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.
Seriously! For what reason did it become illegal to say "Hey! F* you!" to the president! Freedom of speech man! There is no harm in words, only actions! Slowly we are becoming more and more communist by the president! And that is NOT a good step for this country!
A democracy doesn't imply freedom of speech. It only implies at the very least that within a population of citizens there exists equality in representation. And political correctness certainly doesn't stifle either dialogue or idea because it is dependent on those things occurring in the first place. It merely accentuates a way in which we go about relating to other people - filoksenia.
Political correctness is one of the social tools that allows a democracy to thrive. It ensures that individuals and groups of individuals are capable of communicating their ideas as efficiently as possible. I can honestly juxtapose a politically correct environment with one that lacks political correctness and you will often see diametrically opposed environments - the former being the most productive and the latter being unproductive. And there are very simple and practical reasons as to why politically a-correct environments aren't particularly productive.
Under the First Amendment, we are entitled to say whatever we wish as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Notice I said "infringe on the rights of others" and not "if your feelings get hurt." People should not be afraid to say what is on their minds, and Political Correctness is the left's tactic of shutting up the right.
Political correctness is one of the social tools that allows a democracy to thrive
You do realize that Mao Zedong created the idea and first implemented the idea of political correctness, right? Mao Zedong. The same guy that brought China into famine and suffering and killed 30 to 60 million of his own people just to remain in power. That's only 3 to 5 times as many people as were killed in the Holocaust, but don't let that stop you.
Political Correctness must be considered especially when the US is dealing with countries other than their own internal politics - you maybe surprised at this BUT freedom of speech has different meanings in different parts of the world - the US should remember this when dealing with other countries - US Values and Freedom do not need to be forced onto cultures which do not understand or need it...
True. But by that logic, we should not allow other cultures in order to come and affect our ways of living. The Constitution guarantees that freedom of expression and ideas are protected. So my question to you is "Why should we have countries dictate how we live our lives and share our thoughts?"
Acting in a "Politically Correct" manner is bad for virtually any society and country. Political correctness stifles truth, free thought and demeans any person who uses this tactic for whatever reasons they can drum up. It is a tactic based in fear. In the end it negates and demoralizes any country whose desire it is to engender ideas for the betterment of humankind. There is a huge difference in acting politically polite and politically correct.
Political correctness can be bad for a democratic country when it becomes absolute. Absolute political correctness absolutely results in more political control...which can be very bad.
In a sense, political incorrectness is a way of challenging authority, which is great for a democracy. A perfect example is political cartoons. They often seek to offend and the best ones usually cross the line of what's considered politically correct.
On a final note, this is a YES/NO debate! Should have been a 2-sided debate! :^)
a democracy doesn't imply freedom of speech on all levels, it only implies a freedom of ideals and a freedom to decide on how the country should be.
America, although, is built on freedom of speech all around. this includes being able to tell racist, sexist, homophobic, and etc. jokes.
the PC police are basically the facist left. they feel that in order to make everyone "feel better" we have to stop saying "insensitive" things. they're failing in some areas, but are succeeding in other areas.
They fail to control the powerful entertainment industry. places like HBO and Comedy Central, who say the most racist things they want and they also make a lot of money. they are virtually uncensored by the PC police. but, certain titles are now banned by the PC police.
we can't identify terrorists anymore. we can only say terrorists or facists, but we can't say "Radical Islam, Islamofacists, Muslim Terrorists" because it's insensitive. Funny, cause the Troops call them Hoggies. i wonder what the PC police would say to the Troops when they call them towelheads and Hoggies...
There's a fine line between expressing politically incorrect ideas and name calling.
Words like "fag", "bitch", "nigger", etc. should be strongly discouraged because they are weapons used to unfairly degrade and dehumanize the target. I'm not saying "Islamofacists" is as bad as these words, but ask yourself this: Are you trying to express an idea with this word or are you simply expressing hate?
I'm saying that is what they are. an Islamic group that wishes to press their religion onto the rest of the world through means of force. that is facism, and they're ideal is of islam.
and words like fag, bitch and nigger are better for when we're joking around, like on tv. plus, great for rap muzik.
Recently I received a warning about the use of a politically incorrect term, so please note, we all need to be more sensitive in our choice of words.
I have been informed that the Islamic terrorists, who hate our guts and want to kill us, do not like to be called "Rag Heads", since the item they wear on top of their heads is not actually a rag, but in fact, a small folded sheet.
Therefore, from this point forward, please refer to them as "Little Sheet Heads."
Thank you for your support and compliance on this delicate matter.
Also, Terrorism is a sign of the times (but thankfully not so much so that we are desensitized by it). It is for this reason that if we were to witness a terrorist act that we may be tempted to use an expletive such as, "Holy S*!!!" However, we must remember that the terrorist are conducting a holy Shiite ritual. So, if you must express yourself verbally, please use the follwing, "Holy Shiite!!!"
