Politcal Correctness Is Bad

OkayThe premise of this debate is that political correctness is bad. For pro to be right about this, he must show that political correctness does more 'bad' than it does 'good.'However, Pro states that 'many liberals can be accepting of opposing political views.'If that is the case, then the people that he feels are abusing political correctness to silence peoples views he agrees are a minority. Therefore, how could political correctness be doing more bad than good? Pro then concedes that politicians are not silencing the views of their opposition by abusing political correctness. As it is the politicians who make all the decisions about where the country is headed, he is again showing that conservatives are still getting their voices heard by the people that matter regardless of how ordinary citizens, who do not have the ability to enact policy that changes where the country is moving, use political correctness, the vast majority of who he earlier conceded don't abuse political correctness anyway. Therefore, the harm, if any, that is being done by political correctness is negligible whereas the good that it is doing by not allowing racists and sexists to stop minorities and women from having their voices heard by stopping politicians who are racist and sexist from keeping their jobs when they make racist and sexist comments.Pro cites a number of examples of people being silenced for their conservative views. However, many of these don't seem to have anything to do with political correctness. Facebook is a business; if it was a social media site which allowed people to post things like 'it's too difficult to distinguish normal muslims from terrorist muslims' then they would lose a lot of their Muslim following as people would not feel safe on the site and neither would many people want their children on the site. The reason facebook censored (if it did censor it at all as the evidence provided simply shows that Facebook made a mistake which they apologised for) the post had nothing to do with political correctness. It was a business decision which was made primarily off of the kind of environment that Facebook wanted to create - one where people felt safe and wanted. The reason they wanted that environment was not because they are trying to silence conservatives and has nothing to do with political correctness, it was primarily so they could get more money by keeping a large section of their Muslim population by ensuring they felt safe to be on the site. That example is irrelevant to the question of political correctness.As for Ben Shapiro's interview, attacking people for attending an event is not at all okay and not liberal either as liberalism is about the freedom of ideas. However, people were not protesting him because he was not 'politically correct,' they were protesting because they strongly disagreed with his ideas and believe that they promote harm. It is very obvious that the use of political correctness has not been used to silence his ideas because people know what his views and opinions are and therefore he has not been silenced - he has had a platform, even though some people are protesting against him because they want to make it known that they do not share his platform and that they disagree with his views. No silencing has happened here. Even though he did not finish the talk, that did not stop people from knowing what his views are.Again, as you have pointed out, even the people attempting to stop the conservative from talking are in the vast minority, and thus even if political correctness was being used to silence him, it is not working and it is a vast minority of people who are supposedly doing it. Thus the harm, as I stated before, cannot outweigh the good, which I also stated earlier. A strawman fallacy is not putting words into somebody's mouth. It is attacking a person instead of their argument. I have not attacked you, I have simply attacked your argument. Whereas you have ignored mine and accused me of doing something that I have not. My second point was that political correctness is often blamed when in fact somebody has just issued a valid counter argument. I gave an example in which that was the case where I did not reference any particular individual, just two people with opposing opinions. You are the only one here who continually makes references to liberals and conservatives - there is too much variety in these types of people to generalize like you admitted you made the mistake of doing earlier.Pro is correct that a correlation does not mean causation, but whether transgender people exist or not is irrelevant to the debate. My third point, which Pro did not touch on, was that if these people do exist or not, it does no good to let people attack them with hurtful words that have no purpose but to cause hurt and often originate from a lack of research which Pro admitted to in the last round. It does do good to protect them from that.