The Instigator
Con (against)
28 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Political Correctness and Terrorism

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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Judge Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/27/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,559 times Debate No: 95033
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (4)





Darenskiy approached me and asked to debate. This was the topic we agreed on, and I think it is an interesting and highly relevant one. It should be an interesting and timely debate.

Due to a recent experience of mine with receiving almost no votes on a high-quality debate, I have decided to make this a judge-only debate. Judges were selected based on their impartiality and on the fact that they were recently active in terms of voting. The judges are Hayd, Tej, Whiteflame, Lexus, Max, DK, Raisor, Peep, and Lannan13. If Pro objects to anyone on this list, or wishes to add names, Pro should contact me before accepting the challenge, and we can discuss the issue. Judges, if they accept, agree to adjudicate this debate impartially and without outside assistance; judges are, of course, free to decline their nominations.


On balance, political correctness is harming the West's ability to combat terrorism.


Political correctness - the avoidance of rhetoric or actions which insult socially disadvantage groups or which are likely to marginalize or exclude those groups
Harm - to cause damage to; to impede or hinder
The West - members of the EU, NATO, Switzerland, Australia, and New Zealand.
Terrorism - the use of violence intended to induce fear in a population for political aims


1. No forfeits
2. Citations should be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions
8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate (unless otherwise specified in R1)
9. The BOP is evenly shared
10. Pro must provide arguments/their case in R1, and must waive in the final round
11. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
12. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a loss


R1. Pro's Case/arguments
R2. Con's Case/arguments; Pro generic Rebuttal
R3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and Crystallization
R4. Con generic Rebuttal and Crystallization; Pro waives

Thanks... my opponent for the debate. I'm looking forward to an intriguing exploration of the subject.


First, I would like to thank my opponent for inviting me to this debate and hope that we can both have an intellectual, constructive exchange. I would also like to thank the judges for taking part in adjudicating this debate.


Before I begin with my opening arguments, I believe that it is vital to elaborate on political correctness (PC) and my stance on it in this debate. Whether PC fosters terrorism is a highly controversial topic, making the debate on this issue paramount. In my case, I’ll be presenting evidence to substantiate that PC has been hindering the process in combatting terrorism—regardless of its kind, whether the acts of terrorism were politically or religiously motivated—and as Pro, my objective is pretty overt and straightforward; I must present instances where political correctness has hampered and impeded the West’s battle in fighting terrorism. Throughout the debate, I’ll be depicting instances and outlining the different methods PC uses to obstruct the process of battling terrorism.

Without further ado, may the debate begin!

Contention 1: Open Borders in Europe

After the eradication of chauvinism / and ultra-nationalism, Europeans embraced multiculturalism, a notion that then became a popular trend across the continent. In fact, I think it will be prudent to infer that this contagion has infested several countries in the western realm. The citizens of countries that were once the subjects of European imperialism are massively pouring into Europe. Many researchers assert—based on their extrapolation from demographic data—that soon, ethnic Europeans will become a minority in their own countries by 2050 (1). Though politicians are prevaricating that immigrants will integrate into their new, European societies, statistics show otherwise that migrants have increased the crime rate and unemployment has been most prevalent among their communities. German authorities summated that million refugees who crossed their border in 2015 attempted and committed over 69.000 crimes in the beginning of 2016 (4):

The report showed that 29.2 percent of the crimes migrants committed or tried to commit in the first quarter were thefts, 28.3 percent were property or forgery offences and 23 percent offences such as bodily harm, robbery and unlawful detention” (4).

Despite that, Europeans in Western Europe feel it as their duty to help the fleeing victims. 80% of German and Italian nationals concur that the migrants should be proportionally dispersed across the continent. Most who are in favor of this scheme are left-wing ideologists: “70% and 81% of left-leaning voters have a favorable view of the EU’s relocation plans” (5).

This epidemic is also seen in the U.S. Dr. Andrew Oldenquist, who teaches philosophy at the Ohio State University, argues that PC “has crippled efforts to think clearly about education and improve public schools in the inner city” (6). The writer of the article shares his experience of being accused of racism for dissenting against open border policies. Henceforth, this sparked uproar where a portion of his audience started throwing asinine accusations of racism at him, though it was never explained how it was racist (7). The incontrovertible reality is that whatever is deemed racist by the media is consumed by the masses without any inquiries. I will touch on this subject in my third contention.

