CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Are Liberals Stifling Intellectual Diversity on Campus?
"What is college for? For many, it’s a time for personal and intellectual growth, to meet new people, and to explore ideas and philosophies that challenge their beliefs. Or is it? Recent cancellations of conservative speakers, rescinded honorary degrees, and scrutiny of certain campus groups have heightened perceptions that there is pervasive liberal intolerance on campuses. Are liberals shutting down speech and debate on campus? Or is this theory a myth, based on the preponderance of liberals at universities rather than intentionally discriminatory actions?" -IntelligenceSquaredus.org
Yes, and it isn't just "white Christian males". They've used violence to shut down Milo Yianoupolis, a gay Trump supporter, Anne Coulter, a woman, Dinesh Dsouza, an immigrant from India, and Ben Shapiro, an ethnic and practicing Jew. They say they are for minorities, yet demonize minorities who don't fall in line, even calling them "uncle toms". They say they're feminists and defenders of gay rights, yet ignore human rights violations in Muslim nations that are beyond the pale against both groups. They say they are the defenders of free speech, but apparently conservative speech magically doesn't fit that claim. "Progressivism" isn't about who you are. It's about what you are. It's an ideological cult that can flip positions on any issue in a heartbeat to protect its goal: social control and socialism. If you dare stand in the way of that goal, they've been brainwashed to try to destroy you, call you names, demonize you, and ignore all of the same fouls from their own clan. They claim to be for equality, yet feminists refuse to ask men out or pay for dates, and Hollywood liberal pedophiles and misogynysts go untouched, nor do they join the military, or even do laborous jobs, and this so called "equality" doesn't include non-liberals. It's an ideology that obtains its goal by "any means neccessary" (they even have a group called BAMN by any means neccessary), even if those means are immoral, hypocritical, contradictory, illogical, incoherant, propaganda, lies, violent, or even illegal. In reality Progressivism is a hate group per its own definition of "hate group".
What you have to remember with modern liberalism, which looks nothing like old school liberalism, is that it's never about the thing. Never. If they bring up homophobia, racism, sexism, gay rights, feminism, the Constitution, etc, it's never actually about that. Those are techniques to shut you up. And if they shut you up, they will get social control and socialism. And we know it's never about the thing because? Feminism doesn't apply to female non-liberals, gay rights don't apply to gay non-liberals, racism doesn't aply to non-liberals, equality doesn't apply to non-liberals, free speech doesn't apply to non-liberals, and human rights violations against any of those groups can be ignored in a heartbeat, like the Orlando gay nightclub massacre, the burka in Islamic countries, or racial slurs towards minorities who are non-liberals.
The final technique if the shaming and name calling doesn't work? The shoutdown. They scream and yell and many times use violence (ANTIFA) to drown you out or shut you up. In many cases they all shout some nonsensical slogan together in some dystopian group think while ignoring anything you have to say. It's the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and yelling la la la la la la! I can't hear you!
What has been the Conservative response to this? Become numb to the shaming, name calling, and shout downs and simply begin to not care. And...that's how and why the right handed them Donald Trump.
@brontoraptor. "Yes...They've used violence to shut down Milo Yianoupolis, a gay Trump supporter, Anne Coulter, a woman, Dinesh Dsouza, an immigrant from India, and Ben Shapiro, an ethnic and practicing Jew."
I agree with what you are saying here. There is an alarming trend to use overtly authoritarian tactics in order shut down opposing views (which is radically anti-free speech). If a person has a problem with the views of other people and would like to contest it, there are many ways in which this can properly take place that does not infringe on others people right to voice their ideas as well. For example, if Milo Yianoupolis comes to ones campus (he came to my University last year), you can publish criticisms of his views (both before and after the event) via blog, YouTube, school paper, ect. and can hold non-interfering peaceful protest as a counter to the event (but obviously let the speaker come and talk without intimidation tactics). Attempts to shut down speakers is bullying, intimidation tactics and is in line with the mindset of authoritarian bully through-and-through. Moreover, it is profoundly/shockingly anti-intellectual. Could you imagine behavior like that at an academic conference when people are presenting their research that runs counter to the standard view?
I agree with what you are saying here. There is an alarming trend to use overtly authoritarian tactics in order shut down opposing views
He's being deceitful as per usual by carefully choosing his language. He has chosen to describe Milo Yianoupolis as a "gay Trump supporter" and Anne Coulter as "a woman" to make people think Milo was shut down for being gay and Anne was shut down for being a woman. He wants to steer you far away from the truth which is that they were both shut down for being crazy.
