The Instigator
Asia
Con (against)
Losing
27 Points
The Contender
Korezaan
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points

Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States.

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  
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,966 times Debate No: 3103
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (19)

 

Asia

Con

Hate crime legislation allows enhanced penalties for criminals who have chosen their victim based on their hatred for the particular group their victim belongs to. Usually the group is a traditionally disadvantaged minority group. Hate crime legislation does not make it illegal to hate people. This is an important distinction. The laws do not infringe upon the free speech of law abiding citizens. Hate crime laws only apply when a crime has been committed and it can be determined that the primary motive for committing the crime (or for choosing the victim) was because the victim belonged to a group that the criminal has immense hatred for.

Take homosexuality for an example. Hate crime laws don't restrict religious speech on homosexuality. Hate crime laws only target hate driven violence. There is nothing in it that prevents preachers from opposing homosexuality vehemently from the pulpit. As long as a preacher does not incite violence against homosexuals, they can oppose homosexuality as vocally and aggressively as they like.

We already live in a society that punishes the same crimes differently. Criminal A, B, and C, may each be technically guilty of the same crime (let's say murder for example.), but criminal A gets the death penalty, Criminal B gets life without parole, and criminal C gets 20-40 years with parole. Why? Because we factor motive into the sentence. We also factor in such issues as how abhorrent, grievous, and brutal the crime was. In short, there are degrees of social revulsion that are taken into account when sentencing criminals for their crimes. As a society that believes in, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," in, "liberty and justice for all," because, "all men are created equal," don't we find it more abhorrent, grievous, and brutal when victims are selected because they are viewed as unequal? Aren't we more repulsed when the criminal espouses views that fly in the face of our common societal values of liberty and equality?

Some of you may wonder, "But isn't all crime hate based? You must hate that person if you're committing a crime against them." Not exactly. Most victims are chosen out of convenience, opportunity, and circumstance. Alternately, victims chosen out of emotional passion when the criminal knows the victim well-this is not quite the same thing as hate. Only the rare criminal actively seeks to attack people because they belong to a group he or she hates.

When one takes the view that punishment is predicated on not two, but three factors- intent, harm and dangerousness-one significantly strengthens the need for penalty enhancement based on bias-motivated crime. In the case of the offender using a dangerous weapon during an assault, society is justifiably concerned upon release the offender may pose a greater threat to a greater amount of people. After all, they have already demonstrated a willingness to hurt others through the use of dangerous weapons that can be used to inflict harm upon a greater number of individuals in the future. Put simply, a person with a closed fist may hurt someone bad, but a person willing to commit a crime with a gun or know for that matter poses a potentionally greater threat to a greater amount of people.

In Wisconsin VS. Mitchell, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously found that, "bias motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest. The states desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty enhancement provision over an above mere disagreement with offenders beliefs or biases. It is but reasonable that, among crimes of different natures, those should be most severely punished which are most destructive of the public safety and happiness. It is said that when the core of a person's identity is attacked, the degradation and dehumanization is especially severe, and additional emotional and physiological problems are likely to result. Society then, in turn can suffer from the disempowerment of a group of people.

The basic concept that we've been taught to accept about terrorists is that they hate our way of life, so they try to interrupt it, with violence. If someone hates your way of life because you're black, or hates a Jewish person's way of life because they are Jewish, or hates someone's way of life because they are bisexual; and they commit violent or illegal acts to interrupt that, that should be considered a form of terrorism. The object of any hate crime is to intimidate through the use of terror, and there is no difference in the substance of the action. A hate crime is certainly terrorism in a close, vehement, personal way.

It may be arduous to prove intent, but U.S Sentencing Guidelines set a higher bar in proving intent, so the motive behind a hate crime has to be obvious to a unanimous jury. This is no different from any other intent finding verdict—which is why we are able to distinguish murder one from manslaughter. We recognize that, when assigning culpability and punishment intent matters a great deal. Without it the moral grounding of the law would dissipate, and the U.S Legal System, able to assign punishments only based on actions and results, would effectively collapse.

The real and only question we should be asking is, "Do we as a society find it more abhorrent, repulsive, and deserving of greater punishment when criminals choose their victims or choose to commit crimes because they hate all people who are member of a certain group?" If you individually do find this is your position, I ask you to vote for hate crime legislation.
Korezaan

Pro

I affirm the resolution/topic, that "Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States."

-I agree to her definition of Hate Crime Enhancements.
-I define justice as "Giving Each Their Due". Therefore, my burden in this debate is to show that Hate crime enhancements are not giving each their due in the United States. Since the resolution grammatically dictates itself as the absolute truth, and also because the definition of justice is giving EACH their due, all I need to prove is that hate crime enhancements don't give some people their due.

