Debate Info

Scientific Correctness: Bad Political Correctness: Bad
Debate Score:38
Total Votes:38
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Scientific Correctness: Bad (18)
 Political Correctness: Bad (11)

Debate Creator

hmicciche(670) pic

What is worse than Political Correctness is Scientific Correctness

Bad bad Bad!

Scientific Correctness: Bad

Side Score: 26

Political Correctness: Bad

Side Score: 12
3 points

Political Correctness is just a bunch of whiny lib-tards who want us to be nicer to fat chicks, retards, gimps and all those eternally oppressed minorities. Fuck'em

But what is worse is this Scientific Correctness bull-shit. Creationism is not Scientifically Correct. Blow me. Global Warning is a Fraud. Not Scientifically Correct. Blow me sideways. Take your Scientific Correctness go jump off the edge of this flat flat earth.

Side: Scientific Correctness: Bad

Political Correctness also wants us to be nicer towards the niggardly!"niggardly"

Side: Scientific Correctness: Bad
2 points

I know that word. What a phony contrempts that incident was!

Side: Scientific Correctness: Bad
2 points

i see what you did. I also often find a comment turning into a good debate topic.

Side: Scientific Correctness: Bad
1 point
hmicciche(670) Disputed
1 point

I see. So science should be above and beyond politics -- but somehow the global warming scientists (including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of over 2000 scientists from 100 countries working under a mandate from the United Nations in the largest peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history) have contaminated the data for political ends.

Sounds like the claims a noted science-fiction writer might make. Lets see how rigorous this writer of fiction did when writing about real science in his book "State of Fear".

"Although Crichton attempts to use real-world data and studies within the novel to highlight some of the realities and uncertainties in climate science, the novel contains a number of strawman arguments, misinterpretations of the scientific literature, and even a few misleading statements drawn from the so-called “skeptics.” Despite his research and the book’s many footnotes, Crichton has a less-than-commanding understanding of climate change science. The book is much more of a vehicle for his own opinions on the issue rather than an objective commentary on the state of the science and policy debate." (See the link for discussion of key questions raised by Crichton in State of Fear)

See also:

Side: Political Correctness: Bad
TERMINATOR(6763) Disputed Banned
1 point

First of all, the speech was not solely for climatology, but for any scientific study.

He was not only a science-fiction writer - he wrote non-fiction books and was a graduate of Harvard medical school.

Thirdly, the critics of State of Fear are the people he was trying to disprove. Doesn't it make sense that they would say that? He used somewhat obscure sources because they have all been shunned.

Don't you think that these scientists are remaining poor? If the governments tax the world on these things, they stand to become wealthy.

Side: Scientific Correctness: Bad
2 points

It was hard for me to choose which side I should take. I agree that both are sheer lunacy. For Scientific Correctness, however, people still have a minor amount of freedom. But if people are politically incorrect, they will be chastised. I am expecting controversy, but I shall say it anyway.

The word Negro is Spanish, it means black.

The word Nigger is Latin, it means black.

The word Black is English, it means black.

Based on the above conslusions, would it not be more politically correct to refer to them in a different language. Would that not cause less offence?

I recently read about a one-garbage bag maximum. A few months ago they had a two-garbage bag maximum. The article went like this: "The people of the city of ----- have risen to the challenge to make this earth greener by limiting garbage intake to one bag per family.' I just kept thinking to myself, 'we have not chosen it, you lunatics are shoving it down our throats.'

During a family-debate, several relatives talked about how some agency in the US decided that, when plants are not forming oxygen they are forming carbon dioxide, and thus should be cut down. IT IS THE PLANTS THAT GIVE YOU OXYGEN YOU DAMNED IDIOTIC BASTARD!

A singer (can't remember her name) went on a tour of America, telling people to use a maximum of three squares of toilet paper each time that they go to the washroom!?!

Michael Crichton (of the Jurassic Park fame) wrote a book called 'State of Fear,' I haven't read it, but am planning on it soon. In the book, he used the sources of scientists who don't believe in global warming. The 'mainstream,' global warming-believing scientists said that they book was full of flawed science. Anti-global warming scientists said it was truth. Of course, people seem to believe the masses and have criticized him for a flawed book.

The idiots who came up with global warming are the same people who said that there would be an ice age back in the 90s. It doesn't feel that cold.

Now more on political correctism.

I posted some links on a debate about ASBOs. The British Anti-Social-Behaviour-Order is an attempt to make non-jailable offences (such as saying the word 'grass,' or being sarcastic, or spitting, or having loud sex) jailable. In theory, the offence is not jailable - but if they do it they are given an ASBO. The offence is breach of the ASBO, which carried a prison term of upto 5 years. It is our God-Given right to spit wherever we damn well please and have as loud of sex that we damn well please.

Some feminists made a controversy over the film Hannibal. Why? Because he eats a woman. It's all fine and dandy that he eats men, but women are a no-no.

Others say that 'woman' is politically incorrect because the word 'man' is in it. Rather, they spell it 'womyn.'

Here is a rather humorous example:

"If, through omission or commission, I have inadvertently displayed any sexist, racist, culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, ageist, lookist, ableist, sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist, phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other type of bias as yet unnamed, I apologize…''

("[…] the stories were sexist, discriminatory, unfair, culturally biased, and in general, demeaning to witches, animals, goblins, and fairies everywhere. […] We'd like to think that future generations of fairy tale fans will see this as a worthy attempt to develop meaningful literature that is totally free of bias and purged from the influences of the flawed cultural past."),

Side: Political Correctness: Bad
hmicciche(670) Disputed
2 points

One point above all needs to be addressed.

"The idiots who came up with global warming are the same people who said that there would be an ice age back in the 90s."

Incorrect. The only sources for the "ice age" prediction were stories by journalists from Newsweek and some newspaper (I'll do the research leter to provide the names). They cited the only scientic paper in all of that decade that predicted the ice age. It was not peer reviewed.

On the other hand, there were hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers about the evidence for global warming.

Sorry. One paper blown out of proportion by journalists does not make a scientific controversy. It is a problem created by people like yourself who fall victim to this myth made up by the media, fail to check the facts, and find it convenient to spread this phony story to support your political position. Sorry. you are now a victom of Scientific Correctness.

Side: Scientific Correctness: Bad
TERMINATOR(6763) Disputed Banned
1 point

About the Ice Age theorists? That was just something I heard a few years ago. How was the rest of my argument?

Side: Political Correctness: Bad