They should have the right to speak. I want to know what the crazies say. I believe in the first amendment - it means that I can more easily identify the nutcases in the world. Also, on the odd chance they aren't flat-out crazy, hearing opposing world views is healthy.
Sadly, there are those identifying as liberal that have forgotten why freedom of speech is a beloved liberal right.
I remember a few years ago when it was the religious right that wanted to take free speech in the name of alleged morality. I suppose it was just too hard for some to not become the very monster they were fighting.
@Nomenclature. Right, so I understand that Milo is not being shut down for being gay or Coulter for being a woman. Also, I understand that bronto and I certainly do not see I to eye on many issues. In my view however, and although I agree with you (Nomenclature) about a large number of issues "free speech" is an area where I think we have disagreement, these people should be able to speak unimpeded regardless of their views. To take it a step further, if Richard Spencer (spokesman of the Alt-Right) were to come to campus to speak, I think he should be allowed to unhindered. I still support protests of their views on campus (in a way that is physically non-threatening and is not attempting to shut down the event or dissuade people from attending) as well as strong criticisms in other formats that I suggested in my OP.
Nomenclature, are you familiar with the Philosopher Daniel Dennett's short essay titled If I Ruled the World? It seems to me that this is quite similar to your view on "Free Speech" in many ways. Would you agree with that assessment?
@Nomenclature. Right, so I understand that Milo is not being shut down for being gay or Coulter for being a woman. Also, I understand that bronto and I certainly do not see I to eye on many issues. In my view however, and although I agree with you (Nomenclature) about a large number of issues "free speech" is an area where I think we have disagreement
Possibly brother. I believe there is a difference between speech and propaganda. I don't and won't defend a person's right to lie to an audience. If someone had shut George W Bush down when he was lying about Iraq, close to a million lives would have been saved. If someone has no respect for truth and honesty then I don't see that I should have any respect for what they have to say.
These are Dennett's main positions in that article:
1. " I would like my first step on ascending to the dictatorship to be decreeing high quality, non-ideological education for boys and girls in every community on the globe. If we could just liberate the world’s children from illiteracy, ignorance, and superstition, their curiosity would lead them to solutions that were both locally informed and sensitive while also tuned to a fairly realistic view of the global context into which these solutions must fit. Once accomplished, the result of this universal education would be the opposite of paternalism, giving people everywhere maximum freedom to make informed choices about how to live their lives."
2. "My second move would be trying to devise ways of imposing higher costs on lying and other forms of misrepresentation. The arms race between purveyors and consumers of information currently favours the purveyors, who can undermine trust, destroy reputations, and in general bamboozle the public (“Teach the controversy!”) much more effectively than the public can defend itself. I don’t know how this might be done, but if I ruled the world, I’d invest heavily in research to discover a path."
From what I gather, this is very close to what you are arguing for as well. I understand and am sympathetic to where the motivation for this comes from, however, as I argued in your Debate topic of "There Should be No Free Speech", I think a lot of issues and internal contradictions quickly arise with a scheme like this.
I do think that people like Edward Bernays (the "father" of the modern Public Relations industry) are malevolent, immoral opportunists and Bernays essentially proudly and openly admits as much in his books Propaganda, The Engineering of Consent, ect. (if you are not familiar with these works I highly recommend them, they are jaw-dropping to read). As a society, we need to marshal an appropriate emotional and intellectual response to such a gratuitous attack on our ability to make informed decisions. However, unless the society has reached something approaching that of 1984 with the Ministry of Truth (which we are nowhere near that point at the moment), then I think violent actions/intimidation tactics to squelch opposing views is not justified and in fact dangerously harmful because it opens the door for the Richard Spencer types to "play-by-the-same-rules" with their "truths", which opens the door for a 1984 or Plato's Republic type of societies to potentially be established.
"However, unless the society has reached something approaching that of 1984 with the Ministry of Truth (which we are nowhere near that point at the moment), then I think violent actions/intimidation tactics to squelch opposing views is not justified"
Is there any way that such immense power to decide what is true and false could be abused? Does power corrupt?
Do you think that the creation of a 1984-style "Ministry of Truth" is actually a good idea? What you said in the quoted text appears to suggest that you do, which implies that you've missed the message of Orwell's book.
