Political correctness attempting to limit free speech, and turn people into weenies

== Framework ==Most important to this debate is to figure out what the resolution is. Before that, let's define "political correctness." Pro's link (Merriam Webster) offers two vaguely similar definitions. Pro doesn't specify a preference so I'll go with the first one listed: "agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people."We are not debating legal issues. It is not my burden to show that "politically incorrect" speech ought to be made illegal or that some law should be passed against it. Pro doesn't specify an agent or argue for any plan. So, I offer the following statement as the most reasonable interpretation of the resolution as it flows from the definition.Resolved: Care should be taken to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people.This is a fairly specific resolution. For example, political correctness does not require the speaker to refer to a black person as "African American" but does require them to refrain from using words such as "negro." The term "political correctness" is often straw-manned by those opposed to it who often go to extremes. Examples include claiming that Christmas is required to be called the "Winter Holiday" which isn't the case. Winter Holidays often refers to the New Year as well. It is not a replacement term for "Christmas." The determining factor is whether it is considered offensive. In theory, anything could be considered offensive so the line should be drawn at what is reasonably considered to be offensive by a majority of the group in question. Reasonableness is subject to debate. To illustrate with my examples, most blacks don't consider the word black to be offensive, there are societies like the National Society of Black Engineers which specifically refer to the ethnicity as "black." President Obama has made many speeches referring to the ethnic group as "black." I could elaborate if my opponent contests this but I doubt that it will be. Thus, it is the case that a person can be completely politically correct while referring to a black person as black. Using the term "negro" on the other hand changes the game as it is vastly considered offensive. Similarly political correctness does not involve referring to short people as "vertically disadvantaged," bald people as "follicularly challenged," or pets as "quadruped non-human associates." These are gimmicky strawmen propped up by opponents of political correctness to diminish the greater message.To win this debate, I need to show that care must be taken to curtail offensive speech with offensive referring to what is reasonably considered offensive to a majority of the group in question. It is not my burden to show that offensive should be outlawed by the US government nor is that my advocacy.== Rebuttals ==Pro says that political correctness infringes upon freedom of speech. I have two separate responses:A) Non-topical - I'm not advocating that the government take action against speakers who are offensive. I'm arguing that people should take care not to offend. The agent here is the speaker. B) Absolute freedom of speech is not something that we should value. Pro's example shows that restrictions of freedom of speech isn't unreasonable.Pro's fire fighter example is vague. The term isn't often used today as it is archaic and reflective of a past society where firefighters were exclusively male. I'm not sure what Pro's advocacy is here. Would he refer to female firefighters as "firemen?"== My Case ==1) Offensive speech encourages hate crimes. It creates an us vs them mentality. When offensive speech is considered acceptable, it presents a recruiting ground for hate groups who are then spurred to violence [1].2) TURN: The intimidation caused by offensive hate speech can lead to self-censorship thus leading to less freedom of speech.3) Confirmity is good. If people perceive offensive speech to be unacceptable, it prevents others from doing so reducing further offensive speech and violent crime.4) An inclusive society is better than one where groups are excluded according to their race, sex, etc. Pro argues that the solution is to develop thicker skin to offensive speech. He is essentially advocating actively committing an injustice and blaming it on the victim. It is better for people to not use offensive speech than it is to demand that victims develop thick skin.I'm not sure if Pro meant for me to post a full case in R1 but I'll stop here and await Pro's case.[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com...