Is Cancel Culture Good? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.









Learn more about DebateIsland.com's EdTech solution aimed at Middle Schools and High Schools, DebateIsland Education, here!

Is Cancel Culture Good?

Debate Information

Is cancel culture healthy or is it a toxic practice?



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  
    It’s a toxic practice to me in most cases anyway. Recently I read a story online about a CEO who 9 years ago in a tweet referred to national woman’s jokingly day as national ironing and cooking day ......some nosey busybody found the tweet and publically outed him and people bayed and screamed for his head on a plate ......I detest this sort of public shaming for the most minor of so called infractions 



    Debater123TreeMan
  • Is cancel culture healthy or is it a toxic practice?
    It doesn't bother me all that much except for nitpicky cases where the infraction is old or small and the consequences aren't appropriate to the 'crime'. 

    I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 860 Pts   -  
    It's a deliberate attack to silence the opposition.  A tactic used by those too afraid to have conversations.  It should be opposed by any member of society that likes freedom and wants to be an intellectual instead of a mindless sheep.
    Debater123anarchist100
  • @MichaelElpers

    We must have different conception of cancel culture. All too often I see people complaining about being a victim of cancel culture when they are actually a victim of their own actions. 
    CYDdhartaPlaffelvohfen
    I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 860 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne

    I'm not sure what you view it as but I view it as an attack against someone or something with the intent to cause mass ostracization or silence them based on their views/beliefs.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -  
    It undermines one of the defining characteristics of the Western civilization: the ability of residents to have open discussions and respect each other's opinions. It is not just toxic; I would say that it is civilization-shattering in the long run. It effectively resurrects the concept of "heresy", declaring that certain topics should not be discussed at all, and those who discuss them should not be welcomed in civilized circles. 

    I want to hear interesting arguments. I do not want to hear arguments I agree with, or arguments I feel good about; if I did, I would become religious and lose myself in the echo-chamber of my church. I have always been interested in uncovering complex relations in nature, and there is no better way to do it than to listen to an opinion you have never heard before and put it against what you already know to be true.
    "Cancel culture" limits such discussions. It is the apex of conformism and collectivism, where either you bow to the widely accepted opinion, or you are expelled from the public space.

    And, just like any other phenomenon of this kind, "cancel culture" has quickly started producing completely absurd cases, such as Richard Dawkins, a prominent scientist and brilliant debater, being stripped of a 25-year old award due to a tiny Tweet criticizing the concept of "I identify as X => I am X" - a point that anyone with a brain must agree with.

    A strong and mature society should have a high degree of tolerance for controversial, let alone obviously true, but related to sensitive matters, opinions. When the smallest deviation from the "approved speech" leads to mass-induced ostracizion and digging in a person's 25-year old past, then it is not a strong and mature society; it is a weak and infantile one.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1037 Pts   -  
    @Dee
    I detest this sort of public shaming for the most minor of so called infractions 

    I'm sure that every woman in the world would not agree with you there.

    Anyway, the issue really is about how good they look in the morning when they breakfast.

  • DeeDee 4169 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    Anyway, the issue really is about how good they look in the morning when they breakfast.

    Indeed the beer googles from the night before normally leave one fleeing for the nearest exit 
  • @SkepticalOne

    I'm not sure what you view it as but I view it as an attack against someone or something with the intent to cause mass ostracization or silence them based on their views/beliefs.
    Would you include boycotts of Target or Starbucks for not being Christmas-y enough in your view of Cancel Culture? What about boycotts of Disney and Wells Fargo for being gay-friendly? Or boycotts of Harry Potter for being an 'occultic influence' or the DaVinci code for being heretical? 

    Cancel Culture seems to be a label mostly used by conservatives when they are on the receiving end of common practices.


    TreeMan
    I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 860 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne

     I think boycotting and trying to get the government or another authority to shut someone down is a little different.

    One you are just deciding you are using free market principles and deciding to spend money with a company that agrees more with your principles. Another you are trying to get an authority or powerful figures to silence someone/ideas you disagree with.  It is anti 1st amendment and is authoritarian in nature. I may think Starbucks is a crappy organization, but I still believe they have the right to voice their opinion and wouldn't take that away. 
  • @SkepticalOne

     I think boycotting and trying to get the government or another authority to shut someone down is a little different.

