At this situation, It is reasonable to tell him that rules of Islam is like rules of a religion in order to make the concept more clear. It's not stupid at all.
Posted by TheLastMan 3 years ago
TheLastMan
"While I agree that the TOU should be enforced better, to call a statement stupid is not a violation. A person is neither just one statement they have made or composed of statements they have made, so insulting a statement is not necessarily insulting the person who made it, and vice versa."-- It's not like I don't like imabench. I do like him and his weekly stupid. But, calling something stupid which is not stupid is wrong.
Posted by TheLastMan 3 years ago
TheLastMan
Religions don't have to match with other religions.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by miketheman1200 3 years ago
miketheman1200
RoyLathamimabenchTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Even after reading this thing Imabench sums it up perfectly in the first round. PC does not dictate how a person should live their lives, just what would be more appropriate to say. Religious doctrine is less of a suggestion and more of a "this is how you must live". Sources to Pro because I WOWED at some of what con was putting out there. Good effort from both sides either way.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
RoyLathamimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Reasons for voting decision: RoyLatham wins in reliable sources because he included more, and not wikipedia, which is a semi-unreliable source. I gave pro a slight advantage in arguments because he chose my side, and argued his side just as well as Roy. Sorry if this is Biased. RoyLatham still debated his side very well. Spelling as grammar, like always, goes to Roy. I thought PRO was funnier and had a bit of a better attitude than Roy in this debate, who, like always, was the serious debater. Before the argument, I will admit that I was already leaning a bit toward pro's side, and he convinced me throughout the argument. Good job to both debates!!!
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
RoyLathamimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: Sources go to Pro, for using solid reputable sources. Con used sites like Breitbart.com and tracts that appeared on White Supremacist sites like MajorityRule.com ("What is Sensitivity Training?). These are simply not reliable sources. Pro also needs to get S&G since Con misspelled the title, and made errors like confusing "there" and "their." As for arguments, I agree that there are similarities between religion and political correctness, just like there are similarities between Political Correctness and carrots. However, the two things are really not the same thing, and Con ran into a false analogy fallacy here. Is it "stupid" to compare the two things? I really don't want to take a side that has me calling either of these debaters "stupid," which it seemed like Con was trying to argue (that Pro was calling him "Stupid.") These guys are not stupid, but it is usually a bad idea to compare apples and oranges. Religion and PC are not the same thing, and its a bad idea to say they are.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
RoyLathamimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt that imabench misrepresented (unintentionally I am sure) several points raised in the debate. For instance, arguing in round 3 about how religion is a belief in the supernatural and PC is about belief of offensive language. It really doesn't address Roy's argument or his intentions. I agree with Bench's definition of Political Correctness. I think he lost a tremendous amount of strategic ground by letting Roy define his own hilarious perception of PC and taking it to new levels. I didn't find the dictionary definitions to be accurate and were easily dismantled by Roy providing more extensive definitions.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
RoyLathamimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Fairly clear that CON has done lots of reading on this subject. S&G goes more for clarity than for outright grammar and spelling.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
RoyLathamimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. (Modification: BoP seems to have been based on Con's literal definitions of "Stupid." I take back my Arguments for Pro).
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
RoyLathamimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
RoyLathamimabenchTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Good job to both debaters. However, I think Con did a really good job of showing how PC is enforced for example by the left, to live by moral, free, choice. As opposed to people on the right who want to live by a moral code of honor. Very tough debate. I really and thoroughly enjoyed it.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
RoyLathamimabenchTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct on Pro's behalf was shockingly good. Both sides were even however. Spelling and Grammar was also good. I felt Con listed off more than enough counter examples to debunk Pro's arguments, and Pro made a lot of arguments based off what PC's supposed to be, but not what it actually is. And too many arguments using the dictionary definition of things instead of the real-world variant. Both sides were close but Roy had more standing arguments. As for sources, Bsh11 should be ashamed. Con had a myriad of sources every round, while Pro had only 4 sources I counted, two were definitions, and one was Wikipedia. Con won sources with out trying. I'm calling Bsh11 out. Debate me about your decision to give Pro sources if you believe it was justified.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 3 years ago
Logical-Master
RoyLathamimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Convincing Arguments: I detest political correctness, but didn't have a position on whether it was comparable to a religion until after the debate. CON wins this debate since it boils down to whether its stupid to compare political correctness to the RULES of A religion (as in not all). Pro's weakness is more or less comparing PC'ness to mainstream religions and making comparisons beyond simply the rules, He wraps up at the end by saying that the rules of a religion encompass "way more" than PC'ness. CON's examples of Janaism and Buddhism were powerful and PRO didn't do much to overcome them. Reliable Sources: CON had more sources to support his argument. Granted, I'd recommend that he make sure they are all publicly in accessible in the future. In real life, if a judge can't access a source, he'll act as if it doesn't exist. Spelling/Grammar: I see nothing that warrants a vote on either side. PRO had a few errors, but so did CON. Conduct: See comments.