The Instigator
Con (against)
6 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
8 Points

"Hate Crimes" should not be a factor in the administration of justice

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,848 times Debate No: 16173
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)




First, let me get some definitions out of the way.

Crime - an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.

Hate crime – Said to occur when a victim is targeted because of a perceived membership in a certain social group (of race, gender, age, etc.)

I'll introduce a term here that I will use quite often in my contention.

Balance in society – A situation wherein every member of society is "adequately" compensated for any injury (physical, mental, economical, psychological, etc.) caused by other members, such that it does not further cause injuries to any other member, other than the prime injuring party.

Of course adequately might mean different things for different injured parties, but I think we can work with the normal sense of the word.

(If my opponent is not satisfied with these definitions, he is free to define them in his own way.)

I'll begin.

Whenever a crime is committed, there is an injured party. This may consist of one or more individuals, affected directly or indirectly, immediately or over a period of time. This may cause the injured parties to take immediate steps towards addressing this issue. The usual homily is "an eye for an eye", but things could go wrong in so many ways during the taking of that criminal eye.

To ensure that this does not happen, society has put a law and order machinery in place. Every member of society is expected to buy into this impartial arbiter who will decide, in due course of law, how exactly to provide reparations to the injured parties.

For purposes of this debate, I'll substitute society for the law and order machinery, since society has created this instrument to better serve its own purpose (insofar as society is said to have a purpose.)

C1. Justice is about maintaining balance by fair compensation

Whenever there is talk of crime, invariably there will be talk of justice. How will justice be served? An eye for an eye sounds good, but only if the concerned individuals are living in isolation. As long as they are part of a society, every discordant act has effects for all members of society and cannot be treated on an individual basis. Society should be (and is) more concerned with finding a correct balance so that it can continue functioning smoothly, rather than with delivering justice. True justice is impossible for human faculties to deliver. Only fair compensation can be sought.

C2. Crime = Creation of imbalance. Justice = Restoration of balance

For example, it might be called justice for a victim of murder to have his murderer dead. But from the point of view of society, having lost a contributing member, it doesn't make sense for it to lose the "services" of another. It is better served by having the murderer continue performing services for it (in a controlled manner, by restricting his freedom, taking steps to rehabilitate, reform him); maybe even the share of the lost member. But such an act might cause the well-wishers of the victim to "decrease their output" (due to a reduction in their mental well-being), so this should be done in a manner that they feel adequately compensated. Thus, balance has been achieved, in a way.

C3. Greater the imbalance, greater the effort needed to restore balance

In light of this view of crime, justice and society, let's take a look at the motives of crime and their effects.

If the motive of the crime was money, revenge, food or such "normal" issues, this would affect only the involved individuals, or a very small part of society. Such crimes are indicators of society's well-being. (Crimes for money – poverty, crimes of revenge – an inefficient law and order machinery, crimes for food – hunger, etc.) It might be worthwhile for society to treat the symptoms than to cull the effect. Also, human life has to be held in high regard and all possible steps have to be taken to preserve it. Of course, the injured parties may not be concerned with all these, but society has to draw a line somewhere as to what is adequate compensation. (For example, an individual might think it's only fair to take the life of a person who "misbehaved" with his daughter.)

However, if the crime was a hate crime, quite a large stratum of society (the specific social group to which the victim belongs) is affected, other than the concerned individuals. Their well-being will be diminished if they feel threatened. Thus, in order to achieve balance here, a larger group of people have to be adequately compensated as they too are a party to the injury (although indirectly) (Also, as we saw in the definition of crime, public welfare is a factor). If this means a greater punishment for the perpetrator, so be it. If that ensures the proper functioning of a greater number of people, it's a fair trade for society. This is why any crime that has a "terror quotient" deserves a stricter punishment, as the injured parties' number in large groups.

However, if society deals differently towards each "group" of injured parties, that would also create a loss of balance. It has to be fair in its dealings.


Thus, every crime should be dealt with according to its magnitude, crimes of a similar nature should be dealt with in an equal manner and victims should be compensated adequately in such a manner that the balance in society is maintained. As hate crime creates a larger imbalance in society, it should be approached differently and SHOULD be a factor while administrating "justice".


The focus of my position will be on the concept of hate crimes, and hate crime legislation and their compatibility with our concept of a justice system. Hate crime is defined by Wiki as: “In crime and law, hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, social status or political affiliation.[1]”

Regardless of the motivation, the crime is of equal harm to society at large: Essentially by deeming the same crime with different standards depending on the motivation you are saying that the crime is more okay in one light than in another light.