CASE / Overview:

Our current legal system works, when determining causes of crimes, on a basis of "beyond a reasonable doubt". However, "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not always present the truth. In fact, (I don't need to provide evidence for this), there are quite a few times in history where evidence had been uncovered later to prove that a "criminal" was indeed innocent. When we're asking ourselves whether or not hate crime enhancements are just, it is clear that since there is absolutely no way to truly determine why someone committed an act, there will always be imperfections in the system. Because of that, we are not giving each their due, and therefore we are being unjust.

She's basically saying in her R1 part on intent that if we don't have hate crime enhancements, then our legal system would fail, and that a unanimous jury vote means that intent is determined. However, just because we supposedly CAN do it with a unanimous vote of the jury right now doesn't mean that the verdict is true. Let's say an African American man owns a candy shop. I go in. I steal a box of Nerds. Does that suddenly mean I'm racist? Let's go even further, and say I was in LA during the Rodney King Riots. My jury panel happens to be all black. What do I do eh? They convict me of committing a hate crime; but that doesn't suddenly mean that I did it because I was racist. She's saying that the legal system would fail: but I don't see why this is true at all. I'm not advocating that we change the legal system in any way, I'm not advocating that we should abolish hate crime enhancements.

Let's look at the topic, or, resolution, shall we?
"Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States".

Hmmmmmm. If I'm affirming, that means I'm proving that HCE are unjust.

And unjust means not giving each their due.

My job in this round is to show that hate crime enhancements don't give each their due. I don't see where the collapse of the legal system comes in if we go PRO. All I'm saying is that punishing people that supposedly committed crimes because of hate is not giving each their due.

If she does not refute this argument, she has already lost the round because her entire case assumes that we can somehow figure out the intention of the convicts.

RE to CON: (Capital letter labeled responses are my personal opinion)

"Why [does criminal A gets the death penalty, Criminal B gets life without parole, and criminal C gets 20-40 years with parole]?[...]"

1) Where's your evidence for that claim? Cause last I checked, murderer's sentences are mainly based off of a) circumstances and b) level of consciousness the killer was at.
2) Why does the status quo mean that we're giving each their due?

"As a society that believes in[...]Aren't we more repulsed when the criminal espouses views that fly in the face of our common societal values of liberty and equality?"

K) Haha, you're quite an idealist.
Z) I don't.
1) Why does what a society think of what a criminal should get for his/her crime matter? How are we giving each their due if we're using our own fear of these supposed "haters"?
2) And on that note, what do you mean by "we"? You and I? Your town? My town? Your state? My state? What exactly do you mean? And if you're advocating "United States" as an entire country, do you have any evidence on how "we" think? A poll; a statistic maybe? I look forward to your evidence next round.
3) I find high school kids that steal iPods and rob houses while everyone else is at work or school extremely abhorrent. Should we punish them more just because I thought they targeted me? Or because my family thinks so? Or because my neighborhood thinks so?

"When one takes the view that punishment is predicated on not two, but three[...]"

1) We're looking to "Hate Crime Enhancements" in this round, so we're only talking about intent. "harm" and "dangerousness" are nonunique to hate crimes.

"In Wisconsin VS. Mitchell, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously found that, "[...]It is said that when the core of a person's identity is attacked, the degradation and dehumanization is especially severe, and additional emotional and physiological problems are likely to result. Society then, in turn can suffer from the disempowerment of a group of people."

1) TURN: By punishing a person because he/she committed a crime supposedly because the victim belonged to a group of people, we are institutionalizing separatism. My opponent is saying that we should punish people that commit crimes because of their victim's belonging to a certain group of people. But by having hate crime enhancements, the government is RECOGNIZING THAT THESE GROUPS EXIST. All these things that we have worked towards, the physical manifestation of the beliefs that "[…]"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," […] "liberty and justice for all," [and that] "all men are created equal," don't we find it [extremely] abhorrent, grievous, and brutal when [we start seeing people as parts of groups again and punish people that recognize these groups…. just to end up showing that we believe that these groups exist as well]?" "Society then, in turn can suffer from the [empowerment to the idea that groups do indeed exist]." EVEN IF punishing people because they're malicious is just, EVEN IF we can determine intent, this argument stands alone: By going CON, we're just going to cause more hate crimes to happen, because it destroys the idea that we're all just part of the human race, and instead says that "He's from Iraq!", or "She's a catholic!" This will inevitably lead to a society far worse than the one we had in the 60's.