No, but calling people who wear turbans or any kind of headdress "Little Sheet Heads" is offensive to the 99.999% of them who are not terrorists. Grow up.
The people who are not terrorist and got offended by my comment should grow up and realize that I have a legitimate gripe against terrorist and am expressing frustration at the slow progress we are making against terrorists!
Let me ask you a question. If you were a teacher and you taught Shop Class and you had your finger severed during parent teacher conference and you yelled, "Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cock sucker, mother fucker and tits!" Do you think that the parents are going to say, "Gee, we are deeply offended at your choice of words during this difficult period in your life!" Or are they going to say, "OMG, lets do something. Cover little Johnny's ears and I'll call 911!" Well, I don't see the Muslim community calling 911 so if they are offended by my comment then too Freaking bad!
And seeing as you can't keep your armies out of any of their countries, and constantly threaten them with military action, the muslim community at large have a pretty legitimate gripe against the US aswell. Don't resort to reducto ad absurdem to try and make my argument seem silly; it's not.
You have the right to call anyone anything you want, but with comments like "little sheet head," (which aren't funny, satirical, etc) you're only showing your true colours by doing so.
"My comments are a lot less harmful than blowing some one up and yet you side with the terrorists?"
Ah, here we go. The classic right-winged thinking of "Well, if you're not with us, you're against us." I'm not siding with terrorists. I'm simply saying that calling all muslims ragheads and little sheet heads because of the small minority who are terrorists IS offensive. You didn't use the term in satire, or to make some kind of joke. You were simply being an ass.
"Since when is it alright to blow up innocent civilians whenever you have a gripe against someone or something? "
We're drifting from the original point with that, which was simply that it's not okay to justify being an ass because the other side is being an ass too. You're annoyed because there are terrorists. So what? Pretty much the entire islamic world is pissed off with America because of unjustified wars based on lies. The US have killed more people in Iraq then Saddam did. Multitudes more than were killed in 9/11. Just realise that they have their gripes too.
I'm not siding with terrorists Joe. I'm simply saying that calling muslims "little sheet heads" regardless of the context (well, satire I suppose, but, this quite clearly isn't satire) is needlessly offensive.
I'm not talking about your freedom of speech, or your right to make comments like that. You DO and SHOULD have the right to say that. The point I'm making is that you were being a bit of a dick, and you got called on it; Live with it.
You have the right to say what you want, but when you do, everyone else also has the right to say "what a dick!"
Ah, here we go. The classic Xaeon-winged debate strategy: When you've got nothing, start calling the other person names and make stuff up.
Where is your reference that supports your statement that:
"The US have killed more people in Iraq then Saddam did."
Also, I never called ALL Muslims rag heads or sheet heads.
Here's my original statement:
Islamic terrorists, who hate our guts and want to kill us, do not like to be called "Rag Heads" .... Therefore, from this point forward, please refer to them as "Little Sheet Heads."
You're annoyed because there are terrorists. So what? ... Just realise that they have their gripes too.
OK, they (the terrorist) have their gripes and they blow people up. I have my gripes and I call them (the terrorist) names. So what? If, according to you, they are justified in blowing people up because they have a gripe against us, why do you deny me the right to call them whatever I want?
Why don't you say:
"I'm not siding with JoeCavalry. I'm simply saying that blowing innocent people up (indiscriminently, Americans, Canadians whoever happens to be standing by) simply because you have a gripe against American government policies is offensive. it's not okay to justify being an ass because the other side is being an ass too. You're annoyed because American government policies . So what? Pretty much the entire planet is pissed off with terrorist indiscriminate killing. Just realise that the world has gripes too. They just chose to deal with it differently. You freaking terrorist are a bunch of asses and you're being dicks and I'm calling you on it so live with it!"
Why lecture me? Why don't you lecture the terrorist? Do you think that they would spare your life because you stood up to me? I wonder how many words you get out before they popped you on the head. You'd be like, "Hey, I support your guys. You guys have a legitamite gripe against Ameri..." POP!!!
Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 people were killed under the rule of Saddam Hussein. Studies show 600,000 have died since the US invasion of Iraq. Google it.
"Also, I never called ALL Muslims rag heads or sheet heads."
But highlighting a traditional muslim headdress as your point for attacking terrorists IS offensive to the majority of the muslim population who wear those head dresses and aren't terrorists. Jeez. Once again, I must highlight that I'm not denying your right to be offensive or say what you want. You should and do have that right. But also have the good grace to accept that what you said was offensive when someone calls you on it.
"Now, you say: 'You're annoyed because there are terrorists. So what? ... Just realise that they have their gripes too.'"