1. My brother was killed because he was gay. 2. My brother was killed during a robbery.

Hate crime legislation says that it’s more okay to kill for purposes of robbery, than in an attack based on hate. In both cases we want society to be protected by the murder, and in both cases the threat to society is real. We certainly do not want the victim of one to be deemed differently than the other. Society doesn’t need to be protected more from hate based crimes than non hate based crimes; as it is in the best interest of society to be protected from the crime regardless of the motive behind it. To the family of someone who is killed by a drug addict trying to maintain his habit, are they even slightly comforted by the fact that it wasn’t hate based? Of course not. Is society at lesser risk by those who are killing to support their drug habit versus those who are killing due to hate? No, the risk is equal, or the behavior of killing is equal.

External to justice: Essentially the objective of hate crime legislation is extra judicial, that is outside of the realm of what the function of what our judiciary is responsible. Hate crime's objective is external, with the intention of shaping a society that conforms to the ideals that motivate hate crime legislation. The intentions may (or might not) be admirable, but they are clearly outside the realm of our criminal justice system’s intended purpose, i.e. to provide a fair trial for a specific crime.

When we deem a class of person with added protection, particularly under a politically charged environment, we run the risk of losing “equal protection under the law”[2].
Responsibility of the criminal justice system is to provide a fair trial for the defendant in their accused crime. It does not involve the agenda of politicians, or even society at large, but rather the specific crime to the specific law that was violated. Hate crime legislation adds an additional layer of almost always politically motivated laws to be sorted out by judges and juries. It is absurd to say that a person is guilty of both killing someone and hating them because they are black. We don’t try someone for what they are thinking, but rather for the behavior that results. I don’t deny that premeditation is a component of the definition of the crime, but the exact profile of that premeditation is not on trial. Premeditation is defined as: “The contemplation of a crime well enough in advance to show deliberate intent to commit the crime; forethought.”[3]

Thought Crime: We should keep in mind that this sort of legislation is different from standard criminal laws where we are strictly concerned with the behavior of individuals in society, not what they are thinking. By convicting someone of a crime, and then adding to it the additional crime of hate, we are now legislating prohibition of thought. Combined with the politicization of the particular protection, we speak of, the net result is a governmental prohibition of a type of thinking subject to the winds of political change.

Interpretational difficulties: If I hate my neighbor for whatever reason, and end up hurting him – is that a hate crime? According to the legislation it would only be if he were of a minority group as mentioned in the definition, but if I were to hate him for being part of the majority; let’s say he was straight, and I am gay, and I killed him because he was straight, does the hate crime legislation apply? Strictly speaking, no. However the principle of the legislation is the same in the hatred of a class, but the majority is not a protected class. By the same token, if he hurt me because he hated me, but not because I am gay, but because my dog uses his lawn as a toilet – is that hate crime? If he killed me, could a lawyer easily attribute the crime toward his (not so) obvious hatred of gays, and the defendant be given the added penalty of hate?

I ask those who are reading this debate to carefully consider the justice system, and what role something like “hate crime legislation” would and could play in its administration.


Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for his opening statements. I will follow up with my rebuttals.

My opponent contends that crime committed, regardless of motivation, is harmful to society. The harm is not diminished or enhanced if the motivation behind it comes to light.

I agree with him, to an extent. It's only on the basis of motivation that we can decide whether it's a crime in the first place.

My opponent then gives an example where a brother being killed because he was gay, or during a robbery makes no difference to the nature of the crime and has to be punished in an equal manner. Deeming one to be a hate crime and treating it differently seems to my opponent as somehow legitimizing the murder committed during the robbery.

I contend, however, that this is not the case. Where I would like to differ is that in the case of the hate crime, the injured party is not limited to the immediate family of the deceased and includes all the members of the perceived group of the victim. Thus, the magnitude is of a higher scale than the other case. It is this difference in magnitude that has to be addressed.

For example, theft has been divided into two categories, petty theft and grand theft [1]. This division is of nothing but magnitude, as grand theft would cause a higher degree of injury to the victim than petty theft might. For this reason, petty theft receives a lesser punishment than grand theft. Does this then mean that it's more okay to do petty theft than to do grand theft, as my opponent says? No.

My opponent also brings up the feelings of the affected family by saying that the family might not be comforted by the fact that their oppressor received lesser punishment due to it not being a hate crime. Well, if the feelings of the family are to be considered, shouldn't they then have a say in the punishment? Whether the aggressor should live or die? Why isn't that taken into consideration?

