The Instigator
Robikan
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Eddie-Izzard
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Political Correctness is counterproductive

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 1 vote the winner is...
Robikan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 19,325 times Debate No: 14906
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

Robikan

Pro

It is my position that political correctness is counterproductive, in that it actually breeds more intolerance than it prevents.

Definitions:

Political Correctness: avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

Intolerance:
1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.
2. unable or unwilling to tolerate or endure (usually followed by of ): intolerant of very hot weather.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

-----

The purpose of political correctness is allegedly to avoid offending or marginalizing the disadvantaged or discriminated against. It sounds good in theory, and even in practice, to some extent. I'm certainly not sad to see the words "nigger" and "faggot" fall out of favor, for example. What I have found to be an ironic side effect of the PC movement, however, is that it has actually served to breed the very intolerance and marginalization it seeks to end.

I have three main arguments as to why political correctness is counterproductive:

1. By perpetually changing our language to be more sensitive to those who are already discriminated against, we draw constant attention to their differences, drawing a very definite line between "us" and "them" -- the very definition of marginalization.

2. Empowerment cannot come from patronization. Every equal-rights movement that has seen any success had one thing in common: the strength and solidarity of the people. By treating them as if they are children that need to be protected from certain words or ideas, we actually perpetuate the idea that "we" are somehow superior to "them". Worse yet, some of those who are discriminated against then get the idea that they are entitled to this patronizing, which is a huge detriment to them (which leads me to #3).

3. The amount of censorship the PC movement has caused (links 1 ad 2, just to name a couple of recent incidents) puts many important things at risk. First, our intellectual well-being. Second, our right to express ourselves freely. Third, a thick skin. Intellectual well-being is most relevant to this argument, mind you, as ignorance is obviously counterproductive to tolerance, acceptance and respect, which are the very goals of the PC movement.

(1)http://www.cbc.ca...
(2)http://www.cbsnews.com...
Eddie-Izzard

Con

Political correctness is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, religious belief, disability, and age-related contexts, and doing so to an excessive extent.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The purpose of political correctness is allegedly to avoid offending or marginalizing the disadvantaged or discriminated against. It sounds good in theory, and even in practice, to some extent. I'm certainly not sad to see the words "nigger" and "faggot" fall out of favor, for example.
My dear friend, the above statement is somewhat hypocritical, wouldn’t you say. The equivalent of this would be to say that you are a vegetarian, but you are delighted to have KFC across the road. You have to decide if you are for or against the political correctness, otherwise just arguing weather PC has being counterproductive, without necessarily coming to a conclusion of whether we need it or not would be a waste of time for both of us.

I'm certainly not sad to see the word "nigger" fall out of favor has suddenly turned into our intelligent well-being being put at risk because Alan Gribben has decided to substitute the word “Nigger” for the word “Slave” in Huckleberry Finn. Hypocrisy all over again.

http://www.cbsnews.com...

“By perpetually changing our language to be more sensitive to those who are already discriminated against, we draw constant attention to their differences, drawing a very definite line between "us" and "them" -- the very definition of marginalization”.

First of all there is no US and THEM. It’s just US.

Second of all please define - who are already discriminated against, I assume by descriminated you reffer to people being victimized by those who DO NOT FOLLOW PC. In other words you are saying lets not use PC so we would not draw attention to people to whom attention has already been drawn by those who do not follow PC. On a scale of 1 to 10 you are scored 11 for confusing us.

Second of all, Marginalization is the very opposite of the purpose and the outcome of political correctness.

Marginalize - to place in a position of marginal importance, influence, or power.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Marginal - not considered central or important; insignificant, minor, small.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

If I understand it correctly, what con saying is that substituting the word Nigger for the word Slave belittles Black People????

http://www.cbsnews.com...

The amount of censorship the PC movement has caused (links 1 ad 2, just to name a couple of recent incidents) puts many important things at risk. First, our intellectual well-being.

May I state that you are marginalizing by putting your Intellectuall well-being (I don’t even see how this is relevant) above the feelings of those with disability, those of ethnical minority, religion, sexual orientation etc.

Go out on a street, walk up to a disabled kid and tell him you are going to call him crippled to preserve your intellectual well being and I will bring you cookies in Jail.

Finally, please, please, please provide us with one example of when you think political correctness has been misused. Better yet, when you think it has been used to CAUSE MARGINALIZATION. One example is all I ask for. I am sure you could do better than a Canadian rock band. When did the use of political correctness hurt the society??
Also please define what you mean by OUR Intel Well Being.


My argument is that of a simple nature.

It is not the political correctness that creates tension in the society but the lack of knowledge of what PC means. While the purpose of Political correctness was to express oneself without hurting someone’s feelings, it had turned into a tool of mass silencing. We are not educated enough as to what is a right thing to say and what is a wrong thing to say. But take this simple idea(PC) away and boy do I not think it would be a good world to live in. Con is looking at a very important issue in the society, but from a completely wrong angle.
Debate Round No. 1
Robikan

Pro

I thank my opponent for their response to all of my points.

"My dear friend, the above statement is somewhat hypocritical, wouldn´┐Ż€™t you say. The equivalent of this would be to say that you are a vegetarian, but you are delighted to have KFC across the road. You have to decide if you are for or against the political correctness, otherwise just arguing weather PC has being counterproductive, without necessarily coming to a conclusion of whether we need it or not would be a waste of time for both of us."

This is all entirely untrue. Being against something does not mean one cannot see *any* good in it. I do not deny that the PC movement has been beneficial in some ways, I simply contend that *overall* it has done more harm than good.

"I'm certainly not sad to see the word "nigger" fall out of favor has suddenly turned into our intelligent well-being being put at risk because Alan Gribben has decided to substitute the word "Nigger" for the word "Slave" in Huckleberry Finn. Hypocrisy all over again."

This is not hypocrisy. I don't care for the word "nigger" being used in a derogatory way and having it be socially acceptable because I am not a racist, and generally, those using that word are doing so out of bigotry. The reasons Twain used the word were to make the story believable (that is how people spoke in that time period), and to highlight the bigotry prevalent in those times. The fact that the book needs to be edited so that students are allowed to read it shows that an astonishing ignorance of context, irony and lack of critical thinking, which bolsters my point about our intellectual well-being.

"First of all there is no US and THEM. It's just US."

You have missed my point. Of course it's just "us", but we are all creating divisions by constantly overemphasizing our differences.

"Second of all please define - who are already discriminated against, I assume by descriminated you reffer to people being victimized by those who DO NOT FOLLOW PC."

Just about everyone is discriminated against by someone else, but I am mainly referring to racial minorities, anyone who isn't heterosexual or doesn't assume a standard gender role, certain religions, etc.

Political correctness doesn't prevent discrimination. All that the PC movement really does is force people to censor themselves; it cannot force them to change their ideas. Take racism, for example. We can ban all racial slurs from use, but the people who once used them will still be racists. They will still treat other races poorly, they will still teach their children not to like other races, and discrimination will remain. If we want to prevent discrimination, we need a better approach than censorship.

"In other words you are saying lets not use PC so we would not draw attention to people to whom attention has already been drawn by those who do not follow PC."

Not at all. I'm saying that the only way to achieve true equality is to *actually* treat people equally. Pointing out our differences does not lead to equality, nor does pandering and patronizing.

"If I understand it correctly, what con saying is that substituting the word Nigger for the word Slave belittles Black People????"

"Belittle" isn't the word I would use, but in a sense, yes. Using this same example, Mark Twain was not a racist and, in fact, Huck Finn has an anti-racist message. The book could be useful in teaching children that racism is wrong, but the PC movement helped to have it banned from schools instead. (1)

"May I state that you are marginalizing by putting your Intellectuall well-being (I don't even see how this is relevant) above the feelings of those with disability, those of ethnical minority, religion, sexual orientation etc."

Not *my* intellectual well-being, *everyone's*. It's relevant for the reasons I stated above -- we are willing to ban a book that teaches racism is wrong so that we don't have to publish the word "nigger". If that's not counter-productive, I don't know what is.

"One example is all I ask for. I am sure you could do better than a Canadian rock band. When did the use of political correctness hurt the society??"

First of all, Dire Straits isn't Canadian, the ban on the song happened in Canada. I'd appreciate you actually reading the source if you are going to criticize it.

This is just one short list of books that have been banned or censored in the name of political correctness, many of which have strong moral messages *against* racism, sexism and other forms of bigotry. I think it's pretty obvious that banning or changing educational literature is damaging to society.
http://www.time.com...

"It is not the political correctness that creates tension in the society but the lack of knowledge of what PC means."

Can you elaborate on this claim?

"We are not educated enough as to what is a right thing to say and what is a wrong thing to say."

How did you reach this conclusion? How do you propose we get this education? Who ultimately decides what is right and wrong speech?

The problem is, political correctness does not prevent or reduce discrimination and bigotry. The only way to do that is through knowledge and wisdom, and the PC movement has actually made that harder to attain.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Eddie-Izzard

Con

I do not deny that the PC movement has been beneficial in some ways, I simply contend that *overall* it has done more harm than good.

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but for the purpose of this debate you must provide proof of this actually happening. I understand there is no statistical support but here is what I am looking for:

A less obvious example would be the use of petrol. A lot of good comes out of using petrol, the worlds output depends on it. But every day there are more and more harm done by using petrol and the evidence becomes clearer and clearer. Watch Zaitgaist. Then there is polution etc.

I hope now my opponent understands what I mean by “provide the evidence”.

The reasons Twain used the word were to make the story believable (that is how people spoke in that time period), and to highlight the bigotry prevalent in those times. The fact that the book needs to be edited so that students are allowed to read it shows that an astonishing ignorance of context, irony and lack of critical thinking, which bolsters my point about our intellectual well-being.

It is obvious that you are not black, otherwise you would not care of characters being believable.

I don’t see how a book being reprinted with a word change in it suddenly puts our intellectual well being at risk. Ridiculous. The book “Intelligent Investor” has been revised and updated two times and No intelligence has been put at risk.

"Belittle" isn't the word I would use, but in a sense, yes.

Again, Ridiculous. In your opinion a ban on the N word belittles Black people. Read the following and in the next round I expect a similar evidence of a black person fighting for the preservation of the N word in the book. You have NO RIGHT to say what diminishes Black people IF YOU ARE NOT BLACK.

In schools that are predominantly African American, students may feel more comfortable with the word, although not necessarily with its repeated use by white characters in a "classic" text. When African American students are in the minority, however, they often feel embarrassed and singled out. Said one African American student in Cherry Hill, "Every time the word came up [during oral reading], everybody turned around to look at me."

Words are among the most powerful things there are. . . . A grown-up, middle-aged white woman using that word gives another level of meaning than a 15-year-old African American student. I think I could hurt students by using it, and I don't feel that my minority students want to hear their white peers use that word either. . . And if it turns out we're sacrificing a little academic rigor in the service of not adding to anyone's pain, maybe that's okay. . . .

http://www.bishops.k12.nf.ca...

“Political correctness doesn't prevent discrimination. All that the PC movement really does is force people to censor themselves”.

1 Political correctness does not prevent hate, but it DOES reduce the discrimination. Censoring a racist or sexist person who would otherwise walk around offending all that he or she hates, thus creating tension and more hate, is PC at its best.

It cannot force them to change their ideas. Take racism, for example. We can ban all racial slurs from use, but the people who once used them will still be racists.......discrimination will remain.
Very naive statement. Of cource it will remain.

2) Robikan, in the near future and perhaps some time after, nothing will stop that hate. As Chris Rock has put it, “Racism will never die, it will only multiply”. It is time we realize the true nature of human beings. Yes we are ashamed, but let’s admit it, to this day, Political Correctness is the most we could do. Not to stop, but as you put it, censor the hate.

If we want to prevent discrimination, we need a better approach than censorship”.

3) Sounds amazingly good. Im hundred percent for it. Now let us hear your ideas.

“I'm saying that the only way to achieve true equality is to *actually* treat people equally. Pointing out our differences does not lead to equality, nor does pandering and patronizing”.

