CreateDebate


Debate Info

80
24
No, Keep it real Yes, I could be offended
Debate Score:104
Arguments:40
Total Votes:135
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 No, Keep it real (27)
 
 Yes, I could be offended (13)

Debate Creator

trifinn(82) pic



Should being PC be more important than having freedom of speech?

No, Keep it real

Side Score: 80
VS.

Yes, I could be offended

Side Score: 24
10 points

No, freedom of speech is the cornerstone of a free republic. Without freedom of the press and speech, no government can be trusted.

Side: No, Keep it real
Mahollinder(893) Disputed
1 point

I only oppose on the basis that I don't think that freedom of speech and political correctness are mutually exclusive concepts. There is nothing about political correctness that undermines your freedom to say something. Political correctness merely regulates - for the sake of being civilized, maintaining good relationships and ensuring that we can live in a society with relative peace - the way in which we express our ideas.

Side: Yes, I could be offended
5 points

According to the US Constitution: First Amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Side: No, Keep it real
hmicciche(660) Disputed
1 point

........................................ [Standing in a crowded theater] [Shouting] "Fire!"........................................

Side: Yes, I could be offended
4 points

No way. Freedom of speech in and of itself arose from the ideals of the founding fathers of America so that people wouldn't have to worry about being looked down upon or even punished for offending someone. Being PC is not something that should ever get in the way of our inalienable rights; besides, some would say that such attention shouldn't be paid the offense of other people anyway.

Side: No, Keep it real
hmicciche(660) Disputed
1 point

Freedom of speech is intended to protect people's expression of unpopular ideas, not to give people the right to be needlessly insulting assholes.

Side: Yes, I could be offended
4 points

Freedom of speech is a right that everyone has and nothing should be able to interfere with that. Sure it is nice to be PC and normally in the persons' best interest but it should not be a crime if you're not because its not really the words but the actions that follow those words that harm people.

Side: No, Keep it real
4 points

Seems one sided. So maybe we need a better question. Such as, who is pushing PC ideas?

Side: No, Keep it real
3 points

I think we need to define "PC" better.

Side: No, Keep it real
1 point

Political correctness is simply asking people to not be rude. As your mother always said, "If you can't say anything nice about someone, don't say anything at all."

Side: No, Keep it real
4 points

Kind of an awkward question, as being politically correct and freedom of speech are not really connected. The reason that people subscribe to political correctness is not because our free speech is inhibited but that as social human beings we fear going against the tide, saying something that nobody wants to hear, and getting crushed for it. The question really is, who is bold enough to stand in opposition and stay true to their beliefs.

Side: No, Keep it real
4 points

I think it's interesting that so many people will say "absolutely" freedom of speech is more important than being "politically correct" (I hope I'm not the only one that had to google PC to discover what it meant in this context) and yet our public schools continually teach, by example, that offending anyone is the worst act a human being could possibly commit. Students can no longer pray in schools, because it might offend someone, students cannot protest, even passively, because it might offend someone and "obstruct the learning environment."

I find it especially hypocritical when black people are referred to as "African-American" and yet people of Korean, Japanese, Irish, German, Anglo-Saxon, or any other ethnicity do not get the same distinction. Though I think might think of myself as an "Irish-Polish-German-Jewish-American" I would be laughed at to refer to myself in this way; and I never would because I'm not any of those other things; I am an American.

All of this is representative of a culture that is increasingly afraid to make anyone feel at all slighted. Except for white Christians of course. I am by no means a racist, I think that it is important for all people to be equal. That means that everyone gets the same treatment whether they are black, white, tan, male, female, rich, poor or anything in between any of those. Political correctness is an expression of the apologetic nature that our society has adopted. Everything bad that has ever happened to anyone, throughout all of history has for some inexplicable reason fallen on the shoulders of this generation and they have buckled under the pressure.

Side: No, Keep it real
3 points

The argument for 'freedom of speech' is really only valid within the United States and, even then, there are circumstances under which your 'freedom of speech' is non-existent. If you don't believe me, try saying you wish someone would kill the president, or that you believe someone should (or that you're are interested in an) overthrow (of) the government.

The simple fact is, within the constructs of the social order, whatever the popular opinion is becomes the de jour standard. But within the courts of law or their cousins by shared interests, corporations, it is readily evident that freedom of speech is reserved for those who will talk rather than act.

Political correctness as a tool of oppression has become quite refined indeed. Most times, the application of social pressure is far more effective (and doesn't get the government's hands messy).

Walk into a military hospital and start telling people that folks who serve in the military are dupes and see how long you last.