External to justice
My opponent then contends that the function of the judiciary is to provide a fair trial for a specific crime. Well, we all know that the function of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law in the name of the state. So, when my opponent says that the objective of hate crime is extra judicial, it does not make any sense. The law is made by the legislature and as long as there is a separate law for hate crime, it's not extra judicial as far as the judiciary's concerned.

The legislature will make laws that it thinks will be beneficial for the society, and thus, it cannot be called extra judicial. To remove certain laws, the citizens of the society have the means wherein they can elect representatives whom they think will repeal those laws. Until then, it would be the case that the laws are there because the society, as a whole wants them.

Since we have entrusted the politicians to make the laws of the land, it doesn't make sense to say that the legislation is politically motivated. If my opponent wants legislation not to be politically motivated, he should have non-politicians make the laws.

The judiciary is responsible for providing a fair trial for the defendant, but it's society (through its representatives) that is responsible for making laws. Society IS concerned, however, as to what kind of thinking leads to certain crimes. If it does not take that into consideration, it will never be able to eradicate such harmful elements from society. If such harmful thoughts are not to be eradicated through the process of law, how then does my opponent want it to be done? By processes outside of law? Or is it the case that my opponent thinks these are not harmful elements, but just criminals and don't need any extra forethought on the part of the society?

Through the ages, we've seen how random elements of society have been targeted, for one reason or the other. People thought blacks are not equal to the whites, females can't decide for themselves, let alone for society, etc. Blacks received equal treatment through a process of law. Females became eligible to vote through a process of law. Society formed laws that would eliminate such kind of thinking. Would my opponent then say that these laws were extra judicial? Politically motivated? And hence should not have been done?

Thought crime
Contrary to what my opponent says, hate crime legislation is not legislation against thought. Nobody is convicted for what they think. It's only when they act illegally on the basis of those thoughts that they are convicted. It's the behavior of individuals that is a factor here. I believe that the behavior of a person who is acting on a hate of say, children, is different from the behavior of a person who is acting in a robbery. So, I'd like the readers to disregard this angle of thought crime legislation.

Interpretational difficulties
What my opponent says here is true. Hate crime should not be applied strictly for protected groups. Every crime that is perpetrated due to hate, whether it is on the minority or the majority has to be treated equally.

Also, unless and until one is absolutely sure that the crime was committed due to the hate factor, it cannot be treated as a hate crime. There can be no interpretational difficulties here. The default should be just a crime, hate crime should be decided only with evidence.

All of the contentions that my opponent has raised doesn't consider the fact that there are groups of people that are being targeted for no reason other than the fact that they are perceived to belong to a specific group. Either my opponent thinks that such things don't exist (in which case [2]), or think that such things should be discouraged by some process that falls outside of the law. Unless he provides reasons as to why such practices should not be discouraged or ways to do it without mandating it, I'd argue that hate crime should be a factor during the administration of justice, as the harm caused to society by such crimes is way higher than can reasonably be caused by other crimes.



I thank my opponent for his thoughtful response. I hope that I will continue to persuade him that the concept of hate crime, and hate crime legislation is a bad idea for a free society.

My opponent does take exception with my point of motivation in so far that an individual crime has far reaching ramifications. He believes that if a crime is motivated by hate, hate of a group, the crime is committed against that group not simply the individual recipient of the crime. However, in the interest of justice and our criminal system, those far reaching ramifications are indeed extra judicial, and are not in the best interest of justice. A specific crime should be judged on the individual incident rather than an overall attack on humanity [1]. If we begin such a grand view of justice, we do indeed redefine the intent of criminal justice. We also begin to set a dangerous precedent that can lead to a whole different use of the judiciary. An important byproduct of our criminal justice system is to discourage individuals from committing crimes, but when we are looking at solving societies problems via the judiciary we change the function of the system from that which is intended to provide a fair trial, to that which is to help shape society. It no longer is a byproduct, but rather a primary purpose, and thus diminishes justice in and by itself in favor of shaping a society to the liking of a political majority.

In regards to my opponent's example of petty theft versus grand theft, the distinction is based on a differentiation of the crime itself, not the intent and is thus irrelevant to the debate.