You are making one mistake after another. I guess by treating people equally and not pointing out their differences you mean – Not calling them N words, Fa$$ts, Crippled, Providing women with positions predominantly occupied by men, not referring to Muslims as extremists and so on and so forth. Well hold on a second……. isn’t that what Political correctness IS ABOUT.

This is just one short list of books that have been banned or censored in the name of political correctness, many of which have strong moral messages *against* racism, sexism and other forms of bigotry. I think it's pretty obvious that banning or changing educational literature is damaging to society.

http://www.time.com......

My dear, NONE of the books have been banned (apart from Mark Twain) and hardly any of them have been censored. Please go back to the link you have provided and re-read the information. Almost NONE OF THEM have anything to do with political correctness. They DO NOT OFFEND anyone. Some of them have been censored for promoting violence and being too sexually explicit for 11 year olds. Robinka what on earth does that have to do with racial, religious, gender abuse? It seems you are against something you do not understand, which is my initial point.

"It is not the political correctness that creates tension in the society but the lack of knowledge of what PC means."
Can you elaborate on this claim?

"We are not educated enough as to what is a right thing to say and what is a wrong thing to say."
How did you reach this conclusion? How do you propose we get this education?
Who ultimately decides what is right and wrong speech?

I hope the link I have provided would help you understand what I mean by “lack of knowledge”

http://searchwarp.com...

How to get this education? Communicate.

“In other words, we must communicate with each other if we ever hope to make this world a better place. In lies the problem. To improve communications, it is important to be PC so as not to offend. But it must be balanced. Too much PC can backfire and limit communications.

That's where courage comes in. You and I must be courageous enough not to allow PC to limit our dialogue with others.

Is there a greater possibility of offending someone through our courage? Absolutely!

Will it be worth it in the end? Absolutely!”

http://searchwarp.com...

Couldn’t put it better myself.

The problem is, political correctness does not prevent or reduce discrimination and bigotry. The only way to do that is through knowledge and wisdom, and the PC movement has actually made that harder to attain.

1) Define prevention of racism through knowledge and wisdom and I bet you a nickel you will arrive to the same conclusion as mine. The only difference is that you want to get there without the use of political correctness. Freedom of speech as you call it.

2) You are saying that there is another way of reducing racism and a ban on using a language offensive to others makes it harder. Ridiculous.

To back up your statement you must:

1) Find a way of defeating racism (good luck)

2) Prove that PC makes it harder to implement it (again, good luck)

Otherwise the above statement is your own opinion completely unsupported by any facts.

I hope that those who read this debate understand that Myself and Robikan have essentially decided on the same desired outcome supposably arrived to by our naive ideas. The only difference is that I believe we must be careful with what we say to each other and communication is a way to a better society. But we cannot communicate without being PC as we all know where that leads to. For instance:

http://www.metro.co.uk...

Debate Round No. 2
Robikan

Pro

"You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but for the purpose of this debate you must provide proof of this actually happening."

Briefly:

-Our oversensitivity has led us to turn something as silly as the "Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas" debate into a heated, multinational, political and religious argument. This has cost taxpayer dollars, led to boycotts, and furthered the tension between religions and political sides:
http://abcnews.go.com...
http://reason.com...
http://www.politicsdaily.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

-Affirmative action has set all kinds of precedents for discriminatory practices.
http://plato.stanford.edu...

-Political correctness has placed many restrictions on language, expression and education, which is harmful to an allegedly free society:
http://pirep.org...
http://news.cnet.com...

And those are just a few examples of how it has been damaging to us.

"It is obvious that you are not black, otherwise you would not care of characters being believable."

I don't need to be black to understand the point here. Huck Finn is *anti* racist. Students reading it would be given a glimpse of how black people were/are treated and how obviously wrong it is.

"...in the next round I expect a similar evidence of a black person fighting for the preservation of the N word in the book."

Micahela Angela Davis, a former editor at Essence magazine and social commentator, decried the revised book.

"I think this is problematic on so many levels. It's not just history, it's literature, so it's art," Davis told CNN's Anderson Cooper. "When we get into really censoring art and censoring literature, we open up a Pandora's box. If a teacher is not prepared to have a social and historical conversation and place this masterpiece in context, is she prepared to teach that text? When we get into changing words, unwriting history, rearranging art, we start to put our democracy in danger. This is not making it palpable, it's censorship."

http://www.blackvoicenews.com...

