The Instigator
Viper-King
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Cerebral_Narcissist
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points

Hate Crime

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/30/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,446 times Debate No: 18546
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (6)

 

Viper-King

Con

Hello, my topic today is hate crime.I am against hate crime and would like to debate.

First of all, hate crime is a violation of freedom of speech and freedom of refusal. Hate crime makes my opinion against gays and lesbians unlawful because of my opinion against their lifestyles. I would like to challenge you to my first debate. Thanks.
Cerebral_Narcissist

Pro

Defintion of Hate Crime
A hate crime is a legal category used to described bias-motivated violence: "assault, injury, and murder on the basis of certain personal characteristics: different appearance, different color, different nationality, different language, different religion."

"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).

A hate crime law is a law intended to prevent bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech in that hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct that is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

---

Therefore
1: 'Hate crime' is simply a qualifier placed on an existing crime, which obviously by defintion is already illegal.
2: Hate crime is a distinct conept from hate speech.

My opponents argument that Hate Crime laws infringe his legitimate freedom of speech is therefore invalid. Resolution negated.
Debate Round No. 1
Viper-King

Con

My opponent says," My opponents argument that Hate Crime laws infringe his legitimate freedom of speech is therefore invalid" even though it does hurt my freedom of speech. My opponent fails to understand the hate crime I am taking about is especially towards gays. If someone is attacking a gay because he is rich not because of him being gay and yells something about gays, he could get charged for hurting the gay because the guy being was gay and could get all sorts of benefits. Hate crime restrains and limits my freedom speech and opinion towards the people because I can't say anything that could hurt them.

Hate Crime- crime motivated by hate for group: a crime that is motivated by hate, prejudice, or intolerance of somebody's religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation
My value is thought freedom.

1st Contention-Hate crime destroys our thought freedom.
If a person does a crime not because of their hate for gays, but for other reasons such as being rich though he is against homosexuality, if the individual gay finds out he opposes same sex marriage he can get extreme benefits and more protection if he can prove that the person doing the crime thought he was gay and attacked hm for this reason.

2nd Contention-Hate crime is against the law.
The 14th Amendment guarentees equal protection to everyone under the law. This law creates a special protection status not available to others. By elevating gays and lesbians to a higher level of government protection, everyone else is treated as second class citizens.

3rd Contention-Hate crime can easily lead to the prosecution of hate speech.
Physical violece can easily lead to verbal violence in the minds of some law enforcement officials. It always comes up bit by bit and then it becomes hate speech.
Cerebral_Narcissist

Pro

My opponent argues that,
"If someone is attacking a gay because he is rich not because of him being gay and yells something about gays, he could get charged for hurting the gay because the guy being was gay and could get all sorts of benefits. Hate crime restrains and limits my freedom speech and opinion towards the people because I can't say anything that could hurt them."

In such a scenario it is reasonable to suspect that the victims wealth is not the primary reason for the attack, the fact that the attacker would make some sort of derogatory reference to his victims sexuality implies that this is partial motivation for the attack.

It is quite clear that the hate crime designation simply seeks to protect 'minorities' from ACTS that are already illegal. Not thoughts, nor ordinary speech.

"1st Contention-Hate crime destroys our thought freedom.
If a person does a crime not because of their hate for gays, but for other reasons such as being rich though he is against homosexuality, if the individual gay finds out he opposes same sex marriage he can get extreme benefits and more protection if he can prove that the person doing the crime thought he was gay and attacked hm for this reason."

My opponents resolution concerns the claim that the Hate Crime designation infringes his freedom of speech, this argument utterly fails to affirm that. He instead claims that it violates his freedom of thought, however he ends by saying "if he can prove that the person doing the crime thought he was gay and attacked hm for this reason." which is the whole point of the hate crime designation and which violates neither his freedom of speech nor thought.

Before and after the creation of the hate crime designation my opponent was free to say what he liked about homosexuality (subject to existing laws), to think what he liked about homosexuality. He was not free to physically attack homosexuals for being homosexual. Before the hate crime designation that was illegal, after the hate crime designation it was illegal.