"The basic concept that we've been taught to accept about terrorists is that they hate our way of life, so they try to interrupt it, with violence[...]A hate crime is certainly terrorism in a close, vehement, personal way."

1) So what if we're taught to believe that? Doesn't mean it's true.
K) I think it's absolutely ridiculous that some people actually believe that there's a Koran out there somewhere that dictates to these "terrorists" to DESTROY AMERICA and strap bombs onto themselves.
2) Just because we're taught this way does not mean that it links to Hate Crimes.
3) Even then, she provides no link.
4) Terrorism is nontopical. Professor Jacobs explains, (Jacobs, James B. Professor at New York University School of Law, "Hate Crimes: A Critical Perspective" Crime and Justice Vol. 22. University of Chicago Press, 1997. Pg. 29)

"Hamm differentiates between hate crimes and terrorist acts; hate crimes are motivated by prejudice with no underlying social or political objective, whereas terrorist acts are based on a social or political objective. According to Hamm, "not all acts of terrorism can be considered hate crimes, and hate crimes are not necessarily terrorism unless such prejudicial violence has a political or social underpinning" "

For all the above reasons, vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 1
Asia

Con

Asia forfeited this round.
Korezaan

Pro

I await my opponent's defense of her case.

Extend all of my arguments and responses from R1; they stand until they are refuted.
Debate Round No. 2
Asia

Con

First, I admit my opponent attacked my points separately very well. But case as a whole was not very applicable.

My opponent in his opening paragraph said that he does not need to provide evidence. If he is going to demand evidence from me, then I demand he provide evidence as well.

"Let's say an African American man owns a candy shop. I go in. I steal a box of Nerds. Does that suddenly mean I'm racist? Let's go even further, and say I was in LA during the Rodney King Riots. My jury panel happens to be all black. What do I do eh? They convict me of committing a hate crime; but that doesn't suddenly mean that I did it because I was racist."
My opponent gives these examples, but they are not applicable. These are NOT hate crimes. In order to convict a hate crime, you have to go into the background of the person. The evidence will include their behaviors toward the group they hate, racist jokes they laughed at, literature they read, letters they wrote, etc. You will not just be convicted of a hate crime because you stole candy from an African American's store.

"And unjust means not giving each their due. My job in this round is to show that hate crime enhancements don't give each their due. I don't see where the collapse of the legal system comes in if we go PRO. All I'm saying is that punishing people that supposedly committed crimes because of hate is not giving each their due."
How are you going to prove to society the just due? It is IMPOSSIBLE to determine due, so therefore it is impossible to give someone their just due. No one can define it, so that is why this debate still stands.

"If she does not refute this argument, she has already lost the round because her entire case assumes that we can somehow figure out the intention of the convicts."
What? This makes it sound like my opponent does not understand the court system. Like I stated in my brief, we do prove intent. We have to; or else we would be convicting the same for someone who commits pre-meditated murder,and someone who commits murder in the heat of passion. We only convict with proof. If the court does not have enough proof to convict, they won't. We already have to figure out the intentions of the convict, or else we would not have justice in our court systems.

"Why [does criminal A gets the death penalty, Criminal B gets life without parole, and criminal C gets 20-40 years with parole]?[...]"

1) Where's your evidence for that claim? Cause last I checked, murderer's sentences are mainly based off of a) circumstances and b) level of consciousness the killer was at.

Once again this statement makes me feel like my opponent does not understand our court systems. Where is my evidence? The U.S Court System is my evidence. This is more than obvious, so I will not provide such evidence. Convicting a criminal is NOT only based on "circumstances and level of counsciousness the killer was at." The courts consider motive, how heinous and sick the crime was, age, and factors such as whether the crime was pre-meditated or accidental.

"3) I find high school kids that steal iPods and rob houses while everyone else is at work or school extremely abhorrent. Should we punish them more just because I thought they targeted me? Or because my family thinks so? Or because my neighborhood thinks so?"
You find something like this extremely abhorrent? So you find this more abhorrent than a rape, torture, and murder case? I think we should stick to crimes with a degree more relevant to this debate. It doesnt matter what your neighborhood thinks... Like I stated before, there has to be substantial proof that this was a true hate crime. If I truely feel malice toward someone, I am not going to just steal their iPod to show my feelings. This is not going to be considered a hate crime.