Do you think that the creation of a 1984-style "Ministry of Truth" is actually a good idea? What you said in the quoted text appears to suggest that you do
No it doesn't.
which implies that you've missed the message of Orwell's book.
Oh I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that you represent Mathfan.
"However, unless the society has reached something approaching that of 1984 with the Ministry of Truth (which we are nowhere near that point at the moment), then I think violent actions/intimidation tactics to squelch opposing views is not justified"
The fact that our lack of a Ministry of Truth is cited as a reason to not "squelch" opposing views implies that if we had one then it would be OK to do so.
Oh I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that you represent Mathfan.
I don't represent MathFan. I'm just capable of comprehending simple English.
The fact that our lack of a Ministry of Truth is cited as a reason to not "squelch" opposing views implies that if we had one then it would be OK to do so.
He proposed using violence and/or censorship to squash a Ministry of Truth dictatorship and somehow you interpreted that to mean he is in favour of a Ministry of Truth dictatorship. Like I said the first time, it implies that you can't read English.
And the entire group of people in 1984 are engrossed in rabid leftism. Orwell was a moderate leftist by today's standards, who was warning the left of becoming what it has become today. Groupthink gone mad.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell, 1984
Religion is the problem. Islam isn't the problem.
Misogyny is bad. Misogyny is simply a part of Islamic culture. It must be tolerated.
Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.
George Orwell, 1984
April the 4th, 1984.
To the past, or to the future. To an age when thought is free. From the Age of Big Brother, from the Age of the Thought Police"
Libs:
" that's hate speech. "
"You're Islamophobic."
"You're a racist."
"You're a misogynyst."
"You're a homophobe."
Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.
Do you think that the creation of a 1984-style "Ministry of Truth" is actually a good idea? What you said in the quoted text appears to suggest that you do, which implies that you've missed the message of Orwell's book.
What in the Hell are you talking about? That is the complete opposite of the argument I was making (and have talked about elsewhere on CD).
"As a society, we need to marshal an appropriate emotional and intellectual response to such a gratuitous attack on our ability to make informed decisions."
This sentence precluded the quoted text, and as such the context certainly implies the meaning I took from the quoted text. Apologies for my misinterpretation but you must see how I would misinterpret your words in this way. I'm glad to hear that you hold the opposite view to what I thought.
He has chosen to describe Milo Yianoupolis as a "gay Trump supporter"
Which he is.
and Anne Coulter as "a woman"
Which she is.
to make people think Milo was shut down for being gay and Anne was shut down for being a woman
Or to show the truth. They were shut down because liberals fear opposing views that challenge their dogma.
He wants to steer you far away from the truth which is that they were both shut down for being crazy.
They both sound normal to me. Of course if they were leftists, you'd have a heart attack that someone tried to keep them from speaking, tossing the word Nazi around like a whore in heat. They also called it that Trump would win, and the left called them? "Crazy". Being in a "minority of one that tells the truth" (Orwell) is sanity despite the liberal masses claims otherwise.
Are Liberals Stifling Intellectual Diversity on Campus?
Some Liberals are, and I see it as a very disturbing trend that needs to stop. Silencing those who disagree with you is cowardly and weak-minded. If you think someone is wrong, then you should point out the flaws in their arguments, not silence them. What these protesters are doing is the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting, "la la la, I can't hear you!" Not only that, but they want to take it a step further and cover everyone else's ears too. It's childish and just makes them look like intolerant bigots.
"Tolerance and truth demand that all be heard and that competing ideas be tested against each other so that the best, which might not always be our own, can prevail. Knowledge is the most complete and dependable when all points of view are heard." -Hugh Brown
"The man who cannot listen to an argument which opposes his views either has a weak position or is a weak defender of it. No opinion that cannot stand discussion or criticism is worth holding. And it has been wisely said that the man who knows only half of any question is worse off than the man who knows nothing of it. He is not only one-sided but his partisanship soon turns him into an intolerant and a fanatic. In general it is true that nothing which cannot stand up under discussion or criticism is worth defending" -James Talmage
“To college students: You don’t need safe-zones to protect your fragile ego. You need big, new, scary ideas that challenge your beliefs and expand your thinking. You need ideas that will offend you, hurt your feelings, stomp on your toes, and make you mad. This is necessary for growth and learning. So stop being offended by everything. Stop being a victim. Grow up.” -Larry Winget