Contention 2: PC and Right Wing Extremism

Because of the massive migration influx, this has caused a clash between right-wing terrorism. For instance, the 2011 Norway attacks, executed by terrorist Anders Behring Breivik, was a politically motivated act. The staged terrorist attack targeted Norway’s Workers’ Youth League (a socialist organization who advocated the open border policies) and migrants; particularly, migrants identifying as Muslim and fleeing Islamic countries. Breivik was concerned that the country was being taken over, seeing that the birth rate of ethnic Norwegians began decreasing (3). He also considered it as his duty to eradicate the Muslim population from Norway (2).

After the incident, many organizations / political parties supporting Muslim immigrants began using methods to prevent the dissemination of right-wing ideologists, which of course is by accusing people of racism, creating it a taboo activity when rejecting politically correct principles. Bruce Bawer, an American writer based in Norway argues:

In Norway, to speak negatively about any aspect of the Muslim faith has always been a touchy matter, inviting charges of 'Islamophobia' and racism” (8)…

Bawer also asserts that one of the main reasons for right wing terrorist attacks like that of Breivik’s is the failure of politicians to emphasize on these types of attacks: “…the failure of mainstream political leaders to responsibly address the attendant challenges would result in the emergence of extremists like Breivik”. Disregarding the fact that Islam has been responsible for a vast number of terrorist attacks and perpetrations committed in Europe is ludicrous. Neglecting the issue only abets it even more (8). This is the issue of ignorance where people are freely and willingly accepting refugees into their homes, putting themselves under threat. An incident of this kind occurred once, where a teacher in Germany offered a refugee his home as shelter; then, the next day, he was found dead, his body being severely mutilated (9).

Contention 3: PC Turns a Blind Eye

The older generation used to taunt socialism as a completely imbecilic belief: “If a man is not a socialist when he is 20, he has no heart. If he is still a socialist at 40, he has no brain” (10)…

This was primarily due to the flat rate being above 90% in the early 1970s. Generally, if you were making a decent salary at a young age, you were likely to identify as leftists. However, times have changed. Today, you could be making a decent yearly income, and still, identify as a socialist. Undoubtedly, people have a choice to be politically correct or incorrect. Freedom of Speech ends only when one begins to incite violence. Naturally, it is okay for people to call you a fascist or bigot if you don’t concur with their beliefs, though this utterly stupid, it is allowed. However, this is the issue, PC causes us to turn the blind eye and deny the existing issue. By throwing in accusations of racism and taboo, this siphons us from an intellectual conversation and debate. Activists are going as far burning books about European colonialism, Romans, Normans, and many other historical figures. The writer of the article argues:

Cultural correctness means we worry about offending the sensitivities of the communities from which sex attackers come and ignore the victims. We see it when we’re incapable of having sensible conversations about how Islam might fit into liberal western democracies. We see it when we tie ourselves up in knots over immigration for fear of saying anything wrong. And we see it when universities talk about banning books because they might upset students.” (10).

Indubitably, PC is has obstructed the West’s battle on terrorism by weakening the people of the West, where they became completely unvigilant and became subservient to a political ideology that calls a ban on everything that offends / marginalizes a certain group of people. We’ve become more tolerable towards immigrants flooding our countries. We’ve become unobjectionable to the point where Sweden has become the rape capital of Europe (11) after the massive influx of hundreds of thousands of refugees. Though the right-wing ideologists are reprimanded for their past of pushing forward fascism, the left-wing ideologists aren’t any different either. Nonetheless, the irrefutable truth is, the left became dominant in many western countries.












Debate Round No. 1


Thanks, Pro, for this debate. I'll present my case, saving rebuttals next round.

I. Burdens

It is Pro's burden in this debate to show that, on balance, political correctness (PC) is harming the fight against terror. It is my duty to show that PC is not harming the fight against terror. Unless Pro can show some harm caused by PC in this fight, and unless that harm outweighs whatever benefits might be present, voters should vote Con.