"1) We're looking to "Hate Crime Enhancements" in this round, so we're only talking about intent. "harm" and "dangerousness" are nonunique to hate crimes."
Nonunique to hate crimes? A big portion of hate crimes, like I stated in my brief, is because a hate crime criminal is more dangerous to more people, rather than your average criminal. The FBI website states that the average criminal chooses their victim merely our of circumstance, convenience and location. Saying, that the average mugger, for example, will choose to rob me because I am an easy target walking down a dark street. He did not target me because he hates all 5'8' blonde females. Another example; if a guy is incarcerated for beating his wife, one may well fear for her safety when he is released. Whereas, if you have a hate crime criminal who hates all Mexicans, you can very well fear for the safety of the entire race of Mexicans when he is released. Proving, that the factor of dangerousness is very relevant when it comes to sentencing.

"K) Haha, you're quite an idealist."
Is that so wrong? Is it wrong that I strive to make our nation as ideal as it can be? My idealistic views are more easily obtainable than my opponents.

"1) TURN: By punishing a person because he/she committed a crime supposedly because the victim belonged to a group of people, we are institutionalizing separatism. My opponent is saying that we should punish people that commit crimes because of their victim's belonging to a certain group of people. But by having hate crime enhancements, the government is RECOGNIZING THAT THESE GROUPS EXIST. All these things that we have worked towards, the physical manifestation of the beliefs that "[…]"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," […] "liberty and justice for all," [and that] "all men are created equal," don't we find it [extremely] abhorrent, grievous, and brutal when [we start seeing people as parts of groups again and punish people that recognize these groups…. just to end up showing that we believe that these groups exist as well]?" "Society then, in turn can suffer from the [empowerment to the idea that groups do indeed exist]." EVEN IF punishing people because they're malicious is just, EVEN IF we can determine intent, this argument stands alone: By going CON, we're just going to cause more hate crimes to happen, because it destroys the idea that we're all just part of the human race, and instead says that "He's from Iraq!", or "She's a catholic!" This will inevitably lead to a society far worse than the one we had in the 60's."
My opponent is saying that hate crime enhancements lead to the recognition of groups. My opponent is trying to accomplish the impossible. We cannot rid our nation of the stereotypes of the groups we belong to. Asking us to do this, is going against everything in our First Amendment. It is compromising our Freedom of Expression and Religion. Earlier my opponent laughed at me for being an idealist. Well what my opponent is trying to do, by trying to diminish the recognition of groups, is an idealist action. But, it is not the idealist attitude that is going to be beneficial to our nation. So, in all actuality my opponent is contradicting himself. He wants the impossible ideal, after laughing at me for being an idealist. We need to recognize the difference between idealism and realism. The realism is that we will NEVER be able to get rid of groups. It makes us a nation. And I do not believe that hate crime enhancements are going to perpetuate more hate crimes. Yes we are all a part of the human race, I agree with my opponent there. But, it's like saying that yes, we have animals, but we should not classify them. We should call all of them animals and not acknowledge the difference between cows, dogs, pigs, etc. It's the impossible ideal my opponent is striving for.

In closing, my ideals for hate crime enhancements are stronger and will stand in this debate. My opponent attacked me well, but I defended myself, and therefore, for these reasons, hate crime enhancements are just. They have worked in the past, today, and I believe that they will continue to work.
Korezaan

Pro

"My opponent in his opening paragraph said that he does not need to provide evidence. If he is going to demand evidence from me, then I demand he provide evidence as well. "

The only place I see myself asking her for evidence is about the legal system. She says later in her responses, "The U.S Court System is my evidence." However, this would not suffice, as I believe we all would agree that saying "Google.com is my source" or "BBC is my evidence" would not suffice as a justification. In order for warrants to have any weight in debate, they must be IN THE ROUND ITSELF. My opponent has never done that.

"Let's say an African American man owns a candy shop. I go in. I steal a box of Nerds. Does that suddenly mean I'm racist? Let's go even further, and say I was in LA during the Rodney King Riots. My jury panel happens to be all black. What do I do eh? They convict me of committing a hate crime; but that doesn't suddenly mean that I did it because I was racist."

1) My original point here was that "beyond a reasonable doubt" combined with a unanimous jury still does not "give each their due". She never tells you WHY my example is not applicable, she just goes on to talk about something else.
2) Her point on "evidence" – STRAIGHT TURN: (Jacobs, same citation except now on Pg. 37-38, capitalizations by me)

"[I]n People v. Lampkin, 457 N.E.2d 50 (1983), the prosecution presented as evidence racist statements that the defendant had uttered SIX YEARS BEFORE THE CRIME for which he was on trial (p. 50). In effect, the trial may turn into an inquisition on the defendant's character, or at least his values and beliefs. Such testimony and cross examination may transform hate crime trials into character tests, WHICH DEFENDANTS WILL PASS ONLY IF THEY ARE POLITICALLY CORRECT MULTICULTURALISTS. The result of such inquisition-style hate crime trials may be increased polarization of the community and politicization of the criminal justice system. Ironically, the emphasis on hate crimes might generate more intergroup prejudice and conflict."

