Political correctness damages political debate
Damage will be defined as limiting an individuals or groups ability to pursue their political ends.
Round 1: Acceptance only
Round 2: up to 3 arguments- no rebuttals
Round 3: up to 3 arguments- no rebuttals
round 4: rebuttals and conclusions. NO ADDITIONAL POINTS
no swearing (other than Dad jokes).
I accept this great debate and look forward to my opponents points.
All rules are fair and do not require changing.
I await your arguments.
Pundits and political partisans of a certain ilk often lament how the political correctness movement has severely damaged their ability to effectively argue their beliefs.
I could post countless other lamentations from those who imagine that being politically correct somehow impedes their ability to communicate their message, as clearly no one would argue that political correctness limits a persons ability to think.
Perhaps the best place to start is to define what Political Correctness (hereafter PC) is (thanks to Google for this useful definition) - the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.
This is an excellent definition, firstly because it highlights the knee-jerk negative slant that my opponent will be arguing, that is that being PC is somehow extreme.
I would argue that the notion that being PC is somehow akin to any extreme stance (usually defined as leftist) is flat our wrong and very much lazy thinking.
PC is nothing more (or less) than carefully expressing oneself, avoiding the use of classic patriarchal terms. I understand how some lazy thinkers rally against having to carefully express themselves. If a persons thoughts unfiltered are apt to potentially insult large swathes of ones audience, then perhaps one needs to examine ones thoughts more closely.
That PC is nothing more than framing ones arguments, not limiting ones arguments. It is akin to arguing that a polite debate cannot be a good (or proper) debate; or that being PC one cannot have a fiery debate.
Wow, what an argument. Let's see if I can match that.
Before, we can continue, we must all learn what PC means.
" conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated "
In a debate, both sides need to get equal says of topics before a decision is made. However, PC often restricts the speech of the side not in power, right now Republicans in the US are struggling with this. While I disagree of many things that the Republicans say, I do believe that their right to freedom of speech is sometimes restricted by PC.
" According to a new Army manual, U.S. soldiers will now be instructed to avoid any criticism of pedophilia and to avoid criticizing anything related to Islam. The following is from a Judicial Watch Article…"
There is a difference between challenging beliefs and forcing beliefs. Without criticism, there cannot be a proper debate. I am sure most people only challenge the beliefs of others rather than forcing their own beliefs on others, including soldiers, This is why PC damages political debate. Criticism allows people with an open mind to think, as it is only fair to listen to both sides of the story before choosing an opinion, Would it be fair to be pro-gay marriage without hearing the negative side? No. If you go to my profile and look at my stances on the big issues, you will see that some of them are not filled in, that is because I have not educated myself enough to make a formal opinion, as taking a stance on a subject I know little about is unfair. People who are "Politically Correct" force PC down people's throats, claiming that the other side is unfair, yet if these people choose to make an opinion based off of one side then I believe that political debate has been damaged.
Alright, yes. Maybe some stuff is offensive and maybe there needs to be protection of the offended group, but you cannot force the "offenders" to change their opinions, you can still protect minorities without censoring opinions. You can encourage people to change their opinions but not change them. The government can help change opinions but they should not force people to change them. Ultimately, there is one person and one person only who can choose what opinion you have: You.
I hope I have made my point clear.
Anyways, I am done for now.
GeneralMao forfeited this round.
GeneralMao forfeited this round.
-PLEASE DO NOT VOTE!-
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|