The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Politcal Correctness Is Bad

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 412 times Debate No: 94109
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




I think that political correctness is a very bad idea in general. While I can see that people who implemented it meant good. In practice, The Liberal/Democrats use it as a weapon. To silence those who have a opposing political view. In the past few years, We have been seeing the rise of Islamic extremism as more and more terrorist attacks happen by the day. But whenever there is a Muslim who commits a terrorist attack, The Leftists avoid using the term Muslim or Islamic Terrorist. Because political correctness says so. Other case of political correctness is for example. A man who became a woman through a sex change Is still a man. Because biology and medical definitions say so(Look up the term Gender Identity Disorder) But when you say that a biological Male who identifies as a female is still a male. Liberals shout at you and call you a bigot, whenever you simply state the facts. Ben Shapiro once said "Facts don't care about your feelings" Which is 100% True. Whenever I'm not politically correct and I simply state the facts the way they are. I get called a bigot, racist, sexist, and anti-social justice. All of those terms are just buzzwords. Liberals try to get you to shut up by calling you those buzzwords because no one wants to be a bigot, racist and sexist. So this is a weapon that is used to silence those who don't want to sugarcoat everything


Pro believes that political correctness is bad. To be bad, it must do more harm than good. Let's look at his argument (and bear in mind that he has burden of proof that political correctness does more harm than good).

Pro states that the liberal/democrats use political correctness as a weapon to silence those who have an opposing political view. Yet he has stated no evidence that shows a liberal or democrat politician (the only way you can be sure that they are a liberal or a democrat is if they 1. tell you or 2. are a politician in a liberal/democrat party) using political correctness to silence somebody's point of view.

Also, we have to make sure that we don't confuse political correctness with a valid counter argument. I have seen this conversation happen a lot before:

Person A: 'Terrorism would stop if we banned Islam!'
Person B: No it wouldn't it would create more extremists because not all muslims are terrorists (in fact 0.06% of muslims are in terrorist groups) so by banning their religion you would create extremists out of moderates who felt the need to defend their way of life.
Person A: Then they can stay in the middle east where they belong! You political correctness types are what's wrong with the world!

Here we see a valid counterargument from person B (who I imagine Pro would genuinely consider to be a 'liberal') being silenced by person A who cannot differentiate between political correctness and a very valid counter argument. The people who believe that banning Islam would stop terrorism (despite the fact that Islam doesn't kill people, people who want to kill people and are using Islam as a banner under which they can do so without actually understanding Islam) are generally the same people who believe that banning guns won't solve gun crime (because they rightly say that criminals, the people who don't use their guns 'properly,' won't give up their guns; well it's the same with Islam).

Pro also states that 'a man who becomes a woman through a sex change is still a man. This can be true and it can't be true. A man and a woman have different brains. It is biologically possible for an individual with a female brain to be born into a male body and vice versa. Therefore, their 'gender' was never male. So when they have a sex change they go from being biologically male with a female gender to being biologically female with a male gender. Pro, I assume, does not deny the existence of hermaphrodites, who can have either male or female gender but are born with both male and female organs. If pro accepts the existence os hermaphrodites then he must accept that your body is not always aligned correctly with your mind. And therefore is accepting that an individual with a female mind born in a male body is female of gender but not female biologically, unless they have a sex change in which case they become female biologically as well. And, even if that weren't true (and I have provided undeniable proof that not only is it true, but unless Pro denies the existence of hermaphrodites he also has to agree with me that it is true) why does it do more harm than good to prevent you from telling somebody who is born a female in a male's body and not doing any harm to anybody that they are not allowed to be female because it doesn't fit within your worldview and therefore discredit them as the gender they feel they are? And although there is evidence that some people regret having a sex change, the number of people who do experience some regret are only 3-18% of everybody who does. Therefore preventing everybody from having a sex change simply because of the 3-18% of those who do regret it would prevent the beneficial effects in the 82-97% of the population who decide to get it. That would be doing more harm than good. Therefore, when Pro tells a transexual man that they are not a real man, they are not 'stating facts' (as we have shown that they are in fact a man gender-wise even if they are not biologically), they are just projecting their world-view onto somebody who does not want it and are doing this for no other reason than they believe that they are right, and want the other person to think that they are right no matter how much this might hurt the other person.