The real crime of political correctness isn't that it affects how we are allowed to refer to women, men, life orientations, or such as that. It is the degree to which we, as citizens, have co-opted our own right to freedom of expression in the name of conformity and comfort under the master's hand.

Side: No, Keep it real
3 points

I think this is an impossible argument because the question refers to 2 entirely different subjects. Freedom of speech is more of the ability to express yourself without censorship from government. PC - politically correct, is using the most generalized form to describe someones ethnicity, race, religion and sexual orientation. Black vs African-American, Homosexual vs Gay. It's not just in regards to the derogatory slurs.

Side: No, Keep it real
3 points

Has anyone seen Avenue Q ? Simply put "everyones a little bit racist." being honest with yourself and others puts the bs aside.

Side: No, Keep it real
2 points

I am sorry to say that I have become "offended" by the PC movement. It seems like the information I receive is now filtered so much that the meaning intended is not the meaning intended. I understand PC and the need for courtesy and not to offend someone, but society has been changed by this action and maybe not for the better.

Side: No, Keep it real

Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional,

illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous

mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is

entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

The above definition comes from an annual contest at Texas A&M;University calling for the most appropriate definition of Political Correctness.

Side: No, Keep it real
2 points

When classic books like Tom Sawyer are now banned from schools because the word "nigger", political correctness is getting in the way of progress. We are becoming so preoccupied with PC that we're passing laws that make it a crime to "sag" your pants more than 6 inches off the waist and several others. 1984 was written for a reason.

Side: No, Keep it real
2 points

Keeping it real is what are country was founded on. If Thomas Paine hadn't kept it real, we would all have British passports and talk like idiots right now.

Just remember that Freedom of Speech goes both ways, people that are PC are offensive to me! So if you want me to make the laws, I would make works like "Gosh, Darn, Fudge, and schucks" forbidden.

Side: No, Keep it real
2 points

Let's "keep it real" by phrasing the argument in non predjudical terms. I'm a free speech guy but the question should be is being respectful of historical injustices more important than impeding certain expressions of free speech. Even when the argument is properly drawn, it's a tough call but to me you can't really make a blanket statement either way - it depends on the context

Side: No, Keep it real

No, taking away our freedom of speech is not politically correct.

Side: No, Keep it real
1 point

Get offended? That's bs. Taking everything personally is an indication of stunted development. Words are not offensive, but narrow-minded people are.

Shutdown speech and thought goes with it. Go ahead, be PC and join the other proud lemmings.

Call me the n word... I don't care.

durable

Side: No, Keep it real
Nikobelia(104) Disputed
1 point

I disagree; words can have offensive meanings behind them, and you don't have your development stunted to be hurt by them. "Shutdown speech and thought goes with it"? Well, not all speech has thoughts worth hearing behind it. It would be narrow-minded to not listen to someone because they said 'black' and not 'African-American', but a lot of the time people will be hurt by being called the n word or being a dyke or whatever. It's not taking things personally to be upset by that; that's verbal abuse and it's hurtful to almost everyone.

Side: Yes, I could be offended
1 point

The whole PC thing is kinda ununderstandable for me.

I mean come on if someone calls me a white man - i wont be offended.

Or even a paleface, a paleass, a womanfucker, a heterosexual, a normal guy, a ..... whatever i am.

And why should i not call black people black? Why should i not call homosexuals homosexuals? Why should i not draw an image of muhammad if i don't believe in his existence? And so on.

It is not called PC - it is called hypocracy. Instead of fighting real problems with some minorities we think that if we call homosexual gay suddenly everyone will start to like him. If we call a child with down syndrom 'special' he suddenly becomes more integrated into the society.

Side: No, Keep it real
1 point

I'll what's true. Okay blind indians? I mean, it's my right to, so I can.

Side: No, Keep it real
1 point

Oh I definitely think that freedom of speech is more important than being PC. Speaking PC words or thinking PC thoughts is a menace to freedom of speech and to liberty. I suggest that PC speech and PC thoughts should be made illegal so as to defend freedom.

Side: No, Keep it real
1 point

We have the freedom to be caring and kind to one another. We also have the freedom to be verbally cruel and rude. We also have the freedom to thank the nice people and chastise the assholes. We should be allowed to exercise that freedom.

Side: No, Keep it real

Lets keep it real our four fathers banded together for freedom of speech. Let continue with the freedom of speech before we become similar to foreign nations

Supporting Evidence: Austin mobile mechanic (www.moonlightingautomotive.com)
Side: No, Keep it real
1 point

Freedom of Speech is always important, but some of us been aggravated with this freedom.