II. The Social Element of Terrorism

A. Belonging and Acceptance

Terrorists turn to terror because they feel socially alienated and they seek a sense of deeper belonging and acceptance. This is true for several reasons:

1. Marginalized people are more at-risk for terror. "Terrorist organizations appeal disproportionately to certain psychological types of people, namely, the socially alienated...Demographic data shows that the vast majority of terrorist organizations are composed of unmarried men or widowed women...Marc Sageman's study...demonstrates that these risk factors are particularly prevalent among the crucial case of al-Qaida members, 80 percent of whom are 'cultural outcasts living at the margins of society'." [1]

2. Recruitment patterns confirm that the marginalized are vulnerable. "[T]errorist organizations focus their recruitment on the socially isolated, not on people with a demonstrable commitment to their given political cause. Pedahzur's research, for example, shows that Hezbollah, the PKK, and Chechen and Palestinian groups recruit young, unemployed men 'who have never found their place in the community'." [1]

3. Terror groups foster tight social bonds. "[T]errorist outlets are particularly attractive outlets for those seeking solidarity...[They] are far more tight-knit that other forms of voluntary associations because of the extreme dangers and costs of participation." [1] It is logical that even lone wolves engage in terrorism in part to feel a sense of belonging to a broader community, and to elicit praise from that community.

B. Ghettos and Social Decay

Communities such as Molenbeek in Brussels have high concentrations of Muslims, and are largely left to rot by the police, firefighters, and the government. [2] Leaving these communities isolated and neglected has allowed a sense of social abandonment to fester within the local population. "French counter-terrorism experts have identified 64 suburbs in dozens of cities that act as breeding grounds for Islamic extremism." [3] "Mathieu Guidere, a professor of ­Islamist psychology at the University of Toulouse II, said the Belgian and French ghettos were a perfect breeding ground for terrorists. He cited 'the explosive cocktail of strong immigration, strong social exclusion, a lot of unemployment, very little integration and the infiltration of religious radicals'." [4]

C. Words Inspire Violence

Offensive statements and barefaced bigotry feed the feeling of exclusion that marginalized groups may have. Terrorist groups seize on these statements to fuel their recruiting efforts. For example, al-Shabab has used a clip of Donald Trump calling for a ban on all Muslims in their recruitment videos. The video then adds, "Yesterday, America was a land of slavery, segregation, lynching and the Ku Klux Klan. And tomorrow, it will be a land of religious discrimination and concentration camps." [5] In another instance, after a Tamil terrorist attack in Sri Lanka, the Sinhalese population rioted. These riots helped to further alienate the Tamil population, and caused them to turn towards the terrorists. [6]

D. Summary

Consider: a young Muslim man, born in France, hears anti-Muslim epithets every day either in the news or from the people he might encounter outside his cloistered community. He feels as if his country hates him, and he seeks out those who share his views--a sympathetic ear for his woes. This is precisely the kind of person at-risk of being recruited into a terrorist cell.

Whether the actions targeted at minorities are the shuttering of places of worship or the banning of articles of clothing (e.g. the burkini), they alienate the minority from the majority. They foster a siege mentality wherein the minority group perceives that it is being persecuted, marginalized, or coerced, and this siege mentality creates conditions ripe for "fighting back" against their oppressors, i.e., the West.

III. PC Solves

To eliminate the social motives of terrorism, "counterterrorism strategies must reduce the demand for at-risk populations to turn to terrorist organizations in the first place. To lessen Muslims' sense of alienation from democratic societies, these societies must improve their records of cracking down on bigotry, supporting hate-crime legislation, and, most crucially, encouraging moderate places of worship--an important alternative for dislocated youth to develop strong affective ties with politically moderate peers and mentors...Counterterrorism operations must redouble their efforts to minimize collateral damage, which invariably creates dislocation, social isolation, and calls for revenge." [1]

PC forms of rhetoric, by making minorities feel respected, will help combat the social marginalization that drives many to terrorist violence. Political correctness fosters a narrative of acceptance by pointedly refusing to reject minorities or to propagate calls to nativism. Political correctness encourages societies to speak out against bigotry, wherever it occurs, and to avoid making inflammatory comments in the first place.

The doctrine of political correctness encourages governments to take action against those who would commit hate crimes and to mobilize resources to protect the civil liberties of migrants. It would rule out policies like a Muslim immigration ban that, were it implemented, would only escalate current social tensions and play into the hands of extremists.

PC is also not against assimilation as a practice. Rather, it is against overly coercive assimilation, or forms of assimilation that treat newcomers in utterly xenophobic or demeaning ways. This is true and beneficial for several reasons, including: (a) all people should be treated with respect, (b) xenophobia creates social tensions which spur terrorism, and (c) coercion is counterproductive.

Regarding (c), suppose you own a house, and the government wants to encourage you to update it somehow--say, to paint it blue--the government has several options it can pursue to try and convince you to paint your house blue. It can pass a law mandating that all houses be painted blue, and impose coercive penalties (like a fine) on those who fail to comply. Alternatively, the government could offer incentives (such as a tax deduction) on all blue houses to, in essence, bribe you into compliance. Assume that the government implements the stick rather than the carrot, and you are forced to paint your house blue because of the fines. You probably are resentful of being forced to paint your house this color; you feel as if your freedom to do as you please was infringed on. A few municipal elections later, and a new administration takes over, rescinding the law. Newly unencumbered, you quickly repaint your house to a color more to your tastes.

This example illustrates one of the fundamental challenges of coercive policy. It fails to create "ownership" of the changes. People don't feel like the owned the decision to paint their house blue, and, as a result, they chafe at being forced to make the changes. When people lack this ownership, they don't embrace the decision that was made, and so they may feel resentful at the change, change only superficially, resist the change altogether, or all three. Political correctness seeks to foster ownership of changes in order to produce ideal results. Minorities who choose to learn the language or to change their style of dress are more apt to effectively and meaningfully assimilate. The goal then should be to provide incentives for migrants to voluntarily assimilate. While some mandates may be in place, a PC policy, on balance, is more carrot than stick.

One potential PC policy would be to offer free or reduced housing to migrants in widely dispersed locations. Another would be to offer voluntary assimilation classes, job fairs, and job training sessions, and to offer food, blankets, or other basic supplies to incentivize attendance. Funding moderate paces of worship, moderate religious publications, and engaging more closely with moderate religious leaders is also a PC policy. Policies like these have been implemented in many European countries, including Germany, the UK, and Finland, and will help prevent terror in several ways. [7, 8, 9] By resettling migrants diffusely (and equipping them with linguistic skills), ghettoization can be averted and assimilation can be encouraged. By providing employment opportunities, the social and economic disaffection that comes from feeling neglected or abandoned by society can be mitigated; people are happier when they are not poor and when they feel like government is work for them rather than against them. Conditions in existing ghettos can also be improved through such policies. And, by funding credible, moderate voices, governments can hope to counteract extremist propaganda.

IV. Conclusion

I have demonstrated that "anti-PC" behaviors, including offensive remarks or neglect of minority communities, are major drivers of terrorism. PC is therefore essential in halting these drivers and in successfully integrating minorities.

V. Sources

1 - Max Abrahms, "What Terrorists Really Want: Terrorist Motives and Counterterrorism Strategy," International Security 32, no. 4 (Spring 2008), p. 78-105
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 -
6 -
7 -
8 -
9 -

Thanks! Please Vote Con!


Due to time constraints, I don't have a lot of time to proofread my arguments for grammatical errors. That being said if you see any typos please try to understand my situation.

Anyway, without further ado, I'll begin my refutations/rebuttals.

My opponent's quotes will be italicized

1) Social marginalization and exclusion

"PC enforcers seek to divide and atomize us, by class, race, sex, and sexuality. So let’s take them up on it. Let’s bypass the institutions controlled by them in favor of our own. Who says we can’t create our own schools, our own churches, our own media, our own literature, and our own civic and social organizations? Starting from scratch certainly is less daunting than fighting PC on its own turf".

My opponent states that the ones who are attracted to extremism and the ones who commit terrorism are usually the ones who are ostracized by society. Even if we were to perceive it as the truth that terrorist groups recruit social renegades that still doesn't prove anything, and in fact, the opponent only supports my stance. I would argue (supposing that what my opponent said is true) PC is what helps to contribute to this issue of marginalization and division of such individuals from our communities by categorizing people into different groups. Essentially, separating people into different groups doesn't help achieve unity and solidarity, it only further keeps us divided. The reason people (though it still happens) know that using racial epithets is wrong and inappropriate is not because they're pressured into doing so by political correctness, but because they have manners. Being respectful is what abstains us from using such profanities. To be succinct and on-point, political correctness must be abolished as it only contributes to the issue, rather than resolving it.;

"Terrorists turn to terror because they feel socially alienated and they seek a sense of deeper belonging and acceptance. This is true for several reasons".

Con also argues that there is a specific social, psychological profile that terrorists fall under. However, professionals in the field say that "as of now, there is no specific terrorist profile...They come in all shapes and sizes".;

2) Psychology of terrorists

Basically, if psychological professionals already had a compiled list of characteristics and attributes that could identify a potential terrorist, it would've made the fight against terror much easier. Nevertheless, terrorism is unpredictable, and the people who commit such acts are unpredictable as well. For instance, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev (the brothers who bombed the Boston marathon) were accepted into America with open hands. Dzhokhar was quite popular in high school and he rarely expressed interest in Islam; he was moderate when it boiled down to religious beliefs. Overall, he had a normal, average teenage life before committing his heinous act.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev wasn't a social outcast, he had an average life (as I've mentioned before). He was introduced to radical Islam by his brother.

Social isolation is just a scapegoat which was created to divert us from the real source of the problem. There's an answer as to why young men like the Tsarnaev brothers are frequently indoctrinated into such movements:

Social scientists have found that Isis militants are no different than us in terms of mental state and stability. In fact, Israeli psychologists Ariel Merari who evaluated Palestinian suicide bombers (their bombs malfunctioned) has said that a vast majority of those individuals are not mentally unstable. Well then, what causes youngsters to leave their homes and join international terrorist organizations like Isis or wage jihad in their "infidel", western countries? Frankly, the answer to this question varies and is still shady; therefore, there's no definite, concrete answer. However...

Anthropologist Scott Atran who works alongside with the UN Security Council says that these individuals are the product of "self-radicalization". Essentially, it's one's choice, just like it's one's choice to join the military, become a police officer, a pastor, vigilante, and so on. These young men are fighting for a cause they believe; to put this simply, they're deceived into fighting for a group of people who profit from these wars.;

3) Ghettos and social decay
Again, my opponent is using the scapegoat card. He is doing his best trying to divert us from seeing the real issue here. I guess PC has festered in him as well (*failing at comedy*). Anyway, to negate the contention, I ask the audience to look at this situation from a different viewpoint. You see, Europe's crime rate has skyrocketed after the migration influx (primarily of citizens from Islamic countries). The tsunami of migrants is what caused Sweden and Denmark to become rape capitals of Europe. It has jettisoned to the point where Belgian authorities are proclaiming that Brussels has become one of the most dangerous cities in Europe. If you don't believe me, allow me to provide you some data.

-Sweden: 77% of rapes by 2% of male Muslim migrant population
-Norway: 69% of rapes increased in 2012 in Oslo
-Norway: Most suspects of rape are men who identify as Muslim
-Denmark: Researchers from the University of Copenhagen found that Muslim men are most likely to lead a criminal lifestyle.

There are certain communities across Sweden where medics must be escorted by police because of the prevalent violence and criminal activity in these parts of town. However, that still doesn't stop the perpetrators from attacking even the police. The reality is these communities are collapsing and they do not abide the law. So, I challenge my opponent to answer this question: How are you supposed to save a community if it's always the subject of vehemence and havoc that is caused by the members of such communities?

4) Words inspire violence
Though I've already spoken about this, I wouldn't mind readdressing it in this contention. For this example, I'll be using Adolf Hitler's come to power. Hitler started out as an orator at a bar where he was giving speeches about the hard times the country was experiencing, and overall, encouraging people to take a stand-up and answer to the government's injustice; if this hadn't happened then the Beer Hall Putsch would not have happened either. In general, Hitler was giving hope to these people. The country was under extreme financial tensions where it was still recovering from the hyperinflation that happened in the early 1920s. The same course of action is seen in Islamic countries, the countries that are overridden by poverty and corruption. Leaders of terrorist groups are fostering hope in people that if they fight in the name of jihad they'll be able to achieve solidarity and peace amongst their Muslim peers. That is what indoctrinates and deceives young men for fighting for such causes.

Being politically correct--though it says to advocate for people's unity and supports egalitarian principles--divides people by categorizing them in groups. PC creates a scapegoat for an existing issue. It is no secret that Islam has been accountable for a vast number of terrorist attacks in 2016, and simply stating that Islam had nothing to do with such cases is ludicrous. Fundamental Islam is still classified as Islam, and blaming it on the radicals still doesn't eliminate the fact that it was done in the name of the same religion they worship. Henceforth, neglecting this issue will only cause it to grow faster and stronger.
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks, Pro! I'll now rebut Pro's case.

I. Overviews

A. Topicality

Not all illegal acts are instances of terrorism. Terrorism is "violence intended to induce fear in a population for political aims." Suppose someone robs a gas station for money. Sure, it's illegal, but it is not "terrorism."

In his first argument, Pro talks a lot about thefts, forgeries, and robberies committed by migrants. Thefts and robberies are almost always for-profit crimes, not crimes designed to make political statements. Forgeries are not even acts of violence, so they (prima facie) cannot be terrorism.

In his second argument, Pro talks about xenophobic attacks and right-wing violence. If these hate crimes are not undertaken to motivate political change, they are not terrorism. Some such attacks may be merely to vent anger or to express rage. So, it is not clear that these crimes are cases of terrorism, though some may be.

The impact is clear: Pro's contention one is simply not topical, and much of the activity he refers to in his second contention is also likely not topical.

Do not permit Pro to introduce new data. With only 1 speech left, this would create an unfair space/time skew against me.

B. The West

Most of what Pro says pertains only to Europe, not "the West;" he cannot really affirm his argument for the entire West.

II. Open Borders

A. Rates of Terror

Levels of terrorism in Europe are not higher than those in the past; in fact, they are lower. From 2006-2014, fewer than 25 people per year died from terrorism, except in 2011, when Anders Behring Breivik (a native Norwegian) killed 77 people. From 1997-2005, however, more than 25 people per year were killed in all but 3 of those years. [1] "From 2000 to 2015 the death toll from terrorist attacks drops, with most years seeing less than 50 fatalities, a stark contrast to the years leading up to 1990 when more than 150 people died almost every year." [2] In 2010, there were more than 4.8 million refugees in Germany, and Europe's Muslim population has been growing at a rate of 1% a decade (this is expected to continue through 2030). [3] Clearly, then, increasing rates of Muslims in Europe have not correlated with higher rates of terrorism.

B. Assimilation

Pro bemoans the lack of meaningful assimilation, arguing that "prevaricating politicians" claim that "immigrants will integrate into their new, European societies, [yet] statistics show otherwise that migrants have increased the crime rate." Firstly, crime rates are not necessarily indicative of levels of assimilation (natives commit crimes too), but, secondly, if the goal is to boost assimilation in the hope that this reduces social tensions (and, with that, right-wing ire) and also, as Pro claims, crime, PC policy is the best way to do that. PC is the best framework to encourage effective assimilation of minorities into a community. I explained this in my case with the (dropped) argument about ownership. Since Pro never responded to this point, extend the argument, and turn it to say that I solve for Pro's arguments best.

III. The Right Wing

A. Breivik

Pro selects just one instance of right-wing terror in Europe. One example is insufficient to prove an "on balance" claim, and cannot prove the general claim that Pro wants it to. Furthermore, the Breivik incident occurred before the refugee crisis began (2011, as opposed to 2015), which reinforces my argument below that right-wing terror was not a result of a recent "massive migration influx" as Pro claims is the case.