I apologize to my opponent for not explaining what my meaning was in "Extra-Judicial"[2]. It is true that the judiciary carries out laws that are put in place by the legislature, but within the context of our criminal justice system, our judiciary was not intended to address the sociological problems of our communities, but rather to provide a fair system of justice for a defendant, and for a plaintiff. To deviate beyond that scope of intent is indeed extra judicial, and hate crime in what it is intended to address is definitely extra judicial. Expanding the role of our judiciary[3] is of concern and potentially greater harm to society in the long run, than the problems that it is intended to address.

My opponent seems to think I have a problem with the process that laws are enacted, but he is wrong, it is the content of the laws that I have a problem with. Yes it is politicians who create these laws, and my disagreement with the content of these laws are part of a free society. I think my opponent has lost sight of what a fee society entails. There are indeed negatives in living with a free society, and people being free to think as they please, as distasteful as some of those thoughts may be to some, is part of that freedom. A somewhat outrageous quote from my opponent:

"If such harmful thoughts are not to be eradicated through the process of law, how then does my opponent want it to be done?"

I don't want anything to be done. I am perfectly fine with people holding harmful thoughts, I am not fine with harmful behavior, and there is a massive difference. Every time someone holds a resentment with another person there is a crime against humanity? Do we prosecute such thoughts to "eradicate" them? What if we entrust the judiciary with more than just the behavior, but more toward just the thoughts? Such direction with our judiciary is bleak for those who value freedom, particularly the most basic freedom of all, freedom of thought.

My opponent actually disagrees with my assertion that hate crime legislation is really thought crime[4]. He would be wrong. There is the penalty for the crime, and then on top of that there is a penalty for the hate - that is what hate crime legislation essentially does. To be clear, hate is a thought, not an action, as is an idea or a motive is a thought. How my opponent cannot see that this added layer of penalty is not based on thought is lost on me.

My opponent also seems to be lost on the definition of hate crime. "hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group"[5] So if I simply hate my neighbor and hurt him, not because of an affiliation or perceived affiliation with a particular group, but because his dog uses my lawn as a toilet, it cannot be considered a hate crime. The opportunity for abuse in interpretation, or allowing it to fall into the capricious hands of current events and social concerns is great, and are clearly beyond the intent of our justice system.

My arguments against hate crime legislation remain in tact:
1. Deterrent to motivation for crime is universally dealt with by deterrent to the crime itself.
2. Hate Crime Legislation is clearly extra-judicial, and extends the authority and scope of the court beyond the intentions of our criminal justice system.
3. Due to the nature of Hate Crime legislation it is subject to the capricious winds of politics and current events, and is contrary to the desired objectivity of justice.
4. Hate Crime is indeed thought crime, and that sets a very dangerous course for our free society.
5. The interpretational implications of Hate Crime legislation open up a great opportunity for abuse and expanding the role of this component of criminal prosecution.

Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for his response and will proceed with my concluding round of arguments.

My opponent keeps coming back to the fact that the far reaching ramifications of hate crime are extra judicial and not in the interest of justice or our criminal system.

It really seems that my opponent is arguing that hate crime legislature should not be formed. For as long as there are laws pertaining to hate crime, it is the function of the judiciary to apply those laws in cases. So, I'll just assume that my opponent is really arguing against hate crime legislation and not about judicial functions.

Keeping that in mind, I just want to ask my readers some questions. What is the purpose of having a criminal system? Is it simply to judge on the individual incident in isolation? Does it not have any further intentions apart from that, such as deterrence, mitigation, rehabilitation? Having a criminal system in place, in the first place, means that we are shaping society to our needs, by removing harmful elements. Does not removal of weeds in a garden constitute as shaping the garden to our needs?

So, when my opponent says helping shape society is not the function of the judiciary (legislature), I gather my opponent wants to say that the laws meant to shape society should not be allowed? But that cannot be possible, as laws, by definition (the condition of society brought about by the observance of rules), shape society.[1]

My opponent also says that we should not look to solve society's problems via the judiciary(legislature). Well, how else does he propose those be solved, if not by passing such laws that would help solve them? By randomly shooting people who cause problems? If such laws should be passed, it then becomes the function of the judiciary, in a way. This in no way translates to "expanding the functions of the judiciary" as my opponent claims.

Also, I feel the fears of my opponent that a political majority will form laws that it likes are unfounded. There is a process of repealing laws available. They only have to vote the right people in, unless my opponent also feels democracy is untenable?