Cheers,

Ricky of

"http://www.kekacase.com/design-your-own/ phone-cases.html

Side: No, Keep it real
-2 points
3 points

did you get it all out....the anger that is?

Side: No, Keep it real
3 points

Anyone can offend. It isn't very difficult to do... but the best speakers I have found are those that can bring together two different trains of thought.

Its like the story of the young Buddhist who on his journey home, came to the banks of a wide river. Staring hopelessly at the great obstacle in front of him, he pondered for hours on just how to cross such a wide barrier. Just as he was about to give up his pursuit to continue his journey he saw a great teacher on the other side of the river. The young Buddhist yells over to the teacher, "Oh wise one, can you tell me how to get to the other side of this river"?

The teacher ponders for a moment looks up and down the river and yells back, "My son, you are on the other side".

Must we not first see other persons view before we can effectively communicate our own?

Side: Yes, I could be offended
2 points

A wonderful story. Only with humility and respect for others can this be learned.

Side: Yes, I could be offended
0 points

This debate could be two different ones - "should we be PC" and "should we have absolute freedom of speech". I'll talk about PC-ness, because there seems to be a general scorn for it.

"Being politically correct" is pretty unimportant for most of us; however, there are people who use 'freedom of speech' to justify racism and advocacy. We have the right to express ourselves, but there are situations in which doing so risks being inappropriate and offensive and in those circumstances, we have a social obligation to be careful about how we present ourselves and our views. If not using epithets that could be seen as derogatory when people who might see them that way are there is being PC, I'm all for it.

The reason political correctness exists is to avoid offence: politicians talk to the media and large groups of people and people look for reasons to condemn what they say; they're also representing their government and country rather than just themselves, so if they say something even slightly inflammatory they're endangering international relations. This is why they need the safety net of political correctness. They may sound silly to you talking about African-Americans instead of black people and same-sex partners instead of gay people or whatever, but given that people from the island of Lesbos took offence at the word lesbian, wouldn't you say better safe than sorry? The majority of people don't care, true, but enough do that I don't think it's frivolous for the media or the government to watch what they say.

Yes, the majority of other people don't need to avoid possible offence so meticulously, but most of us aren't asked to. Being "PC" rarely affects freedom of speech, and if it also stops people all getting offended at each other, that's only a good thing. If you had to stop swearing for a week while you stayed in a house with little kids, would that be a violation of your human right to freedom of speech? No, it would be you making an effort to be polite.

Side: Yes, I could be offended
1 point

I agree with Nikobelia completely.

I have two arguments to prefer 'politically correctness' over and above our god-given right to free speech.

The first is an observation that human interaction is only fruitful through mutual respect. Thus the situation, the audience and other factors influence the appropriateness of the spoken word. For example, between friends who have an established relationship and mutual understanding, strong or colloquial language may be mutually permissible but may not be so with the general population that includes strangers or people likely to be offended. A person who is not conscious of political correctness in his/ her interaction with other people therefore risks being obnoxious or abhorrent. The interaction is no more productive for either party (unless the purpose is to be offensive) and only serves to create barriers.

Secondly, the purpose of many discussions is, in fact, to attack other peoples’ opinions, ideals or beliefs simply because it does not appeal to the speaker. This is an abuse of the right to free speech, and is anti-social in nature. Such bigots should find an appropriate forum that is not aimed at attacking others who are the subject of their intolerance and ensure that people who are likely to be offended are excluded, rather justifying it as ‘free speech’. It is natural to have conflicting beliefs but it is the hallmark of a civilized nation to be able to co-exist in harmony.

Side: Yes, I could be offended
-1 points

Yes, that is why I live in a (Fascist, Communist, Dictatorship etc.) country! In a free country (such as America?) Anyone can say anything including unpatriotic lies about the government. In my country if you said anything dissenting about the dictator you could be killed, jailed or put on a list of "Potential Terrorist Threats". If you googled or searched for classified and dissenting information about the dictator you would be put on the list. And of course anyone on his list can be secretly kidnapped and tortured for as long as the dictator wants. Freedom of speech is wonderful, but if you have to be politically Correct; chances are you aren't free.

Side: Yes, I could be offended
1 point

So what country are you from?

Side: Yes, I could be offended
2 points

Bushland

Side: Yes, I could be offended
-1 points

My debates and response are proof that I would never say anything that would offend anyone ever, anywhere.

Side: Yes, I could be offended
-7 points