Those with heightened racial/gender/etc. sensitivity are dangerous to society. (2)

Thanks for the lecture on how to debate, but given the framing of the debate I'm under no obligation to prove the benevolence of heightened sensitivity; that is going the extra mile and is technically a whole separate debate (which is why I didn't focus on it). All I have to do is prove that it's not "dangerous" which is your position; which is what I focused on. 1) Heightened sensitivity helped close the wage gap (as well as put more women in positions of leadership and authority). The evidence for this is that this heightened sensitivity began in the 1960s with the first wave of the Feminist movement and wages began to normalize accordingly (followed by an even bigger echo-boom in the 1980s when the next generation entered the workforce). The same is true for the employment gap, college education gap, and a variety of other indicators: http://gstudies.asp.radford.edu... http://www.bsos.umd.edu... http://www.bsos.umd.edu... http://www.bsos.umd.edu... Political involvement is another measure; and illustrates the impact of the echo from the feminist movement of the 1960s – it correlates very closely with the required minimum ages to hold political office in the us: http://www.bsos.umd.edu... With respect to talking about the holistic approach – there isn't space within this limited forum to post all of the reading you would need to do because there are reams and reams of not only expert opinion pieces on the topic, but loads of studies and experiments that have been done on the subject. Here's a decent overview: http://www.alternet.org... One of the major theoretical frameworks for understanding linguistic determinism (the idea that our language shapes our culture) is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which you can read more about here: http://en.wikipedia.org... Institutions like the APA and UNESCO have studied this topic closely: http://unesdoc.unesco.org... Here's just a tiny sampling of studies that have been done topic of language (specifically sexist language) shaping culture (there are literally tens of thousands of others – many of which are validated by observable changes in behavior and changes in brain activity as documented by fMRI scans): http://www.newscientist.com... http://www.newswise.com... http://www3.uakron.edu... As for addressing sexism in advertising, wikipedia has a well-cited and well-written explanation of the impact of feminist theory on advertising (hopefully I don't have to explain you the persuasive power that advertising has over the US population): http://en.wikipedia.org... The problem you've created is that you've never defined what a "Heightened Sensitivity" means. You haven't even quantified the "dangers" it purportedly holds for this country. For their time, Feminists then (and even now) would have been considered to have had a "heightened sensitivity" to issues of gender because there was very little thought given to the subject. Even today, conservatives still rail against the feminist movement. Feminist Theorists "promoted" their ideas by publishing them (which shocked and alarmed the male-dominated world of academia, causing a great deal of public attention being directed at their ideas). There were also public activist measures – like bra-burning – which helped direct attention to the cause. Here's one discussion of sexism in advertising: http://web.archive.org... Unfortunately it's not available online, but if you get a chance, read Erving Goffman's "Gender Advertisements" (1976) (which not only discusses the ads, but shows them as well). Here's another excellent analysis: http://www.imageandnarrative.be... 2) It's hypocritical to chide me for sourcing my claims when your claim that heightened sensitivity is "impeding" the "resolutions of racial tensions" is bereft of evidence. THE CLOSING 1) You've never proven any of your claims. You cited two anecdotal examples (Larry Summers and Steve Lyons) and absolutely nothing else to bolster your claim that "heightened sensitivity" is damaging to free speech. EVEN IF both examples were completely legitimate examples of open debate being silenced by unfair sensitivity to race/gender issues – two pithy examples can't possibly suffice to support your claim that this is a nationwide phenomena that permeates our entire society. Not only that, but NEITHER of them even begins to approach to the definition you provided of "oppression." You've failed by the standards you set forth for yourself. Larry Summers resigned. Fact. Had the comments about sex and intelligence been the only controversial thing he'd done while President of Harvard, however, he would almost certainly still be President (students supported him by a 3-1 margin in a poll). Fact. Summers was defended by many, including the Harvard Law/Business faculty and donors who withdrew contributions. Fact. You are oversimplifying a complex situation that you have only a tenuous grasp of (when we began this debate, you didn't even know Summers' name). Fact. BOTTOM LINE: If the damage wrought by "heightened sensitivity" to issues of race and gender, it should be easy for my opponent to point out DOZENS if not HUNDREDS of other examples, and yet he's refused to budge from the two examples he selected (in spite of the fact that he was largely ignorant about the actual circumstances of the two incidents; so ignorant in fact that he didn't even know the names of the people he was resting his case on). 2) Humor is one of the most powerful forms of enforcing ideologies (and in the case of this discussion, reinforcing subordinate statuses for women and minorities) precisely because it seems so innocuous. Numerous studies have attested to the power of humor to express very profound sentiments in a roundabout way which gives it a lasting sting: http://www.stpt.usf.edu... "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" are good examples of the power of humor to inform and direct political opinion (in spite of the fact that the two programs are comedic) is a good example of this, and has been studied academically: "Media can fill those voids with second-hand information that is central to constructions of social reality. Such media effects on knowledge and beliefs, as well as behaviors, are more likely when media serve a central information function. "If, out of habit or necessity, we incorporate the media system as a major vehicle for understanding, then the media system takes on a certain power to influence how we think, feel, and act" (DeFleur & Ball-Rokeach, 1989, p. 316)." Fox, Julia R.; Koloen, Glory; Sahin, Volkan (2007). No Joke: A Comparison of Substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Broadcast Network Television Coverage of the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 51, no. 2: 213-227 Racist humor is disempowering because it maintains and reinforces stereotypes (which lead to discrimination). It is taboo in many contexts because of this reality. You have provided zero evidence that racist/sexist humor helps "soothe" racial/sexual tensions. Your principle contention is that indelicate comments about race/sex are suppressed in this country. Comedy Central (a channel rich with racist/sexist humor) is just one outlet that disproves his claim of suppression. There are myriad other TV venues as well; HBO, Cartoon Network, FX, MTV, VH1, Spike, etc. as well as movies and in radio.