I don't really know what my opponent wanted me to see in the references [1] and [2] he provided in his round, as those don't seem to work. [1] just gave me a definition of the alphabet H and asks me "What made you want to look up h?" in the seen & heard section :)

Regarding my example of petty and grand theft, I take exception to my opponent saying that it's a distinction based on a differentiation of the crime itself. I doubt that there were concepts of petty theft and grand theft before. There was only the crime of theft. A legislation introduced the differentiation. I mainly put this forward to make the point that a theft is not a theft. There's a difference. Similarly, the point that my opponent is making, viz. a murder is a murder is a murder, would fall under the same category, I feel. There are differences between murders and not every murder is the same. They differ in magnitude.

"If such harmful thoughts are not to be eradicated through the process of law, how then does my opponent want it to be done?" My opponent claims that this is an outrageous thought, and that he is perfectly fine with people holding harmful thoughts. He only takes objection to people having harmful behavior.

Well, so do I. People are prosecuted for holding harmful thoughts only when they act upon them. As long as they don't act upon such thoughts, they are free to hold whatever they wish in their minds. In pretty much the same way people are not prosecuted for holding murderous thoughts, but prosecuted for holding such thoughts when they act upon them. It's a fine distinction.

Every action springs from a thought, so you might console yourself that you are just reacting to the act, but the act is not isolated. It's the thought + the act. Not every person who holds a murderous thought is a murderer, but every murderer did have a murderous thought at that time. Where does hate crime law say that people are to be prosecuted just because they hold harmful thoughts?

Also, if you will indulge me. What's the purpose of a deterrent? You must've heard the phrase, "Don't even think about it." (You are free to disregard this line if you want, but I just put it out there.)

Again, my opponent asserts that hate crime legislation is really thought crime. I'll respond in the same way. You are not deemed criminal just because you hold hate in your mind. Only when you act upon it. Is any crime committed without real thought? Is crime a reflex action? If it is, you really cannot punish it. Only when it's committed with thought and intent does it become liable for punishment.

I also feel that it would not be beneficial in any way for society if a majority of citizens hold hateful thoughts. It just increases the probability of people acting upon it. If anyone commits a crime because of a social situation (poverty, joblessness, etc.), you can take steps to remedy said social situation and thus reduce the probability of such crimes occurring. But what steps can you take to remedy situations where people are hated for their gender? Or skin color? Or age? Change their gender, skin color, age? Yes, you can educate everybody. You can definitely try that. By all means. This law would just be an added safety valve.

My opponent also forgets the fact that if such hate abounds (even if not acted upon), it really makes the life of the hated person difficult. Hating people don't need to commit prosecutable acts to trouble the victim. Really small things here and there make a huge difference too. What are the victims supposed to do then? It is always beneficial for society to maintain a balance, and this can be done if hateful thoughts don't abound, especially for things that can't really be changed.

If my opponent really wants to bring abuse of interpretation in, I cannot help but state that almost every law is susceptible for abuse, if the lawyer is skilled enough. If a lawyer is definitely able to prove that hate exists when none existed in reality, nothing can be done. You cannot just say x person hated y without providing evidence for it. I'm really not capable of providing an argument against cooking up of evidence.

I'd like to conclude with a summary of my argument here as a response to the 5 points that my opponent has raised in his summary.

1. A deterrent is well and good, but if no expedient methods exist for reduction of incidence of crime, a stronger deterrent could well do the trick.

2. Legislation by definition is extra-judicial. The link [3] provided by my opponent himself says so, if I take judicial here to mean functions of the judiciary. I'll paste the relevant line here. "Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the judiciary generally does not make law or enforce law"

3. Every legislation is subject to the capricious winds of politics and current events. Legislation has desired objectives in addition to justice, like shaping society to our needs.

4. Hate crime is not thought crime as criminals are prosecuted for holding those thoughts and then acting upon it.

5. Interpretational implications of every legislation open up great opportunities for abuse. Interpretation of law is a huge topic and there are books written upon it.

I thank my opponent for an engaging debate and in light of the arguments urge the readers to vote CON.



I thank my opponent for this engaging debate. It has further codified my stance on this issue where previously it was based on a gut feeling.

I’m not going to directly address my opponent’s last post, but rather my summation should address any concerns he may have within my argument, and for those reading this debate; I am confident that you see the strength of those arguments.

This debate’s resolution specifically dealt with the “administration of justice”, or the criminal justice system that we have today. It is clear that my opponent sees this system as more than a process in which we provide a fair trial within the confines of our constitution, but rather as an opportunity to change our society. A lofty goal, with I am sure admirable intentions, but let those reading this debate remember what a defendant is entitled to when facing a judge or jury. It is the merits of the case that determine the outcome of a trial, not the conditions of society.

