The Instigator
Max.Wallace
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FuzzyCatPotato
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

This is a war of words. Don't be a coward, bring it, no matter what your teacher told you.

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 3 votes the winner is...
FuzzyCatPotato
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 955 times Debate No: 59807
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (3)

 

Max.Wallace

Pro

Be not afraid please to speak your mind, you PC beatchches. Defend your PC mentality, without lies or misleading profiles.
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

Thanks for that enlightening, grammatically correct, and inoffensive opening, Con.

---

What is Political Correctness?

Political Correcness, or PC, is "the avoidance ... of expression or action ... percieved to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." (1).

PC sometimes also extends to not swearing (such as calling your opponent a b!tch), though this is generally seen as politeness rather than PC.

---

Why Be PC?

First, it detracts from the discussion. Consider calling black people "n!ggers", Jewish people "k!kes", Central American immigrants "w3tbacks", or gay people "f@ggots". Or consider even stupid names like "lieberals" or "c*ntservatives". All this does is make people angry without making the discussion any better. In order to talk about race or sexuality or *anything*, it very rarely helps anyone to start insulting people. In fact, insulting people makes them less likely to accept your viewpoint.

Second, it's offensive. Why don't we go around calling people names? In addition to not solving anything, it makes people angry. This is the equivalent of honking your car horn when angry - it does nothing and makes other people angry. Making people angry is bad - it reduces their ability to think rationally, increases their liklihood of error, and slightly shortens their life. Don't do it.

Third, it avoids overexposing underexposed persons to violent language. Why do parents avoid cussing in front of children? It adds cuss words to their vocabulary, allowing them to use them and making them think that they are acceptable. This will only lead to people using offensive words, other people getting offended, and nothing getting done.

---

References:

(1) google.com/search?q=define+political+correctness
Debate Round No. 1
Max.Wallace

Pro

Well as a white skinned, FISCALLY conservative, morally LIBERAL, anti RACIST, doubter of the IVORY TOWER, struggling to maintain my MIDDLE CLASS birth, descendant of LEGAL immigrants, I am what PC seems to despise, so there you have it!
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

Pro has asked me to defend my PC mentality. I have done so.

Pro not raised any arguments against being PC, and instead has stated that the qualities of Pro's life are un-PC. Unfortunately, Pro's life is irrelevant to the goodness or badness of PC. As such, extend my arguments.

---

Just for lolz, let's evaluate the qualities of Pro's life one by one and tell if they are un-PC.

"FISCALLY conservative"

There's nothing un-PC with opposing government spending, unless you want to insult someone (say, the poor or elderly or soldiers or NASA), in which case it is un-PC.

"morally LIBERAL"

There's nothing un-PC with supporting/allowing other persons autonomy in and not judging them on their actions, unless you want to insult someone, in which case it is un-PC.

"anti RACIST"

This, in fact, appears to be Pro-PC, unless you want to insult someone.

"doubter of the IVORY TOWER"

Maybe this is un-PC. I really don't who/what "the ivory tower" is in your mindset.

"MIDDLE CLASS birth"

Uh... This could be un-PC if you were insulting the poor, rich, or persons who worked/fell their way up/down into the middle class, but you aren't.

"descendant of LEGAL immigrants"

Unless you're insulting illegal immigrants, this isn't un-PC.

---

Summary: Con's arguments still stand.
Debate Round No. 2
Max.Wallace

Pro

Thanks Fuzzycatpotato for having the courage to debate, however it takes little to put your mindset into electrons on other folks screen, sometimes. By the way, I have a plethora of thoughts that would be definitely considered un-PC that I will withhold in respect to your indoctrination into the PC world. I will address your comments in order, as UN PC as I can, given my lack of training.

Your words

"Why Be PC?

First, it detracts from the discussion. Consider calling black people "n!ggers", Jewish people "k!kes", Central American immigrants "w3tbacks", or gay people "f@ggots". Or consider even stupid names like "lieberals" or "c*ntservatives". All this does is make people angry without making the discussion any better. In order to talk about race or sexuality or *anything*, it very rarely helps anyone to start insulting people. In fact, insulting people makes them less likely to accept your viewpoint.