"Absolutely no changes. The current society needs to know what white America thought about black America at that time, as some would like the world to forget."
-Hardy Brown, editor of Black Voice News.
http://www.sbsun.com...

"You have NO RIGHT to say what diminishes Black people IF YOU ARE NOT BLACK."

According to your profile, you are white. If you believe I cannot have a valid opinion because I'm not black, you mustn't have one either.

"I guess by treating people equally and not pointing out their differences you mean..."

I mean exactly what I wrote. If we are *truly* treating everyone equally, there is no need to tiptoe around everyone's feelings. If people were always hired (just as one example) based on their skills, rather than on their race or religion or gender, we would all be on an equal playing field, thereby removing a lot of the literal power behind offensive language.

"My dear, NONE of the books have been banned (apart from Mark Twain) and hardly any of them have been censored. Please go back to the link you have provided and re-read the information. Almost NONE OF THEM have anything to do with political correctness."

I'm not sure where you get that idea. I did indeed go back and read it again. First of all, the name of the list is Top 10 Censored Books, which should tell you something. Second, several of them were removed for having "offensive content" or using language that didn't sit well with some. If that list doesn't satisfy you, however, perhaps these will:
http://www.ala.org...
http://banned-books.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

"I hope the link I have provided would help you understand what I mean by "lack of knowledge""

I would actually prefer that you answer my questions.

"1) Define prevention of racism through knowledge and wisdom and I bet you a nickel you will arrive to the same conclusion as mine. The only difference is that you want to get there without the use of political correctness. Freedom of speech as you call it."

I do agree that communication is vital, but I think the most important factor in reducing bigotry is education. Political correctness is damaging to education, for reasons I have already gone over.

"2) You are saying that there is another way of reducing racism and a ban on using a language offensive to others makes it harder. Ridiculous."

Why is it ridiculous? I explained my argument, so if you'd like to refute it, please do. Simply stating it is ridiculous does nothing to bolster your case.

"1) Find a way of defeating racism (good luck)"

I'm not talking only about racism, just to clarify. I certainly don't have all of the answers, and I don't think bigotry can ever be completely defeated. I do think, however, that taking a position of true equality and putting a focus on education will serve to reduce overt bigotry.

"2) Prove that PC makes it harder to implement it (again, good luck)"

I believe I already did. We have taken to rewriting history and censoring literature in an effort not to offend. This makes honest communication and education difficult.
Eddie-Izzard

Con

Those are very good examples. Four links that portray the exact same article, but in different words.


-Affirmative action has set all kinds of precedents for discriminatory practices.

http://plato.stanford.edu......

One of the examples from the article is that of a University. `It reserved sixteen of the one hundred slots in its entering classes for minorities. In 1973 and again in 1974, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was denied admission although his test scores and grades were better than most or all of those admitted through the special program. He sued. That’s the negative side of AA. But:

Perhaps the reason for his grades being higher is that those of ethnic minorities did not get an opportunity to get a good education in a first place. You cannot deny them of education for decades and then expect them to be equally intelligent as some of the candidates. Does that make sense? Or am I wrong?



-Political correctness has placed many restrictions on language, expression and education, which is harmful to an allegedly free society:
http://pirep.org......
http://news.cnet.com......

I ask my opponent to stop posting slightly unrelated articles. I understand it is easy to confuse PC with other issues but please, read the articles with more care before you post them.

First link – It is a company policy not to allow jewelry, regardless of it being a Cross. The employee believes it is religious discrimination. Ask yourself a question, if political correctness would not exist, would she be able to sue? Of course she would. Then we will have to abandon the religious discrimination act, then gender discrimination act, etc, etc.

Second link - Americans with Disabilities Act. Again, imagine there was no such thing as political correctness. Would universities still be able to agree on not using the Kindle? Of course they would. First because of the Disabilities act, second because it is their University and they can do whatever they want to do. Also if you read the articles, rather than just pasting them you might notice that what they are trying to achieve is to make Kindle more disability friendly. What problem do you have with that?

