The Instigator
Kalleth
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
whanna4d21
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Social Justice Warriors are the enemy of Rationalism and Academia.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Kalleth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 871 times Debate No: 87624
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

Kalleth

Pro

Hello there!

So unless you've been living under a rock for the past several years, you should be aware to some extent of the effect that Social Justice Warriors have had on the developed world. There have been numerous examples of media campaigns and blogs that decry the inherent evil of society and prey on the good will of people. Specifically, I would like to cite the examples of the University of Missouri and the events that took place there in 2015, as well as the series of public figures such as Anita Sarkeesian, Laci Greene, and Steve Shives along with their assorted videos on the subject.

For the sake of clarity, I define Social Justice Warriors as individuals who using their popularity and influence, attempt to impose their own political agendas on the society around them by using perceived "oppressions" and inequalities in status between various groups of people.

Furthermore, I would argue that since what they are doing is inherently deceptive and misleading, it is infecting rational thought and is leading to a decline in academic progress. As seen in the University of Missouri, Social Justice Warriors overwhelmed professors and students who disagreed in order to get their way.

I am aware that there are a surprising amount of people who find Social Justice to be a real and necessary cause, which is why I'm interested to see who accepts. It is of course important to note that many areas of this site would not function in a system constructed by an SJW. They would also shut down people who made cogent and well-cited arguments that conflict with their narrative. But, I get ahead of myself. Please, accept the challenge!
whanna4d21

Con

I think the people masquerading around as super politically correct bullies is shameful and embarrassing to the country as a whole. However, there are a few causes I'm not necessarily opposed to them shedding light on. Please list the particular causes or goals the morons are "fighting" for that you oppose and perhaps we can debate that.
Debate Round No. 1
Kalleth

Pro

Alright so if it's okay with you, I'll provide three examples of social justice mishandling and further eroding rational thought and academia, and we'll begin with your refutations in earnest.

First off, I take issue with the FCKH8 campaign, whose series of videos utilize young girls swearing as a means to try and convince people of the logic of their arguments, along with incorrect or misleading statistics to support their cause. This rings especially true when they use biased and stereotypical characterizations to try and justify striking down negative stereotypes.

Here is one of their videos;

http://youtu.be...

And here is TL;DR, debunking their statistics and showing how flawed their arguments are;

http://youtu.be...

Secondly, I take issue with the Blacklivesmatter protestors on University campuses in the U.S. Their goals are highly self-oriented and they masquerade with the fa"ade of altruism as their main statement. I cite the following article about Jonathan Butler as an example, because Butler is a rich and well-off black man complaining about racism on University campuses. The article also expands on the other ways the protestors are affecting academia in a negative manner;

http://www.dailywire.com...

And thirdly, I offer up the example of this article from the Guardian in which a radical feminist makes a valid case against no platforming people at Universities. While the previous article was very right-wing, the Guardian is very clearly pro-social justice and it also adores first world feminism. Thus, while the authour's ideology does not align with mine, she does show why no-platforming is a bad idea. The reason why social justice warriors and feminists are so eager to no-platform people, (and this is a direct result of social justice) is because unless we allow people with outrageous fringe opinions to be heard, their opinions are considered more seriously because of the perceived taboo, and the poor ideas are not able to be seen as such because they are not presented for criticism. The article in question;

http://www.theguardian.com...

So I believe I've given a good base upon which to build. These are just a few causes I disagree with, particularly because I don't believe that they are going about it the right way, and because in each example, these SJWs are creating problems where none exist.
whanna4d21

Con

1&3 I can see. However, as far as the BLM movement can you expand upon that and definitively show that the cause of the movement; ending systemic racism and mass incarceration is a flawed cause. I don't necessarily agree with the methodology they're using but the goal if not twisted, is a noble one. I'm sure you can point out some ignorant and racist people in that movement, and probably some foolish decisions BLM has made; but, the heart of the movement and the original pure intentions to end racism I see as legitimate. Sort of like the 1% movement. On one hand it's a bunch of whiny college students. On the other hand, they point out the indisputable evidence that the average American worker has not financially benefited from a growing economy since the 1970's.
Debate Round No. 2
Kalleth

Pro

Well the issue with the BLM movement is quite handily highlighted. Their methods are nonsensical and baseless; making demands that are totally counter-intuitive to combatting racism and which are really thinly veiled grasps at power [1], being taught by teachers who will readily hinder free speech and demand the obstruction of the rights of others to further their own goals [2], and lastly their mob mentality and rallies which are merely a way for them to enforce their demands [3].

Now as a contrast, I give you three organizations which actually attempt to combat racism through valid and sensible means, none of which involve SJWs;

CAERS - Canadian Anti-Racism Education and Research Society: http://www.stopracism.ca...

ARC - Anti-Racist Canada: http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.ca...

IMADR - International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism: http://imadr.org...

So with that done, I'm almost certain I've covered all of my points to your argument sufficiently. Can we both agree that no matter how noble the cause, SJWs will poison it, and that this extends to Academia and Rationalism?

[1]:http://www.breitbart.com...

[2]:http://heavy.com...

[3]:http://youtu.be...
whanna4d21

Con

whanna4d21 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Kalleth

Pro

Kalleth forfeited this round.
whanna4d21

Con

whanna4d21 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Kalleth

Pro

Thanks for the debate. I guess this means you conceded?

Don't worry, I had plenty of material to work with. Helps that I've also got plenty of resources to draw from that debunk them for me. Props to you for trying though!

Respectfully,

-Kalleth
whanna4d21

Con

whanna4d21 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by TheDom275 1 year ago
TheDom275
Well, I'm interested in seeing how this goes down. Already on pro's side, however.
Posted by Nivek 1 year ago
Nivek
Lol, I definitely want to see those.
Posted by Kalleth 1 year ago
Kalleth
Okay, thanks anyway. Lemme know what you think when I get somebody to dance the dance! :)
Posted by Nivek 1 year ago
Nivek
This is very tempting. It's too bad I have an astronomy test tomorrow as well as a controversy analysis that's due next week. I appreciate the thought of considering me but I'm afraid I'll have to decline your offer. I'll follow this debate whenever I can and I hope you'll find an opponent worthy of your standard. Thanks =)
Posted by Kalleth 1 year ago
Kalleth
You wanna go, Nivek? :D
Posted by Nivek 1 year ago
Nivek
Damn, so many good opponents yet so little time. Jesus.
Posted by AEI5 1 year ago
AEI5
I am only debating because something painful will happen to me. Its called someone being irrational at the court house.
Posted by Kalleth 1 year ago
Kalleth
Thanks AE15, I understand why. This is more of an experiment than anything, but if nothing else, somebody could play Devil's Advocate.
Posted by AEI5 1 year ago
AEI5
Would totally debate, but I am on yours side.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Everything 1 year ago
Everything
Kallethwhanna4d21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: .