So we have seen that Pro's argument that political correctness is used by 'liberals' to 'silence' views they disagree with is just Pro confusing valid counterarguments for political correctness. The reason that Pro does this is that he seems to think his 'facts' are right 100% of the time and that people with opposing opinions must be wrong, and the only reason they could think otherwise to him is that society tells them to and it's all a big liberal conspiracy, so political correctness is what he's blaming it on. He has not proved that political correctness does more harm than good. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1


1. Countering Con's first point

"Pro states that the liberal/democrats use political correctness as a weapon to silence those who have an opposing political view"

I would like to clarify that not ALL Liberals/Democrats are like this, It was a mistake on my part. Many Liberals can be accepting of opposing political views,

"Yet he has stated no evidence that shows a liberal or democrat politician (the only way you can be sure that they are a liberal or a democrat is if they 1. tell you or 2. are a politician in a liberal/democrat party) "

While I never said the politicians silence the views of their opposition with PC, Normal Citizens with liberal views try to silence Citizens/Politicians who are conservative
Here I have some evidence regarding instances when liberals/democrats tried to silence conservative views.

Ben Shapiro being silenced for talking about conservative views at a majority liberal university
Video clips of liberals attacking people trying to attend the Ben Shapiro talk:

Facebook trying to censor conservative views
So you can see that from these instances that some(notice I said some) liberals have to restore to pulling fire alarms to
stop conservatives from talking, blocking people who want to listen to a point of view that may differ from them(Liberals AND Conservatives wanted to hear what he had to say) They used tactics like creating a human wall around the doors to enter the talk hosted by Ben, Kicking and punching of people trying to get through the wall, shouting chants at people and companies want to look "Politically correct" so they try to censor conservative news outlets and people from talking. While they are using the rules of political correctness to find justification of their actions like how ISIS uses the rules of Islam to justify their actions.

2.Countering Con's Second Point

"Person A: 'Terrorism would stop if we banned Islam!'
Person B: No it wouldn't it would create more extremists because not all muslims are terrorists (in fact 0.06% of muslims are in terrorist groups) so by banning their religion you would create extremists out of moderates who felt the need to defend their way of life.
Person A: Then they can stay in the middle east where they belong! You political correctness types are what's wrong with the world!"

Oh man, I have seen this tactic all the time. He states that I confuse political correctness with a valid counter argument which I don't. But let me talk about his Tactic. His Person A and Person B example is very very wrong he tries to paint person B as a cool, collective and calm person(who just so happens to be a liberal) and paints Person A as an rash, brute and unintelligent person(Con is implying that Person A is conservative). First of all, The tactic Con just pulled is called a STRAWMAN logical fallacy or commonly know as "Putting words into someone's mouth". I think he assumes that since I'm a conservative that I believe the Islam should banned which I DON'T by the way. Here is a example:

Say for instance that person A is a proponent of Windows, while person B is a proponent of MacOS. Person B may say "MacOS is a great operating system. You'll say that it sucks because 'there are no games' for Macs, but this isn't the case. Here is a list of mainstream games that run on MacOS: you obviously don't know what you're talking about."

Now, person B has branded person A as ignorant, but it might have been that person A wasn't even going to bring up the 'no games for macs' argument. However, since the debunking of A's fictional claim occured immediately, before A even had a chance to say that he wasn't going to mention games at all, B has 'scored a point' by false means.