Actually, no, that's not what I said. What you've done is missed out that whole middle section where I made it clear that I was talking about the Islamic community as a whole; not terrorists. Don't twist my words, Joe.
Also, it's quite clear that I'm not supporting terrorists. I was simply opposing your posts about why your offensive comments were justified. You're continuing to take what I say to mean that I support terrorism; either that or you're knowingly attempting to twist my words to make it appear that way (as evident in your last post). That's pretty sneaky. I obviously don't support terrorism. But using traditional muslim headdress as a point of reference to attack terrorists is simply being offensive to muslims. That's quite clearly all I'm saying.
Your references do not say that the U.S. has killed more people in Iraq than Saddam did.
Here's what it does say:
The study comes at a sensitive time for the Iraqi government, which is under pressure from American officials to take action against militias driving the sectarian killings.
If the militias stop the sectarian killings, then they would be able to benefit from the removal of Saddam. But as long as they have apologists, they have no reason to stop.
Why isn't the Muslim community outraged at the terrorist that give their traditional headdress a bad name?
If the Muslim community is more outraged by my comment on the headdress worn by the terrorist than the terrorist themselves, then (at the risk of a fatwa against me) they have their priorities all screwed up.
According to you, the Muslim community is offended at me making fun of a terrorist headdress because it just so happens to be the same headdress that they wear. Well.....,
What's more offensive, a person that kills your country men or a person that pokes fun at a headdress that's tied to the people that kill your country men? Who should they be outraged at?
Who is more likely to infiltrate a radical mosque and gather information that would help prevent indiscriminate killing of Iraqis and restore the honor of their traditional headdress? A Muslim or a non-Muslim, an Iraqi or an American?
What will it take to convince the Muslim community that it is in their best interest to act against terrorism and to not support terrorism at any level?
What will it take to get the Muslim community to understand that doing nothing is the lowest level of terrorist support?
What will take for them to teach their children that terrorism is a dead end street?
What will it take for non-Muslim apologists to understand that the road to appeasement opens up that dead end street?
So if I call all Nazi's skin heads am I against all peoples with shaved heads?!?! Is that what you are saying to Joe? And why the HELL are you defending terrorists? Ever heard of the famous phrase: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me?" All Joe is doing is saying words. Words don't hurt people that don't let it hurt them. He isn't being racist towards all Muslims and Indians and others that wear Turbans, he is labeling Muslim extremists. There is nothing wrong with that. They are extreme and in the wrong! Joe has done nothing wrong except exercise his right of speech! So grow up and stop letting little words piss you off! G-d Damn! You are like debating with a 2 year old. And Joe! You are instigating it as well! If this guy wants to act like a 2 year old let him! Don't antagonize him! The fact that you are saying that Joe's nickname to terrorists is offensive to all Turban-wearers is bubkiss! If they have a problem with it then that's their fault for being immature!
Well, one good thing about all of this is that it help me clarify that we need someone who can speak to the Muslim community on our (non-Muslim) behalf.
Someone who may be able to get the Muslim community to realize that terrorism is not in their best interest and that they should actively oppose radical Islam.
Someone who can communicate to the Muslim community not to support terrorism at any level and that doing nothing is the lowest level of support.
Someone who can convince the Muslim community to teach their children that terrorism is a dead end street?
I think political correctness is all part of the democratic process, really. When society begins to adopt new ideas, regardless of how right or wrong we (as individuals) may think they are, then surely that should be allowed to happen. If it is wrong, and society agrees so, then it will slowly fade away. If not, then surely it's as much a part of the democratic process as anything else.
I personally do not like political correctness, as it promotes resentment.. especially in the form of positive descrimination. Nothing pisses the majorities off more than telling them that a minority is more important or more deserving, for whatever reason.
Not necessary, no. Simply that if political correctness evolves as a normal part of society, that is all part of the democratic process. If the will of the people demands it (by which, society will accept it), then that is simply a fact of living in a country where this kind of social evolution is allowed.
To quash political correctness against the will of society would, in my opinion, be a bad choice.
Like I said, I'm personally against political correctness. But if society demands it, who am I to say no?
Democracy!? What is democracy? The write to choose the small grouping of elites who are to rule us for the next 3-6 years? Is this what you can democracy?
If you can think of a better way to run government, I'm all ears.
Democracy is the best at managing the two primary problems of a state: upholding the will of the people, and ensuring the security of the people. The problem is simply magnitude: the more people, the harder it is to get everyones opinion in a quick enough manner to act. That is why the US has representative democracy; to ensure timely action on public policy while heeding the will of the people.
This debate is about political correctness, not the nature of democracy.
I assumed from your spelling errors as well as the tangential and ranting nature of your comment that you were, in fact, drunk. If this was not the case I apologize.