---

"2nd Contention-Hate crime is against the law.
The 14th Amendment guarentees equal protection to everyone under the law. This law creates a special protection status not available to others. By elevating gays and lesbians to a higher level of government protection, everyone else is treated as second class citizens."

Again this argument is irrelevant as my opponents objection to Hate Crimes is motivated by the claim that it infringes freedom of speech, not that it violates the constitution or a sense of equality.

My opponents argument concerns section 1 of the 14th amendment which states,
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Hate Crime laws simply provide an aggravating factor to be taken into account when sentencing, much in the same way that if instances of drunk driving rapidly increased a Judge might choose to 'make an example' of someone as a deterrent. Or if he had presided over a string of assault cases against homosexuals he might choose to make an example of a particular defendant. In the case of Hate Crimes, the law itself has been altered to automatically make an example of such people, this does not detract from the conditions laid down in the 14th amendment.

---

"3rd Contention-Hate crime can easily lead to the prosecution of hate speech.
Physical violece can easily lead to verbal violence in the minds of some law enforcement officials. It always comes up bit by bit and then it becomes hate speech."

Verbal violence, such as threats and incitement to violence are already illegal. In any case it is not sufficient for my opponent to claim that Hate Crime can easily lead to the prosecution of hate speech, he must show this to be an inevitable consequence and demonstrate that hate speech is protected under his right to freedom of speech.


Debate Round No. 2
Viper-King

Con

My opponent fails to say what he thinks about hate crime but keeps on attacking me. I don't know what he thinks

about it. I feel like I don't know his affirmative position for his case because he doesn't have case though I know very

clearly his negative position on my case. About the first contention, what I meant was if a person commits a crime

against a gay and says something about gays while he is doing it. All the victim has to do is say the person did the

crime because he was gay because the person said something about gays. The attacker may have not known the victim

was gay and attacked for other reasons but because while doing the crime he said something about gays, he could get

arrested and charged not just for the crime but for saying something against gays and the gay would get a bunch of

benefits. That is what I meant by "if he can prove that the person doing the crime thought he was gay and attacked

him for this reason." So the hate crime law not only violates my thought freedom because they think the attacker did

the crime for one reason but the attacker may have done it for some other reasons but also it is like reading someone's

mind. "I know why you are doing you said simething about your victim's lifestyle. Therefore, my conclusion is that hate

crime not only infringes my thought freedom but my freedom of speech. The 2nd contention, while my opponent says

that this contention is irrelevant, this is not true. My opponent failed to sabatoge my contention because hate crime

laws do hurt other people. Gays are elevated to another level while everyone else is on a lower class. Does the part of

the 14th Amendment make any sense, " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or

immunities of citizens of the United States." Today, each state has its own hate crime law which elevates gays to

another level and puts everybody on a lower class. This is how it hurts people, being on a lower class than a gay

because he gets lots of benefits for being a victim of "hate crime", I am treated lower than him even though we are

equal. It hurts my freedom of speech because if I insult a gay because of this law and I tell him that the 14th

Amendment says another thing, the gay could run to the police and tell them that I said something insulting and

verbally abusive and I commited a hate crime. Let's look at the definition of hate crime once again. "Hate crime-

physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters, hate

mail", verbal abuse or insults are considered hate crime. My opponent also agrees, "verbal abuse or insults". The 3rd

contention is that hate crime could easily lead to hate speech which is true. As you see above, hate crime already

includes "verbal abuse or insults". Hate speech could easily happen with hate crime violating my freedom of speech. If

an insult quaifies as hate crime, hate speech could easily become a law while laws which prevent hate speech could

easily be repealed. Today, my conclusion is hate crime is a violation of speech and is unconstitutional.
Cerebral_Narcissist

Pro

My opponent objects that I have not made a positive case, however the way that the debate is set up all I need do is negate my opponents resolution. If he wishes a rematch with a shared burden of proof then that could be arranaged.