Con just did the ol' Strawman

3.Counter Con's Third Point

I looked into some articles about Transgender Brain Scansand that their is some evidence about it being true(which I will admit that this theory is plausible) it's still a THEORY it has not been
fully proven, I would like to see a study with a higher sample size(Maybe 1000 transgender people vs 1000 males and females) One important thing you forgot was "correlation does not mean causation"
From this data i can assume that people divorce less when they eat less margarine which is WRONG.

Final Thoughts:
"Pro does this is that he seems to think his 'facts' are right 100% of the time" I Never said that
I don't believe in a big liberal conspiracy that's hogwash.
Some Liberals love to use brute force to enforce PC in the vids i have shown, Vote Pro!



The premise of this debate is that political correctness is bad. For pro to be right about this, he must show that political correctness does more 'bad' than it does 'good.'

However, Pro states that 'many liberals can be accepting of opposing political views.'

If that is the case, then the people that he feels are abusing political correctness to silence peoples views he agrees are a minority. Therefore, how could political correctness be doing more bad than good?

Pro then concedes that politicians are not silencing the views of their opposition by abusing political correctness. As it is the politicians who make all the decisions about where the country is headed, he is again showing that conservatives are still getting their voices heard by the people that matter regardless of how ordinary citizens, who do not have the ability to enact policy that changes where the country is moving, use political correctness, the vast majority of who he earlier conceded don't abuse political correctness anyway. Therefore, the harm, if any, that is being done by political correctness is negligible whereas the good that it is doing by not allowing racists and sexists to stop minorities and women from having their voices heard by stopping politicians who are racist and sexist from keeping their jobs when they make racist and sexist comments.

Pro cites a number of examples of people being silenced for their conservative views. However, many of these don't seem to have anything to do with political correctness. Facebook is a business; if it was a social media site which allowed people to post things like 'it's too difficult to distinguish normal muslims from terrorist muslims' then they would lose a lot of their Muslim following as people would not feel safe on the site and neither would many people want their children on the site. The reason facebook censored (if it did censor it at all as the evidence provided simply shows that Facebook made a mistake which they apologised for) the post had nothing to do with political correctness. It was a business decision which was made primarily off of the kind of environment that Facebook wanted to create - one where people felt safe and wanted. The reason they wanted that environment was not because they are trying to silence conservatives and has nothing to do with political correctness, it was primarily so they could get more money by keeping a large section of their Muslim population by ensuring they felt safe to be on the site. That example is irrelevant to the question of political correctness.

As for Ben Shapiro's interview, attacking people for attending an event is not at all okay and not liberal either as liberalism is about the freedom of ideas. However, people were not protesting him because he was not 'politically correct,' they were protesting because they strongly disagreed with his ideas and believe that they promote harm. It is very obvious that the use of political correctness has not been used to silence his ideas because people know what his views and opinions are and therefore he has not been silenced - he has had a platform, even though some people are protesting against him because they want to make it known that they do not share his platform and that they disagree with his views. No silencing has happened here. Even though he did not finish the talk, that did not stop people from knowing what his views are.

Again, as you have pointed out, even the people attempting to stop the conservative from talking are in the vast minority, and thus even if political correctness was being used to silence him, it is not working and it is a vast minority of people who are supposedly doing it. Thus the harm, as I stated before, cannot outweigh the good, which I also stated earlier.

A strawman fallacy is not putting words into somebody's mouth. It is attacking a person instead of their argument. I have not attacked you, I have simply attacked your argument. Whereas you have ignored mine and accused me of doing something that I have not. My second point was that political correctness is often blamed when in fact somebody has just issued a valid counter argument. I gave an example in which that was the case where I did not reference any particular individual, just two people with opposing opinions. You are the only one here who continually makes references to liberals and conservatives - there is too much variety in these types of people to generalize like you admitted you made the mistake of doing earlier.

Pro is correct that a correlation does not mean causation, but whether transgender people exist or not is irrelevant to the debate. My third point, which Pro did not touch on, was that if these people do exist or not, it does no good to let people attack them with hurtful words that have no purpose but to cause hurt and often originate from a lack of research which Pro admitted to in the last round. It does do good to protect them from that.
Debate Round No. 2


I could not respond to all of Con's points do to the character limit.