    One you are just deciding you are using free market principles and deciding to spend money with a company that agrees more with your principles. Another you are trying to get an authority or powerful figures to silence someone/ideas you disagree with.  It is anti 1st amendment and is authoritarian in nature. I may think Starbucks is a crappy organization, but I still believe they have the right to voice their opinion and wouldn't take that away. 
    I provided examples which met your definition. Did you want to modify your definition to exclude boycotting?
    I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1621 Pts   -  
    Would you include boycotts of Target or Starbucks for not being Christmas-y enough in your view of Cancel Culture? What about boycotts of Disney and Wells Fargo for being gay-friendly? Or boycotts of Harry Potter for being an 'occultic influence' or the DaVinci code for being heretical? 

    Cancel Culture seems to be a label mostly used by conservatives when they are on the receiving end of common practices.


    Whataboutism
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne

    Boycotting is an individual decision. "Cancel culture" goes beyond such decisions and involves further action aimed at making others unable to make their own decision.

    For example, suppose you are a student at a university, and the university invites a speaker who you dislike. You choosing not to go and listen to this speaker, or even encouraging other people to not go listen to them, does not in any way impair the ability of said speaker to accept the invitation and make a speech, thus is not a manifestation of "cancel culture". On the other hand, you and others coming together and surrounding the building where the speech is to take place, yelling and making the invitee unable to deliver their speech undisturbed - or going to the university administration and demand that they revoke the invitation - would be a manifestation of "cancel culture".

    That is where the word "cancel" comes from: people try to prevent others from delivering their message, rather than just choosing not to listen to that message.

    Lastly, "cancel culture" has nothing to do with particular political leanings. Anyone can be successfully and unsuccessfully "canceled" in this sense. And I do not think anyone has ever mentioned that "conservatives" are never guilty of doing that either. However, one would have to be extremely intellectually dishonest to suggest that, say, people with positions mostly aligned with the Democratic platform are not much more likely to do so than people with positions mostly aligned with the Republican platform. It is very rare for a Democrat to be invited to speak somewhere and for Republicans to try to actively bar them from speaking; the opposite case is commonplace. The Republican electorate certainly shows overall a much higher degree of tolerance for opinions they disagree with than the Democratic electorate.

    I have had many strongly pro-Democratic acquaintances, and quite a few strongly pro-Republican acquaintances. The former group is the only one among members of which I regularly encountered heated situations where civilized discussion was impossible. I could say to the most devout Republican Christian's face that I thought their religion was a bunch of nonsense, and they would almost always respond calmly, however irrational their responses were. With Democrats though, it often took a very minor disagreement to hear a lot of things about the quality of my character, my intelligence and so on.
  • TreeManTreeMan 261 Pts   -  
    What form of cancel culture would you refer to? For example, the My Pillow thing is just boycotting, and it doesn't stop anyone from buying from his store, in a physical sense. Cancel culture and boycotting have a very thin line, most actions by democrats are just boycotting. People opposed to this, such as Republicans, call this 'Cancel Culture' in order to give us bad vibes about the topic. 
    SkepticalOneCYDdharta
  • TreeManTreeMan 261 Pts   -  
    The one boycotting/cancel culture I really hate is when people dig up dirt files on people (generally celebrities or politicians), such as things they did years back. 
    SkepticalOne
  • TreeManTreeMan 261 Pts   -  
    And its usually minor
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne Gold Premium Member 1139 Pts   -   edited July 13
    @MayCaesar

    You and I are somewhat in agreement. I'm not a fan of those who prevent someone from speaking publicly to others and this is not limited to one political ideology.