Second, it's offensive. Why don't we go around calling people names? In addition to not solving anything, it makes people angry. This is the equivalent of honking your car horn when angry - it does nothing and makes other people angry. Making people angry is bad - it reduces their ability to think rationally, increases their liklihood of error, and slightly shortens their life. Don't do it.

Third, it avoids overexposing underexposed persons to violent language. Why do parents avoid cussing in front of children? It adds cuss words to their vocabulary, allowing them to use them and making them think that they are acceptable. This will only lead to people using offensive words, other people getting offended, and nothing getting done.Why Be PC?

First, it detracts from the discussion. Consider calling black people "n!ggers", Jewish people "k!kes", Central American immigrants "w3tbacks", or gay people "f@ggots". Or consider even stupid names like "lieberals" or "c*ntservatives". All this does is make people angry without making the discussion any better. In order to talk about race or sexuality or *anything*, it very rarely helps anyone to start insulting people. In fact, insulting people makes them less likely to accept your viewpoint.

Second, it's offensive. Why don't we go around calling people names? In addition to not solving anything, it makes people angry. This is the equivalent of honking your car horn when angry - it does nothing and makes other people angry. Making people angry is bad - it reduces their ability to think rationally, increases their liklihood of error, and slightly shortens their life. Don't do it.

Third, it avoids overexposing underexposed persons to violent language. Why do parents avoid cussing in front of children? It adds cuss words to their vocabulary, allowing them to use them and making them think that they are acceptable. This will only lead to people using offensive words, other people getting offended, and nothing getting done."

I say,
first,
You have referenced a bunch of racist terms in your argument, obviously as a lesson to myself, a "guinea wop", whatever the excrement that is, as if I don't understand racism, and as if I may insult someone out of pure self righteousness based on skin color, nation of origin, religion, sex or political creed. That is so PC, that if I was a UN hiring agent, I would hire you now. Unfortunately that is not the case, I will not hire anyone, as I am an individual, not a group thinker. Saying things that everyone likes to hear is self interest, not at all related to the facts.

second,
People need not not be offended so easily, and the law needs not nanny folks that are just "offended." That is just so teenage girly, that it ain't funny, but that is what PC creates in a state of law.

third,
overexposing the underexposed? what? This should truly be a nanny state then, and we are all babies of the PC gods?
My point is don't let words hurt you, and teach others that words don't actually hurt them either, common sense in a nutshell, and not a PC way of thinking at all, I know. My freiends call me A-hole, no offense taken here.

We continue to your next argument, and I realize this is an un-PC way of approaching a debate so losing is almost a guarantee, but it matters not at all. I will respond to each of your perceived observations of my self description in order.

Fiscally conservative in my mind means, I do not take welfare, however much I have given to others, determined by a government that confiscates my earnings, based on their needs, which to me are, food, water, and shelter, after childhood. I WILL NOT TAKE WELFARE, or command other citizens to donate their earnings. Only cult's do such things.

Morally liberal means that I will not disrespect another human based on actions that harm no other human directly, or for factors of life they cannot control, such as skin color or nation of origin. The most insulted in this nation are those that have, and they pay every day they work for those that have never paid a penny. How exactly is that fair?

I am totally and wholly anti racist as I do not care what skin color you are, only your character matters. There are so many in this country that get special benefits because of their skint tone, never white, that I believe racism is still an issue, just now it is for revenge. Pay up whites! When was the civil war? Certainly before my ancestors became American, but still we must pay more for they?

I am a doubter of the Ivory Towers of education, as they are the wealthy tyrants that make all the rules and control the general population, and the world is very little better for them no matter what they claim. The Ivory Tower is every bit as much evil as good, but if you haven't paid your dues to them, you are just cannon fodder. The most powerful tools of the Ivory Tower are Psychology, Economics, Political Science, and Pharmaceuticals. Tools of control for they, nothing more, but pure evil in my mind.

