- Argument1 of 3›
Political correctness maintains respect in debate
Political correctness is needed in order to have a civilised debate.
The argument
Respect and politeness are crucial in constructive debate. If offensive language is condoned in the media and in our society, then ideas polarise very quickly and risk turning violent. If debate is not respectful then there is no point in it. The point of discussion is learning from one another. Without respect, the argument becomes two people trying to validate their opinion without being openminded. If we are not openminded we cannot function in a democracy.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Political correctness doesn’t stop controversial ideas turning violent - censorship does. Political correctness merely softens the language used to express ideas, which in effect is not very significant
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] Respect and political correctness are not the same thing, and the argument never bridges them. Establishing that constructive debate needs civility leaves open whether a set of conventions about which words are acceptable is what supplies it — a discussion can be scrupulously correct in vocabulary and entirely contemptuous in substance. [Rejecting P2] The counter-argument on record disputes the causal chain, holding that what prevents ideas from turning violent is the restriction of conduct, not the softening of expression, and that adjusting the words used to convey a view leaves the view itself untouched. [Rejecting P3] The premise treats open-mindedness as a product of language conventions. Critics reply that the opposite risk is at least as real: where certain formulations are ruled out in advance, positions go unstated rather than unheld, and the exchange the argument values never takes place. [Rejecting C] The argument also proves less than it needs. Even granting that respect aids debate, that would show civility is useful — not that political correctness, as a distinct social practice with its own critics, is necessary.