My opponent and I agree that it is the intention of such legislation to put upon the courts the task of trying people for hate, and thus work to eliminate hate from our society. It is true that an act must be committed to prove that hate exists before it is tried in court, but nonetheless it is a charge of hate upon which courts are being asked to decide.

I’d like to point out that it is no more likely that the courts would have any impact on addressing hatred that might be in the hearts of men than it would in trying to remove the love that also dwells within the hearts of men. We speak of the human condition and not human behavior; while keeping in mind that my opponent would expand the current understanding and accepted definition of hate crime to all incidents of hate, not just those that are within minority groups. That is to say he is not just looking to eliminate prejudicial based hate, but every resentment and ill feeling one man might have for another, and all this is to be addressed by our courts.

I will reiterate what I have said and what I believe. When living in a free society, a pluralistic society, we must accept things we may not like or agree with. We might lose sight of that from time to time as we try and cope with extreme demonstrations of what we might consider abhorrent behavior, and we cling to our government and our laws to protect us from bad feelings. In a free society I have no guarantee that someone will not hate me for good reason or not. My opponent seems surprised that I would do nothing to modify the thoughts of people in our society, at least where our courts or legislation is concerned. A free people should be able to follow their passions as long as they do not infringe on the rights of their fellow citizens; as it is within such passions that our country was founded.

My opponent doesn’t see how clearly this is indeed thought crime legislation. I will leave that to the readers of this debate to determine. The penalty for the crime is on the books, and the prosecution of that crime would be carried out, but the additional layer of the hate crime is then added to the initial behavior based crime and an additional determination of that crime is both tried and sentenced within the context of the trial. Hate is not a behavior but a thought. My opponent undoubtedly is responding to the Orwellian bell that rings when it is put to him that this is indeed thought crime legislation.

Our criminal justice system is meant to find guilt or innocence for a specific crime committed, it is not to work toward wiping out those things that are found within the nature of man that might cause crime. In doing so we lose the “justice” from the system we look to for protection. Our courts cannot reflect upon the conditions of society when determining guilt; it cannot look toward solving a social problem in the context of an individual crime, but rather it must determine guilt within the merits of the case.

This debate is about the role of government, specifically the criminal justice system in our society; what can we expect of it, what should we expect of it, and what responsibilities it has to society. My opponent has a far more expansive idea as to its role and has greater faith in it's ability than I do. However the weight and clarity of my arguments should fully illustrate the validity of my position.

I urge the readers of this debate to vote Pro, and again I thank my opponent for the thoughtful effort he put forth in this debate.

Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by innomen 7 years ago
"My opponent also says that we should not look to solve society's problems via the judiciary(legislature). Well, how else does he propose those be solved, if not by passing such laws that would help solve them? By randomly shooting people who cause problems?"
@ Cliff.Stamp, this statement was so ridiculous i didn't think i needed to point that out to the readers of the debate. I don't understand your RFD.
Posted by Korashk 7 years ago
/// it's more okay ///

I would have used the phrase "less bad" personally.
Posted by innomen 7 years ago
Thanks, i will walk through what you have set up tomorrow, and probably accept then.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This seemed to boil down to a difference in the percieved view of the judicial system, but given Con's definition of Jusitice, his own view went against that first definition. He first said that just was to correct any imbalance, then changed to that it is to shape society. Apart from that, it was a very good, and very close debate. If this was done again, I'd recomend that Con use different definitions at the start.
Vote Placed by XimenBao 7 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The extrajudicial argument was weird, trying to make distinctions of what should be government functions but approaching it through government branch distinctions. I think Con held well there just by focusing on that the legislature and courts do. I almost voted Pro after R2 when Con started saying that he actually wanted to eliminate hateful thought from society, but it was largely extraneous to the actual arguments, so I couldn't give it weight. Con won the motivation vs thought crime debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 7 years ago
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: "My opponent also says that we should not look to solve society's problems via the judiciary(legislature). Well, how else does he propose those be solved, if not by passing such laws that would help solve them? By randomly shooting people who cause problems?" - indeed, this argument seemed irrational as did calling it a thought crime
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
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: A very intelligent debate. I waiver on this issue. I think Pro's argument is compelling that punishment based upon thought is not within the bounds of the judicial system. It seems to me it might be considered as a factor in sentencing, but it shouldn't be a crime in itself.