Now my opponent has largely ignored my counter-arguments, generally repeating what has already been said so this final round will be brief.

"About the first contention, what I meant was if a person commits a crime against a gay and says something about gays while he is doing it. All the victim has to do is say the person did the crime because he was gay because the person said something about gays. The attacker may have not known the victim was gay and attacked for other reasons but because while doing the crime he said something about gays, he could get arrested and charged not just for the crime but for saying something against gays and the gay would get a bunch of benefits."

"It will still be required that the nature of the intent is shown and proven to a court of law. The 2nd contention, while my opponent says that this contention is irrelevant, this is not true."

My opponents argument is that hate crime laws violate some spirit of fairness and equality as enshrined in the consitution, I have shown that
a) This has nothing to do with my opponents resolution.
b) This is not actually the case.

My opponent has done nothing to address this counterargument.

My opponents third contention that hate crime could lead to draconian hate speech laws has not been expanded upon to sufficient degree. My opponent has not shown that this is inevitable or even likely. He weakly cites that there is such a thing as verbal assault, however the freedom of speech does not give you the right to make comments that are harmful through malice or recklessness, so this too is negated.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

In conclusion I have negated my opponents resolution, I strongly urge a vote for PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Why not?
Posted by torterra 5 years ago
torterra
In a debate you DO NOT refer to wikepedia for definitions.
Posted by Macroscope 5 years ago
Macroscope
Hate crime is an appeal to authority fallacy.

Only the government can decide what is a crime, however they have no way to explain the motives, so they simply describe it as hate. This, once again, is the laws attempt to create a blindspot so they can seperate their actions from consiquences.
Nature will allways attempt to balance itself, and warring between groups who only look after themselves is natural. Now as yourself, could these so called hated people be said to only look after themselves? Yes? Then that is your motivation for hate crime.
Posted by Viper-King 5 years ago
Viper-King
Cerebal_Narcissist, you not only have to try to hurt my case but also have to affirm why hate crime doesn't violate my freedom. Affirmation of your case and hurting my case and values.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
"Cerebal_Narcissist, I don't see your case. All I see is your negative viewpoint of my case."

Yea... that is my case... all I am required to do is show how your case is invalid.
Posted by WriterSelbe 5 years ago
WriterSelbe
Haha, that's fine. At least you're modest and didn't twist your wording.
Posted by Viper-King 5 years ago
Viper-King
WriterSelbe, I'm sorry if I confused you. It's my first debate after all.
Posted by Viper-King 5 years ago
Viper-King
Cerebal_Narcissist, I don't see your case. All I see is your negative viewpoint of my case.
Posted by WriterSelbe 5 years ago
WriterSelbe
But by not having gays in special hate crime laws, isn't that kind of speaking out against gays? By just titling this hate crime rather than an actual resolution, you could find out that you're debating very different things...
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Viper King, that is not the resolution, the resolution is that Hate Crime laws violate your freedom of speech.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
Viper-KingCerebral_NarcissistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: He did not vote bomb you.
Vote Placed by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
Viper-KingCerebral_NarcissistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Cerebral vote bombs me, so I am just countering.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Viper-KingCerebral_NarcissistTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Exact same thing that fighting falcon f16 said except i believe that pro should also get grammar
Vote Placed by dappleshade 5 years ago
dappleshade
Viper-KingCerebral_NarcissistTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: No vote-bombing intended here, but not only did Con lose the debate, the spelling and wall-of-text lost the grammar point.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Viper-KingCerebral_NarcissistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro showed that it is justified to have additional penalties based on hate crime while Con argues that it could result in accidental assumptions that there was a hate crime when there really wasn't. However, the examples he gave actually do include a hate crime in them and therefore they help Pro's case more than his own.
Vote Placed by Lickdafoot 5 years ago
Lickdafoot
Viper-KingCerebral_NarcissistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro shows that hate crimes don't interfere with freedom of speech or thought; the person was already committing a crime and hate crime laws help to sort out the intent of that crime.