B. The Data

Let's keep in mind that the absolute number of right-wing terror incidents in Europe is incredibly small. Europol states, "A total of 9 attacks classified as right-wing terrorism" occurred in 2015. [9] Moreover, Pro can only claim this small number of attacks as offense if he can demonstrate PC behavior to be the likely cause of them. If Pro can only claim that a fraction of 9 attacks was due to PC behavior, it will be extremely difficult for him to outweigh my offense. Finally, Pro's source 8 presents no data that supports the claims Pro quoted in his case.

C. Motivations

It is also not clear that the right-wing extremism is necessarily the result of PC policies. There are several potential explanations.

1. Merely letting in immigrants is not necessarily a PC policy. Europe's acceptance of large numbers of refugees during the 2015/2016 crisis may be PC, but the population of Muslims in Europe had been rising well before then. [3] The changes in culture that have aggravated many right-wing extremists may therefore be caused by regular immigration policies than by the more recent PC policies.

2. Europe and the US may be experiencing right-wing extremism due to their poor economic climate. [4] US growth is stagnant, many European economies are anemic; unemployment many European countries exceeds 5, or even 10, percent. [5, 6] Minorities are often scapegoats when society's are not doing well, be they the Jews under Hitler or the Chinese during the Great Depression. [7, 8] Therefore, poor economic conditions may be causing ant-immigrant sentiment.

3. Pro explains that Breivik was motivated at least in part by low Norwegian birthrates, which cannot reasonably be attributed to PC.

Simply put, the rise in right-wing extremism may have been caused by factors other than "the massive migration influx" Pro discusses. If Pro cannot tie that extremism to PC, he cannot claim that PC is causing or exacerbating right-wing extremism.

IV. Softness

A. Link

Pro's basic claim here is that PC, by preventing us from having serious discussions on immigration, makes us soft. Pro hasn't actually drawn any causal link, using any kind of non-speculative evidence, between PC making us soft and increased terrorism.

The only example Pro offers is Sweden, but this example is bunk for a few reasons. Firstly, the article is from 2012 (three years before the refugee crisis). Secondly, there is no evidence in his case that minorities are the main perpetrators of these crimes. Thirdly, the very article Pro cites notes that experts attribute the large numbers of reported rapes due to more Swedes feeling able to report those crimes than victims in other countries. Fourthly, the article states: "the major explanation is partly that people go to the police more often, but also the fact that in 2005 there has been reform in the sex crime legislation, which made the legal definition of rape much wider than before." So I utterly perplexed how this has anything to do with immigrants whatsoever. Even if it did have something to do with immigrants, rape is not terrorism; this data is a redherring.

B. Governments and Assimilation

Governments do realize the importance of integrating immigrants into Western culture. Why else would Finland host acculturation classes for new arrivals? Or, if governments are so terrified of speaking out about the importance of assimilation, why would Germany have pushed back when Turkey's Erdogan urged Turks in Germany not to assimilate? [10] The reality is not the exaggerated world Pro paints in which no one can speak out about issues of race or culture. PC is not a prohibition on discussing these issues; rather, it is a call to discuss these issues in a mature, polite way. There may be PC-Nazis who take the idea too far, but "on balance" people and politicians are not as constrained as Pro imagines them to be, otherwise the policies I cited in my own case would not be being debated. The very existence of this debate, of the articles I've cited, and of the conversations about increasing migration that are occurring in the West's political sphere, are evidence against Pro.

V. Anti-PC = Crime and Terror

I explained in my case how ghettos, as well as fighting and demonizing words, are drivers of terrorism. Ghettoization in particular may also go some way to explain crime; these communities have been neglected by the broader society for many year if not decades, and their conditions have been allowed to decay by governments who saw no political purpose in reaching out to such communities. The abject poverty that awaits many people in these ghettos or slums may cause them to turn to crime to sustain themselves. They do not commit crimes because they are migrants or because they are Muslims, but because they lack sufficient economic opportunity and support. Pro talks, for instance, about how recent migrants turn more to crime, but he also neglects to mention that many immigrants are prohibited from working by law until their claims are processed; this leaves them in an undesirable no-man's land where they cannot work to earn a decent wage, but are expected not to turn to illicit activities to support themselves. This kind non-PC policy breeds disaffection, disloyalty, and anger, and would likely drive individuals to commit acts of terror. Anti-PC behavior is therefore not conducive to effectively combating terrorism.