    On the other hand, I have seen Conservatives conflating seemingly everything under the sun with cancel culture. I recognize this is may be only my perception (this is why I questioned Elpers to get his view) And, I assure you, heated impossible conversations are not limited to any political view.
    TreeMan
    I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3946 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne

    That is definitely true, and there is a lot of overreaction on the part of some of the people with somewhat marginalized views. Many seem to think that an adequate response to a controversial opinion is lack of any response, that if someone calls someone out on irrationality of their opinion, then their free speech is being violated. Churchill mentioned such people in one of his famous quotes:



    But, just as much, there is a lot of dismissal of the clear fact that there is a phenomenon of people of certain character increasingly trying to silence those whose opinions they find reprehensible. "Cancel culture" may be blown out of proportion by some, but it is a real, serious and dangerous phenomenon that absolutely should be called out. Who it predominantly applies to is not nearly as important as its existence. Many people think that, since it does not affect them and only affects their opponents, then they have nothing to worry about... Which is a very big mistake, as history has shown on hundreds of occasions. "First they came for the Jews..." is an immortal quote illustrating the error of this reasoning.

    Finally, of course people with any political views may have trouble discussing certain topics civilly. It just has been my observation (and I am not alone in it) that the most extreme displays of intolerance and desire to silence others tend to be exhibited by the people associated with what is commonly characterized as "left" part of the political spectrum.
    TreeMan
  • JGXdebatePROJGXdebatePRO 388 Pts   -   edited July 18
    Argument Topic: Cancel culture is a violation of freedom of speech and is a highly toxic practice.

    If something is obviously not against the law, people have no right to say something is objectively wrong just because it doesn't align with their own sense of morality or the typical "woke" sense of morals. I have no objection with people on the internet wanting educated discussion on a topic, sure, but otherwise no. There is an exception held in the case of hypocrisy, because then sure, if someone campaigns against aircraft because it is bad for the environment and own a private jet, then they aren't fit for purpose, but for matters regarding opinion, cancel culture is toxic.
    Subsequentially trolls
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 860 Pts   -  
    @JGXdebatePRO

    "If something is obviously not against the law, people have no right to say something is objectively wrong just because it doesn't align with their own sense of morality or the typical "woke" sense of morals."

    I don't think it's a good idea to let the law determine what you think is objectively right and wrong/ good or bad for society.  Otherwise you would have thought slavery was fine.

    I don't just let bureaucrats determine what is objective, I try to do the research, use logical reasoning, and then decide whether something is good or bad 
  • iamathiestiamathiest 17 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Toxic

    This generation just cancels anyone for anything at this point.
  • exconexcon 138 Pts   -  

    Hello C:

    It's too broad a question to answer..  I first came upon this phrase in regards to Civil War hero's being celebrated in southern towns with statutes and memorials celebrating their accomplishments..

    First off, a statue in the public square means something totally different than that same statue would have in a museum..  One celebrates a culture..  The other celebrates history..  The CULTURE was defeated.  Or so we thought..

    Besides, the southern generals were LOSERS and TRAITORS..  They LOST their war...  WHY in the hell should they be celebrated???  But, I'd enjoy a looksee at their culture IN a MUSEUM where it belongs.

    Therefore, ANY memorial, and/or any STATUE that celebrates these traitors and losers should be CANCELED immediately, and relegated to a museum. 

    excon
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1504 Pts   -   edited August 1
    In cases where obvious hypocrisy is present, that renders someone unfit for a job, I would be OK with a 'cancellation' incident. For example, if an anti-smoking campaigner was found to be smoking twenty a day, they would not be fit for purpose. Or, if someone who purports to care about the environment was constantly littering, they too would not be fit for purpose, and therefore a 'cancellation' would be justified.

    Otherwise, where someone's opinions and/or actions are irrelevant to their job, and people 'cancel' them because of a self-imposed sense of morals, especially if these morals are not widely agreed upon, I would be against this sort of behaviour. But I am also against people using 'cancel culture' as a tool to condemn certain political ideologies, because often the ideologies in question have nothing to do with cancel culture whatsoever, and so the argument is a sort of intellectual bait-and-switch.
  • AntnyAntny 12 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Cancel Culture Should Be Cancelled Itself.

    Cancel Culture is a bunch of soft teenagers who cancel syrup and kid's toys. I don't think there is much debating about this.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch