The Instigator
Iacov
Pro (for)
The Contender
joeymiller1234
Con (against)

Political Correctness is threatening free speech.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
joeymiller1234 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 9/14/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 286 times Debate No: 95401
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

Iacov

Pro

In recent popular culture many social media sites are blocking or even banning users who are activist of unpopular opinions primarily supporting right wing views. It has become a social norm to accuse people who do not accept the use of modern labels such as the official 61 genders in New York. A recent example of this being Twitter drama in which Milo Yianopolas is banned from Twitter for "harassment" after posting a extremely critical review of Leslie Jones who recently starred in the new ghostbusters movie. In his review Milo refers to Leslie as a "attractive black man". Although Milo was extremely rude I believe he has a right to voice is opinions regardless of how offensive they may be.
joeymiller1234

Con

I disagree with the resolution that political correctness is threatening free speech. As Jim C Hines once said, "But freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility. Nor does freedom of speech obligate me to agree with your words, or to provide them with a platform." meaning that freedom of speech does NOT protect you from saying ignorant or stupid remarks.
Debate Round No. 1
Iacov

Pro

Freedom of speech does specifically protect someone's right to say ignorant or stupid remarks. Anyone who speaks is taking responsibility for their words regardless if you agree or not, and the fact that people have the freedom of speech is their platform on which they can say whatever it is they feel so long as it does not create a clear and present danger. But when people begin to be censored because of their ignorant remarks that is when their first amendment rights have been violated. Take for example certain universities across the u.s have banned certain words that may be connected with "microagressions". The fact that we are banning specific words to protect people's feelings is a clear violation of the freedom of speech.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Iacov 1 month ago
Iacov
I would compare Milo to the right equivalent to the young Turks I much prefer Ben Shapiro.
Posted by Tom-The-Hypocrit 1 month ago
Tom-The-Hypocrit
free speech is the ability to use language without persecution from the government. The left leaning sjw's are not the government and the flip side is that part of free speech is being able to criticize other people. When u use racist slang and they say you shouldn't, that isn't political correctness that's also an exercise in free speech.

If you support Milo and the alt right: The fascists in the alt-right would have you believe that this is a serious and freedom threatening problem when in truth it isn't. Speech is only shut down excessively when it s used to bar people from discussing topics. You may watch youtube a lot and think that a lot of people seek to destroy free speech. The problem is that you are always going to see the worst of everything on the internet. The alt-right will constantly bring up the worst of the left and because their supporters live in an online world, their view will eventually become warped. Here's the key: if you don't see excessive use of political correctness in the real world around you, the chances are that it isn't much of a problem.
The whole PC is threatening free speech idea is a valid point however the real problem is miniscule and treated that way. Using extreme racism and prejudice will only make things worse (which is why milo does it) instead people should gently explain their position instead of taboo hunting like the rest of the alt-right does. Follow ben shapiro, he uses more logic and common sense even though he doesn't always get it right. This is a scare tactic used by milo to attract more followers because really it isn't that much of a problem.
Posted by BackCommander 5 months ago
BackCommander
@Iacov The problem I have with subjects like this is that I have multiple opinions.
As a citizen of the USA I find that I want to agree that the rights laid out to us by our forefathers should never be infringed upon by anyone.
Yet, as a realist, I believe that keeping a facade going just for the sake of the facade, will only do more damage in the long run. Our society was founded over two hundred years ago, and eventually those basic rules will need to be gone over again. We cannot simply keep them because a bunch of guys a long time ago said we had to. On paper that actually kind of sounds insane.
Posted by StrtComm 5 months ago
StrtComm
Restricting free speech on social media is not a good thing, it is important to let everybody have there say in the issue, that is how you come to a good conclusion. For example, I have talked with a lot of anti Trump protesters, most of them young men and women. When asked why they hate trump they don't know why. This is a sign of ignorance due to lack of information. When people cannot express their opinion on the issue because it seems a little harsh, they get banned or blocked. This not only restricts free speech, it also creates a biased social media network which is what leads to ignorant one sided opinions among young people.

(P.s. Plz don't start a political argument in the comments, it was only used as an example)
Posted by Iacov 5 months ago
Iacov
@BackCommander I agree society must change but something I believe should not be changed is the very foundation that that society was founded on such as the constitution that provides us the freedom of speech.
Posted by BackCommander 5 months ago
BackCommander
Pro, society changes. That's a simple fact. If our country just ran with the original rules that were set out and never changed them, we would have fallen long ago.
Posted by Whulfson 5 months ago
Whulfson
This debate seems interesting, hopefully con won't try to boycott it by censoring out Pro's arguments. (that was a joke. you can laugh now <3)
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.