The Instigator
NDECD1441
Con (against)
The Contender
Dr.Maniac
Pro (for)

Naming and shaming of microaggressions does more good than harm

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Dr.Maniac has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2016 Category: People
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 72 times Debate No: 97333
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

NDECD1441

Con

First round is for acceptance of the debate, the second round is for the arguments and the third is for rebutals. Definition of microaggression: A minor version of an aggression/a sarcastic way of offending another person. Naming and shaming those are supported by the Prosecutor while discouraged by Contender
Dr.Maniac

Pro

OK, I accept this debate
Debate Round No. 1
NDECD1441

Con

First and foremost:
Micro-aggression or not, it is still an aggression. So why should we even use this type of aggression? You know humans have a really big ego so why point them out? What we want is a clean world free of these "micro-monsters" because of the disadvantages of "naming and shaming micro-aggressions". My stance is that naming and shaming these do have a few Pros but just less than the Cons.

Think back of the last time you were in a "Do as I say not as I do" situation. Thing is, you may not have realized it but you have used micro-aggressions before. They can be so mild as saying "So awesome!" in a sarcastic tone out of jealousy. Nobody wants to be a hypocrite but they might sound like one if they name or shame it.

Remember when I mentioned something about we humans having a really big ego? What I was meaning by it is that we are not fans of being corrected. Only 1/6 of the entire human population are okay with being corrected so therefore, they joined debating. When you name it, you say: "Hey! You are using a micro-aggression! Please stop using it." This way, they only need to hear three words to get offended: Hey, stop, it. If you shame it, it's even worse. "Hey! You are using a micro-aggression! It's bad and it makes you look stupid. Please stop using it." Oops. An extra sentence to add more pain: It's bad and it makes you look stupid. In that case, your plan of making that person stop backfired on you. The person who just got offended will definitely turn on you and use something worse than just a micro-aggression and soon, the possibility of a fight starting is will be reaching it's limit.

In all, out of the many problems there are, the most impactful are the ones that will damage your reputation which are sounding like a hypocrite and starting an argument or, even worse, a fight. With that I'll like to conclude. Thanks for accepting this challenge and good luck! :)
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by TheBenC 1 week ago
TheBenC
I know what SJWs call microaggressions but I don't care. If someone can break at all, that is their problem and not the world's problem. If someone breaks because of something microscopic they should stop focusing on their feelings and get some real world experience. Climb a mountain, live in the woods for a week or even try getting a job and paying for your own rent and food. Those things will toughen you up enough that you don't get broken because someone said something you didn't like.

And yeah, I intentionally use your microagressions any time this kind of topic comes up.
Posted by NDECD1441 1 week ago
NDECD1441
TheBenC, just because you are so though doesn't mean other people out there are. As I said, you may not have realized it but you have used it many times before. Your first comment, for example, was one to me. So what is this problem you asked? It is that this aggression is used for too many times already. Everyone has a breaking point even for the smallest of things. This is a debate you have to concentrate on really hard to understand it.
Posted by NDECD1441 1 week ago
NDECD1441
The problem I am trying to stop is that this is used too much already. Some people ARE unable to take sarcasm because it is so easily sensed which can make it harder for them. A load of debaters do agree with micro-aggressions existing.

GrimlyF, is what you are trying to say meaning micro-aggressions are bad? I agree with micro-aggressions being bad and we want it to stop particularly because it's so bad, but remember what I said. People seldom like being corrected for they have different thinking and do what they think is right. My answer to this problem is that we don't want any more of these macro/micro-aggressions so that we don't need to name or shame them. Get it? Pro is saying they want to name and shame them and what better way to do that than to continue with these macro/micro-aggressions being used?
Posted by TheBenC 1 week ago
TheBenC
quote - "Definition of microaggression: A minor version of an aggression/a sarcastic way of offending another person."

My position is microaggressions do not exist. This is a new made up term used by SJWs used to control the thoughts and words of others. It is fascist by nature. Silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is not the way to solve problems that go much deeper than speech.

You failed to show me what the problem is that you are trying to solve. People get offended by sarcasm, is that it?

If people cannot tolerate speech then they sure as he11 should be scared to death by the idea that free speech is being chipped away.
Posted by GrimlyF 1 week ago
GrimlyF
CON. So what is your answer to the problem?.Should we applaud the workplace bully,the neighbour dumping his garden waste over your fence,the person pushing in front of you in a queue?.Unacceptable behaviour is just that.Unacceptable.Tit for tat is also unacceptable as you merely double the problem with no resolution.Micro/macro aggression are the same beast except one has bigger teeth and both should be nipped in the bud.You should report the bully,if you have a town council or neighbourhood watch report the illegal dumping,you should remonstrate with the queue jumper and tell the salesperson your place has been usurped.In short you should refuse to be a victim after all what will your children think,what will they grow up to be,after seeing you pushed around by all and sundry.
Posted by NDECD1441 1 week ago
NDECD1441
TheBenC, I don't mean to disrespect but could you explain a little more? I don't really get what you are trying to say that is related to this debate but just to simplify things, let me explain about this debate. Sarcasm can be used in a good or a bad way as you probably know. Sarcasm is not wrong all the time but that is not what I am talking about in this debate. My stance is saying that mentioning and criticizing the wrong sorts of sarcasm bring more harm than good. I don't see anything related to this debate involving sarcasm being wrong but I may have missed out something that you found so please, tell me more. My big ego point only mentions the normal behavior of 5/6 of the worlds' population (no offense) and certainly does not mean sarcasm is wrong.

PS: No one wants to kill themselves unless they are really depressed. The people are just going to get offended.
Posted by TheBenC 1 week ago
TheBenC
So now sarcasm is wrong? Toughen up butter cup! If you cannot handle criticism or even sarcasm you should just shoot yourself. Life will be way too hard for you and you will have less troubles if you just die.
Posted by TheBenC 1 week ago
TheBenC
If someone ever accused me of a microaggression I would have to get physically aggressive.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.