The Instigator
TheKeyMaster
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Tonius5
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

Hate Speech should be considered a Felony!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 7 votes the winner is...
Tonius5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 881 times Debate No: 67431
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (7)

 

TheKeyMaster

Pro

I am arguing in favor of Hate Speech becoming a Felony. First round is for acceptance only!
Tonius5

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
TheKeyMaster

Pro

Thank you for accepting the debate. I shall do my best.

High Suicide Rates amongst LGBT teens.)

Since LGBT teens have a higher suicide rate than any other teenage group in the western world, it is clear that something needs to be done by the government to help combat this. It's obvious that bigoted Christian, Conservative people drive LGBT teens to hate themselves for something that they cannot control! As a member of the LGBT community myself, I must say that seeing these people on the internet and on TV talk about homosexuality in such a negative light absolutely infuriates me and is certainly the reason why so many LGBT youth are committing suicide! For this reason, those who spew hateful/offensive speech should be jailed and considered felons for life. Even better, charge them with the murders of the dead teens. It's their own fault, therefor they and the rest of their kind should be imprisoned!

As a society, we must strive towards a One-World utopia)

The only way to achieve utopia is for the experience of life to be absolutely perfect, but hateful/offensive speech will make people uncomfortable, therefor creating division between people. The ones who cause such division should be weeded out and made an example of. There should still be free-speech obviously! But only government approved, none offensive speech should be allowed.

Feel free to post your initial argument. The next round is for rebuttal of the original arguments of this round.
Tonius5

Con

*What is Hate Speech?*

According to ' dictionary.reference.com ', hate speech is defined as: "speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. "

*Who gets to decide what is Hate Speech or not?*

If you pay attention to the US government. They seem to play around with definitions when it suits them. The term: "Assault Rifle" is commonly used by the government to describe firearms that do not fit the definition of the term, but rather MSRs (Modern Sporting Rifles) that are cosmetically similar to infantry rifles. How does this relate to Hate Speech? It was meant to show that lawmakers tend to re-define terms when it becomes convenient for them. What if in a hypothetical situation: The government started referring to any speech that does not fit on one specific side of the political spectrum (Whether it be left or right) as hate speech? With what my opponent has suggested, it is easily possible to completely annihilate freedom of speech by converting various non-preferable speech into a felony offense if spoken.

*It would create a populace of feeble minded people!*

Making something like Hate Speech a Felony offense would more than likely raise people on the idea that they should not speak their mind. Raising people as young as children with the idea that they cannot hurt somebody's feelings would lead to them believing that they cannot disagree with a popular opinion at the risk of being imprisoned and having their lives ruined, thus forcing people into a state of limbo where they just go with the flow without providing input towards the affairs of their own nation.
Debate Round No. 2
TheKeyMaster

Pro

The government would never try to suppress free speech! Why would they give us a right only to take it away in some backdoor legislation? Why are you right-wing nutjobs so paranoid about the government trying to take away people's rights? We as human beings need to become more reliant on the government to help us live our lives, so trusting them is the #1 priority! You conservatives honestly make me sick with your obstructionism toward utopia. Here's an idea: Maybe you people should be sterilized so your parasitic views stop infecting the gene pool.

Here's my rebuttal: F*ck you.
Tonius5

Con

*Rebuttal of your claim relating to LGBT teen suicide*

LGBT teen suicide is indeed high. However, your claim that Christians and Conservatives are the cause of it has zero basis. If you could have provided a source to back yourself up (A suicide letter or something), then it would have made an interesting argument or your side. But no. You based that entire section on an assumption.
I will tell you what leads to those high suicide rates: Bullying. I am someone who has repeatedly tried to commit suicide because of bullying when I was in school. Bullies find any exploitable characteristic (LGBT being a particularly vulnerable one, mine being lack in communication skills as an autistic student) and use them against the victim in order to feel empowered. The characteristic itself is not the reason for the bullying and is only ammunition to use against the person.

*The rebuttal of this utopia thing of yours.*

Are you serious? I know I am acting unprofessional at the moment, but seriously? You're arguing that someone's feelings are more important that someone else's right to free speech? My feelings are hurt that someone would say such a thing. Would you support your own conviction because of that?

It seems that you're resorting to arbitrary and incorrect statements along with insults. That is not the way you debate anybody. Please learn to have a respectful debate. This was an interesting topic.
Debate Round No. 3
TheKeyMaster

Pro

You're such a Homophobe! You should be banned from this website! You don't care about gay teens killing themselves because you're a Christian Conservative stain on the world! I'll have you know that the only god you should be worshipping is our government! Now piss off.
Tonius5

Con

I am going to assume that you just forfeited with that. I'll have you know that this could easily have been an interesting and educational debate for the two of us. It just seems like you have a bit of work to do before you start debating. I'd recommend looking up tutorials on how to debate properly and maybe observe some for yourself. I hope to debate you again in the future when/if you've improved.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Tonius5 2 years ago
Tonius5
@Hanspete

I'm fairly certain he believes that all Christian Conservative people are carbon copies of eachother.
Posted by Hanspete 2 years ago
Hanspete
So if I am understanding what Pro said in round 4 is Christian Conservatives are a stain on the world because they are all anti-gay... I am a christian conservative who is gay, does that mean I am a stain on the world and does that make me homophobic?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by jackh4mm3r 2 years ago
jackh4mm3r
TheKeyMasterTonius5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Was Pro attempting to be a troll? Regardless, ad hominems from Pro, good argumentation for con involving the nature of hate speech as a tool, the way in which it infringes on freedom of speech, and the problems stifled speech can bring (especially towards LGBTs in a majority straight society).
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
TheKeyMasterTonius5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Ad hominem, going against the constitutions, sourcing, bad structuring of sentences... You get the idea.
Vote Placed by Stefy 2 years ago
Stefy
TheKeyMasterTonius5Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Its a crime to bully someone to suicide already. Pro needs to fact check a little better. Harassment us a crime, not opinions however disgusting and horrifying those opinions may be. Its too subjective.
Vote Placed by tonyrobinson 2 years ago
tonyrobinson
TheKeyMasterTonius5Tied
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 Checkmark1 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: Pro had a very weak argument without any evidence to back up the strong claims he made. When challenged Pro used insults to deflect the fact that he appeared to have no real argument. Con brought up some very valid points in his rebuttal which remained unaddressed by Pro. Pro seems to think the removal of those whom he disagrees with would cause utopia. That is a rather juvenile view, with no basis in reality. I did not see any spelling or grammatical errors by either side, but the far better and more civil debate was obviously Con.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
TheKeyMasterTonius5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: pro insults con and fails to address him from round 3.
Vote Placed by Hanspete 2 years ago
Hanspete
TheKeyMasterTonius5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used foul language, Con has well structured arguments and better spelling, just by a bit.
Vote Placed by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
TheKeyMasterTonius5Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a weak starting argument. Rather than have a good rebuttal and a stronger argument Pro went to insults. Pro has the worst conduct I have seen so far on this site. Kudos to con for keeping claim level headed and trying to turn it in to a positive.