Middle class birth is becoming a myth these days here.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS break the law, which is mostly PC , the moment they step foot in this country. How much respect for the rule of law, which is PC based, do you think they will have once they get a free lawbreak the first time they breath our air? It is of course OK to break other countries laws according to the Politically Correct? I am totally INSULTING ILLEGAL ALIENS, un-PC I know, ef them, bunch of crooks.

Thanks for your thoughts tater cat.
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

Why Be PC?

**1st point**

Pro's little discussion about my hireability at the UN aside, Pro doesn't actually point out how being offensive could add to a discussion. Consider that it was possible for me to make my entire case without insulting anyone, and that this is true in effectively all cases.

**2nd point**

Pro underestimates the harm negative stereotypes, which PC attempts to prevent from being aired, have. Consider the stereotypes of blacks as criminals and/or poor. First, this emotionally hurts people. When one is called a criminal or thought to be poor without grounds, it hurts, and it may make one angry. Even little things, like how many Asians are assumed to be able to speak an Asian languahe or know Asian culture, can hurt and/or anger. None of this helps anything, and just hurts people. Second, these stereotypes become self-perpetuating. For example, out of two equivalent job applications, one with a "black" name and one with a "white" name, the "white" application gets accepted for interview more often than the "black" one, leading to increased economic hardship for blacks and subsequent stereotyping (see Freakonomics on this).

**3rd point**

While it is good to teach children that words cannot hurt them, it's probably not good to teach them that insulting your peers with negative stereotyes is acceptable, because, as pointed out earlier, those stereotyes hurt people and add nothing.

**Pro's beliefs**

Again, Pro's beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion. Even if some of Pro's beliefs interact with PC, we are debating the objective merits or problems of PC, *not* Pro's take on PC. If Pro wants to have another debate, Pro may do so.

**Summary**

Conduct: Clear Con vote. Pro called all persons supporting PC "b!tches".

Grammar: Clear Con vote. Pro often failed to capitalize, and then capitalized too much.

Arguments: Clear Con vote. Pro raised no anti-PC arguments, and all Con arguments stand.

Sources: Clear Con vote. Pro has no sources, Con has one source.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
Max.Wallace
aye, you were well trained. this is your box, eh?
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
No, and responding to you hardly requires consultation.
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
Max.Wallace
Consulting your betters for your response?
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
Max.Wallace
for me.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
47.5 hours left.
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
Max.Wallace
you there cat tater? pick em out of the litterbox daily, sometimes, I do.
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
Max.Wallace
plenty o time yet.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
WOW con such troll
Posted by NathanDuclos 3 years ago
NathanDuclos
Interesting, nice read. . . thank you. .
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Something you really need to read: https://docs.google.com...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by jackh4mm3r 3 years ago
jackh4mm3r
Max.WallaceFuzzyCatPotatoTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: First, Con did not insult; an insult is an ad hominem that distracts from the issue needlessly. Also, Pro waited till his last round to post a weak argument against PC; Con defended it with logical arguments.
Vote Placed by distraff 3 years ago
distraff
Max.WallaceFuzzyCatPotatoTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Grammar and Conduct go to Con for his reasons in the last round. Pro did have a good point that the state should not get too much into making us all PC, but Con had a good point that offensive statements actually have an effect. So I believe in a compromise in the debate over government involvement in PC behavior. Con also had a good point that while words cannot hurt you, you should try not to hurt others with them. The argument that hurting others with words was poorly addressed. Arguments go to Con.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Max.WallaceFuzzyCatPotatoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This seems as though 'twas rather a troll debate from Pro. Con addressed it as though it was a real debate, though, and Pro failed to create any kind of valid case against Con's negative constructive. I disagree with Con's assertions about how I should vote, however. Which is not to say I think he LOSES those points, but that I don't think they rose to the level where he WON them. Obviously, I feel arguments go to Con. However, I don't think a single source is generally sufficient to win sources. I don't think Pro's behavior sank to a level requiring a conduct award. S&G, I'm on the fence on--that one really is close to going to Con. Right now I'm nulling it. Con's S&G was, obviously, great. I'm just not certain that Pro's was bad enough to warrant losing the point...but I reserve the right to change my mind. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.