But he keeps saying that I need to show that political correctness does more bad than it does good. I still got plenty of examples of that. I will touch on that later

1. I think that we have to til transgender people that their still biologically a male or female, Because It's not good to sugarcoat someone from the truth. It's kinda like a certain saying "Better an ugly truth than a sweet lie" But Political Correctness states otherwise.

2. Now on that point of political correctness doing more bad than good, I have plenty of evidence to state the case that Political Correctness is bad. There is 1 country that took it to the extreme and I live in that country. Canada, Goes to the EXTREMES to enforce this political correctness hogwash. Here is some evidence of people getting FINED MONEY because they did not follow Political Correctness. Also the Human Rights Commission charges the fines which is founded by a Federal LIBERAL government in 1977.
Comedian Mike Ward charged $35,000 over a politically incorrect joke by the Human "Rights" Commission!
Another Comedian Fined $15,000 over calling 2 lesbians a politically incorrect slurs

This is political correctness in it's worst form, I hope the U.S.A does not follow in the same direction. It's sad to see people
get charged HARD EARNED money for some dumb slur or joke even when those jokes or slurs follow under the Canadian Charter Of Rights(It's the Canadian Version of the U.S constitution) which states

"(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;"

Whole Charter:

So you can see that political correctness does more harm than good in TODAY'S society. It may have done some good in
the past. But right it's more of a evil burden than a good rule. It's kinda like this saying "you either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain"

Political Correctness is now a villain that must be removed. Everyone already has their rights in the majority of the first world, Political Correctness may work best in third world/developing countries. But most Americans are scared that their rights will get taken away because Political Correctness will no longer safeguard them. That is simply not true, You have the constitution to protect you and if that's not enough you also have the supreme court. You have all these things.

Even if those documents or organizations won't protect you. You have the second amendment which grants you the right to own a firearm(I wish we had that in Canada) so you can stop government tyranny. Don't say it has not worked before because it has: but that's a whole other debate.

So please voters, Vote Pro. Because you guys have the chance to stop political correctness before it gets too bad like in my home country of Canada. Freedom of Speech is important because if the government can censor one thing. It would be a matter of time until they censor everything. So it's a little baby step to acknowledge that Political correctness is a bad thing and once we acknowledge the problem, we can solve it. Please Vote Pro and thank you for listening to my side of the debate.


My opponent states that he does not have the space to respond fully to all my points because of the word count. My opponent set the word count and we both have the same word count. If I had enough characters to write the arguments he had enough room to respond to them.

That means that he has allowed the following arguments through:

What I said earlier was not a strawman fallacy and therefore my statement that people often confuse political correctness with making a valid argument stands.

Transgenderism is real and the issues it represents are real. It is not 'politically incorrect' to tell these people that their issues aren't real, neither is it the truth to say so. You are not sugar coating any truth by saying this, you are lying and denying somebody their identity. That is not politically incorrect, that is a form of psychological torture.

Pro never got round to showing that political correctness does more bad than it does good. He simply gave two examples of people who got sued for 1. Verbally attacking a disabled child and causing him to receive bullying which is very real and detrimental to his mental health and 2. Verbally assaulting a lesbian woman using incredibly homophobic language for simply kissing her girlfriend on the cheek which would make them feel uneasy about showing affection to their other half in public again in fear of getting ridiculed or attacked. That is very real damage being done on both occasions. Anybody who has watched Game of Thrones knows the damage that words can do. There's a reason Ramsey Bolton renamed Theon 'Wreak.' It was one of the ways in which he physically and mentally destroyed Theon and made him his pet. So those two examples do not show political correctness being more bad than good; these two examples have nothing to do with political correctness and a lot to do with the very real psychological damage that people are capable of doing to others without even thinking about it because they don't think about the power of their words to destroy people's confidence and actually encourage people to ridicule and attack others for something out of their control.

Freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression does not and should not extend to verbally assaulting somebody for their sexuality or encouraging people to bully a disabled child. That has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with not harming others.

Finally, Pro states that political correctness must be removed because most people already have their rights in the first world. This is simply not true. Women do not have the right to be paid equally to men for doing the same job. Black people do not have the right to not be shot by police when they have their hands in the air and are unarmed and posing no threat to anyone and haven't done anything wrong. [1] This is axiomatically incorrect. Political correctness has not been shown to do more bad than it does good by Pro as he has been unable to quote a single person whose ideas have not been known due to political correctness being used to silence them. Pro has accepted that his examples from the previous round did not do this as he has not argued in favour of them after I refuted their relevance. He has also accepted that many 'liberals' can be accepting of opposing political views and do not use political correctness in an attempt to silence anyone in any form. Therefore accepting that the use of political correctness in this way is in the minority. I ask again - if there is one thing that is bad about a concept (not that Pro has actually provided any proof that it happens at all) and even that happens very rarely, then how can the concept be bad overall when it does so much good, for example, in assuring that minorities get their voices heard (who we have just ascertained do not have 'all their rights'). Political correctness is a concept which does more good than harm. Therefore, Pro has failed in his burden of proof to show that, on the whole, political correctness does more bad than good. Vote Con!


Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by JayConar 2 months ago
Can we debate this again but this time I'll argue that political correctness is bad?
Posted by JayConar 2 months ago
I would not say that the position I presented was a distorted position of what pro's position was. I would say they were completely different positions. One was believing that person A's reasoning was x, the other was believing that person A's reasoning was y. It's not a distortion of an argument but a belief that reason x was reason y when reason y was completely different to reason x. Thus meaning it is not a strawman fallacy.
Posted by sherlockholmesfan2798 2 months ago
Honestly, this debate was rather poorly argued by both sides. Neither side was completely relevant throughout the debate, and they both often veered into irrelevant territory. Other voters will likely see a subtext of superior ideologies (conservative and liberal) present, which does not aid you in proving your position. However, through this impertinent rhetoric, I believe Con was able to best prove why political correctness isn't strictly bad.

Pro's case began in round, in which he cited various examples as proof of the negative effects of political correctness. However, these examples are not proof of the harmful effects of political correctness, but rather the harmful effects of people who cannot cope with a differing ideology. In terms of the Ben Shapiro talk, its relevance to political correctness is minimal as the group of people who protested in violent manner did so because their beliefs clash with another belief. The facebook example was properly contested by Con, and Pro did not have a case at this point.

However, Pro's examples in round 3 were much more relevant. He was able to cite how political correctness negatively affected society and thus why it is bad. Yet con was able to rebut these with a sub-standard argument (that they cause others harm and should therefore not be stated). While these rebuttals are not satisfactory, they are sufficient enough to dismantle pro's final case against political correctness.

Since Con had made a case for political correctness that had not been rebutted by pro, I must give this debate to Con. Yet I continue to posit that his arguments remain unconvincing, and would have lost had Pro been focused on the matter at hand.

PS. What con had done was indeed a strawman fallacy. He was misrepresenting the argument made by pro, replacing it with a distorted form ( . Attacking the person as opposed to their arguments is an ad-hominem.
Posted by dmessy 2 months ago
I forgot to mention that I gave Pro the more reliable resources because Con didn't give any sources. Note to JayConar: You won in my book but just barely. Your arguments were better than his but you didn't give any research to support yourself. If you had, you would have blown him out of the water. I was very close to giving my vote to Hanson because of this reason. In future debates it would be wise to provide supporting evidence.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by sherlockholmesfan2798 2 months ago
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by dmessy 2 months ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: It pains me to say this because I agree with Pro completely. However, Con's arguments were (barely) sufficient to show that Pro did not fulfill his burden of proof.