There are many Laws and Acts under which we could sue people. Yet you blame all of the court cases on PC. Does that mean you suggest we cancel discrimination acts, human and civil right act and so on and so forth?


"I don't need to be black to understand the point here".

Yes you do. That was a very bigoted statement. It is not about a point the book is trying to make but how it makes one feel. Obviously not good.

http://www.blackvoicenews.com......

Good article from Blackvoice. Good Point made about Huck Finn - ‘Can you still make the point of this brilliant novel without using this word( N word) 219 times?’ I think that you can,” Watkins told CNN. “The question for me also is whether or not it makes sense to force kids in school to hear this word over and over again to make that point. When I was in high school, I wouldn't have wanted to read that book. I think [NewSouth Publishing] made the right move (by changing the word).”

Which leads me to a question still unanswered by my opponent for two rounds now – how does a book being reprinted with a single word change in it suddenly puts our intellectual well being at risk?? Please answer. Also please do not state that the whole meaning of th book revolved around the N word. That would be silly.


"If you believe I cannot have a valid opinion because I'm not black, you mustn't have one either".

I don’t. My aim is to prove you that your opinion is wrong rather than impose my opinion on you. Remember that you are the one who invited me for a debate, not the other way around. You have NO RIGHT (within this debate. In real world do whatever you please). Otherwise you are a bigot.

"If we are *truly* treating everyone equally, there is no need to tiptoe around everyone's feelings. If people were always hired (just as one example) based on their skills, rather than on their race or religion or gender, we would all be on an equal playing field, thereby removing a lot of the literal power behind offensive language".

Coming back to my point that treating one other equally (and not looking at their gender, religion etc) is what PC is about. Why have you written this again I do not understand.


"I'm not sure where you get that idea. I did indeed go back and read it again. First of all, the name of the list is Top 10 Censored Books"....

Censored for being Socially Incorrect (promoting violence and being too sexually explicit). Don’t confuse PC with Social Correctness (they do not offend, they are simply inappropriate). As I previously mentioned I doubt you understand what PC is. That makes it hard to debate with you. Those books that were banned are the ones that had the F and N words used in them. Good they were banned. It seems you are fighting for the N word to be used in books a lot. I wonder why that is.

"I hope the link I have provided would help you understand what I mean by "lack of knowledge""

It seems you are lacking knowledge just as bad as the rest of them.


"I do agree that communication is vital, but I think the most important factor in reducing bigotry is education. Political correctness is damaging to education, for reasons I have already gone over".

You did not. A word has been changed in a book is not damaging to our education. Kindle not being used in schools is not damaging to our education. Even if one book is banned and substituted by the other, still not damaging to our education. So again, what exactly do you mean by damaging to our education?
Provide me with prove that vever since the PC came about, IQ in Canada for instance went down. If you do not have that prove then your statment does not worth much.



"Why is it ridiculous? I explained my argument"……

Your argument is that of a 7 year old - I'm saying that the only way to achieve true equality is to *actually* treat people equally”.

And I want peace in the Middle East. The only way to cure AIDS is to *actually* do something about it. Really? Thats your argument?



"We have taken to rewriting history and censoring literature in an effort not to offend"…..

If one billion books would have been banned on the racial bases and you would have said that if we let people read them, that would have changed the world and racism, then perhaps I would believe you. Only a handful of books have been banned and I doubt that if we let children read those as they were written then Mark Twain would put an end to racism. Your argument is as naïve as they come.

I shall post my final opinion on PC in the final round.


I would like to apologise for the outlay in previous round. i am new to this site and still familiarising myself with the font and all.

Debate Round No. 3
Robikan

Pro

My opponent seems intent on missing the point. The relevance of my links is that, in all of these examples, minorities are being given rights that are being denied to whoever is seen as "privileged". This is quite the opposite of the equality that is allegedly being strived for. I could have, and perhaps should have, posted countless other links of examples, but was trying to avoid posting so many links that my opponent could not properly address them all.

My opponent also seems to be implying that I am a bigot, simply because I do not appreciate the changes being made to Huck Finn. Not only is this an ad hominem fallacy, it is patently untrue. As my previous link proves, there are many black activists that also do not want to see these changes made, for the reasons I had mentioned. They, and I, feel it is important to teach, and remember, how black people were treated back then. By editing the book to remove all racist terms, we do a great injustice to the novel, the author and to all of the students that could learn from it.