VI. Conclusion

Much of what Pro says is simply not topical. At points, it feels as if he wants to engage in a broader critique of current European immigrant policies, which is fine, except that it doesn't impact to the specific issue of terrorism. Pro may well believe that immigration leads to all these bad outcomes, but this debate is only concerned about one outcome: terrorism. Pro also attempts to blame things that happened before the migrant crisis on the migrant crisis and focuses too much on cherrypicked examples rather than data capable of affirming the topic "on balance." Finally, many of the ills he tries to pin on PC may not be caused by PC.

VII. Sources

1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 -
6 -
7 -
8 -
9 -
10 -

Thank you. Please Vote Con!


Since I've changed my major to pharmacy, I'll have to concede and not because I concur with my opponent but because I'm simply too busy at the moment. However, if I had continued I would've crushed bsh1 (not trying to offend you). If you wish, you could still vote for me, I mean come on. My arguments were much better ;)
Debate Round No. 3


I accept my opponent's concession, though I think it could have been a bit more gracefully done.

To the judges, I would still appreciate feedback on the arguments that were presented, keeping in mind I never got the chance to defend my case. Feedback is always helpful in refining the arguments and keeping an eye out for places to improve.

Thanks to Pro and the voters.


Thanks for the opportunity, bsh1. I'm just kidding, don't take it too hard. Vote pro!!
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KennediRhett 1 year ago
nice blog Nice Blog


Posted by Peepette 1 year ago
PRO states that PC ignores issues that he views as negative, resulting from refugee immigration. Because people are not permitted to speak their minds, crime and right-wing terrorism are not abated. He focuses on these issues and that PC blinds; lulling the public into accepting dangerous immigrants. I"m not convinced that allowing negative speech, though PRO believes it can be done with manners, would resolve these issues or reduce terrorism. I was looking for development or strong point on how manners matter when discussing opposing views; but it didn"t come about. PRO"s derogatory tone toward Muslim refugees as perpetrators of crime, rape and terrorism essentially hands CON his case; despite his more than adequate strike upon PRO"s crime and terrorist data. CON takes the side that the PC fosters acceptance and integration. Negative speech and neglect is what drives terrorist. He adds proposals, that he calls PC policies that would enable ownership for assimilation. While, I"m stumped why assimilation polices and incentives are politically correct, he rises above PRO"s arguments for the win.

Comments: PRO"s could have made a better argument by taking the track that strategic means of speech that"s non exploitive or alienating is preferable over PC stifling of opposing views. He also should have stayed away from the politicizing stance that PC is a liberal leftist concept. This in itself was derisive and counterproductive. Like in foreign policy exchanges, diplomatic speech can be persuasive and articulate where opposing viewpoints can be heard.
Posted by RoyLatham 1 year ago
Terrorism flourishes because it provides a moral justification for psychopaths to act out criminal behavior. Pro understates the role of PC in making keeping terrorism free of criticism and therefore more acceptable, preventing terrorists from immigrating into the West, and allowing centers of terrorist activity to operate without interference.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
Just make it a 2 round debate
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
Daren, I think bsh was better this time. :/
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
This looks like fun. I'll be reading it, and providing feedback, but won't vote.
Posted by bsh1 1 year ago
Posted by bsh1 1 year ago
Posted by Darenskiy 1 year ago
I'll accept this challenge in 3 hours, as I am currently at the airport.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded so yeah. But RFD @
Vote Placed by Peepette 1 year ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Concession, RFD in comments
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: For now, I'm voting Con based on the concession of the debate. I shall later be adding the feedback as requested by both debaters.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: For now, I'll vote based on the concession without assessment of the individual arguments. I will add those assessments when I get a chance to read through and judge each portion of the debate that was presented - remind me if it gets to a week out and I haven't posted anything.