"Which leads me to a question still unanswered by my opponent for two rounds now – how does a book being reprinted with a single word change in it suddenly puts our intellectual well being at risk??"

Actually, I have answered several times, you are just choosing to ignore my answer. First of all, it is not a single word change; the new editions will have all references to "nigger", "injun" and any other racist terms removed. The reason this is harmful is two-fold: first, it will take a lot away from the message of the novel. Second, pandering to sensitivity in this way reduces our ability to grasp irony, to understand context and puts political correctness above literature, free speech and education. It is pretty self-evident to me that this is not to the benefit of our intellects.

"Coming back to my point that treating one other equally (and not looking at their gender, religion etc) is what PC is about."

And my point is that the PC movement has failed to do this, and has, in fact, been counterproductive to this goal.

"Those books that were banned are the ones that had the F and N words used in them. Good they were banned."

You clearly failed to read the lists, and you also clearly agree with censorship and book banning. This is another debate altogether, so sufficient to say, I very much disagree with this for reasons I have already stated several times.

"Provide me with prove that vever since the PC came about, IQ in Canada for instance went down."

This statement leads me to believe that you don't even know what an IQ is, let alone understand how banning books and pandering to sensitivity is likely to be damaging intellectually. I think the fact that people don't even understand the moral of Huck Finn or the irony of the use of the word "faggot" in "Money For Nothing" because they are so consumed by political correctness offers a minor example of a major issue.

"Your argument is that of a 7 year old"

You say this, yet, you have not attempted to refute it in any way. Why is that?

Also, after demanding that I answer your questions, I notice that, for the second time, you have completely ignored mine.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

I believe my opponent has failed to adequately refute my arguments, instead resorting to ad hominem attacks and ignoring questions that get to the bottom of the issue. It seems that the refutation being offered is "you are a naive bigot", which, as a logical fallacy, should ensure my opponent's loss.

To sum up my position, I believe it is clear that political correctness is counterproductive. We can see countless examples of rights being given or denied based solely on gender, race and religion, we can see education and free speech suffering, we can see further divides between races, genders, sexualities and religions and we have actually given *more* power to derogatory terms and bigoted ideas by pandering to oversensitivity. This is the complete opposite of what PC claims to strive for, thereby proving it counterproductive.
Eddie-Izzard

Con

Eddie-Izzard forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Robikan 6 years ago
Robikan
Thanks, Freedo! I didn't know my settings disallowed comments. I'll have to check that!
Posted by MsFuhri 6 years ago
MsFuhri
I would also like to see a debate on this issue. I am taking a politically correct, multicultural diversity class and I keep running across material that negatively stereotypes one race as it argues against negatively stereotyping another. I would be surprised to see a contender on this issue.
Posted by feverish 6 years ago
feverish
I might consider taking this if it is still up in a few days.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
Since you don't allow comments on your profile or messages, Robikan, I was just going to say that you seem like someone I'd like to see post more often in the forums.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Of course PC is counter productive. I would love to see a great debater take this. If that is the case, I will follow this debate VERY closely.(Hoping for a J.Kenyon, Danielle, etc.)
Posted by devinni01841 6 years ago
devinni01841
agree with boredinclass...
Posted by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
I'd try to take you up on it, but I agree with you too fu**ing much
Posted by brian_eggleston 6 years ago
brian_eggleston
This is an interesting one...I'm very tempted to take it...not least of all because it will give me the legitimate excuse to use offensive language!

By the way, the link you provided which detailed how Dire Strait's 80's hit Money for Nothing is going to be banned in Canada because it includes the word "fagg0t" is bizarre.

Dire Straits are British and in Britain a ‘fagg0ts' are meatballs:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
RobikanEddie-IzzardTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Not a votebomb, Pro clearly won all seven points. Con forfeited a round, had terrible spelling and grammar, and made generally retarded arguments. Pro's sources were more convincing and trustworthy. "My argument is that of a simple nature."- Con. Strongly agreed.