JUST BECAUSE a person tells racist jokes DOESN'T MEAN that they're racist, and EVEN IF they're racist you can't prove that they did the crime BECAUSE they have racist attitudes, and EVEN IF she gets ALL OF THE ABOVE, she still loses because of my turn at the end of R1. Sure, I agree, me stealing from an African-American guy's candy shop doesn't make it a hate crime. But how would the jury know that? Especially since the court system is set up to infer that guilt is there, and especially if the other lawyer isn't there to find the truth, but to convict you in any way possible? And what if I did it during the Rodney King Riots eh? What then????

"How are you going to prove to society the just due? It is IMPOSSIBLE to determine due, so therefore it is impossible to give someone their just due. No one can define it, so that is why this debate still stands. "

1) Never made that argument but sure: TURN: Since she's just said that it's impossible to determine due, that means we can't give each their due, and we can't ever give each their due, which means EVERYTHING is unjust. Doesn't matter if it's abusive, it's true, and even if it is abusive, she made this argument, not me.
2) The debate stands- For me. Because I've just proved once and for all that hate crime enhancements are unjust, on the most basic level.

"Like I stated in my brief, we do prove intent[...]"

1) She gives no evidence why the US justice system is able to reach justice or why we should infer so.
2) This goes directly with my intent overview: We can't ever determine intent.
3) We don't convict only with proof in hate crimes. Jacobs continues (pg. 37):

"Most hate crime statutes DO NOT REQUIRE PROOF of manifest prejudice. Thus, where manifest prejudice was not evident at the crime scene, the prosecutor may attempt to prove prejudice based on the defendant's character, activities, and pronouncements.[…] Further, [W]itnesses may be called on to testify about how the defendant told (or laughed at) racist or homophobic jokes, or whether he EVER used racial slurs. In Grimm v. Churchill, 932 F.2d 674 (1991), the arresting officer testified that Grimm had a history of making racist remarks (pp. 675-76)."

"Once again this statement makes me feel like my opponent does not understand our court systems[...]"

"Obvious" does not suddenly mean that proof is suddenly inferred. It's not obvious to me, and yes, I don't know the legal system very well. But since she decided to not enlighten me or any of us, we can't just assume what she said is true. It doesn't matter if I know how the US legal system works or not, as it is not the basis for justice. Said this in R1.

"You find something like this extremely abhorrent?[...]"

1) Does not respond to my original argument about how "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not enough. Okay, so what if I think stealing is extremely abhorrent? WHAT IF I find it more abhorrent than rape torture and murder? What then? What if my ENTIRE CITY thinks so eh? It's our city where courts are going to be held. It's not like the jury just knows all and all justice. My city's decisions may be very different from the next person, and that's exactly my question: How does she prove that every one of us abhors hate crimes as much as she does? Or, if she's implying that she doesn't need to, since when has she become the decider of what's just and what's not?
2) So my neighborhood doesn't matter. Which one does then?
3) Proof responded to earlier.

"Nonunique to hate crimes? A big portion of hate crimes, like I stated in my brief[...]"

1) "Big portion" does not mean "Unique". A big portion of planes have wheels (remember those planes that landed on water?) , but that doesn't mean wheels are unique to planes. This means that we're only talking about intent in this round. And I've already shown intent determination is impossible.
2) FBI is not determiner of justice. We just wish they were.

"Is that so wrong? Is it wrong that I strive to make our nation as ideal as it can be? My idealistic views are more easily obtainable than my opponents."

1) Anyone want proof that there's no way to prove intent? Here it is. All I said was "haha you're quite an idealist", and she took it as an insult. I didn't mean it as an insult. It was a comment.
2) No, I don't think so. I believe I've proved that quite clearly in "Intent Determination"

"My opponent is saying that hate crime enhancements lead to the recognition of groups. My opponent is trying to accomplish the impossible. We cannot rid our nation of the stereotypes of the groups we belong to."

Umm, no. I'm saying that by INSTITUTIONALIZING separatism, i.e. RECOGNIZING IT THROUGH HATE CRIME ENHANCEMENTS, will lead to really bad results. You want to protect minorities through these laws, well GG, you've just shown that this country RECOGNIZES that there ARE these barriers, and that interactions between people "of your own kind" MUST be weighed differently than your interactions with others. By HCE's being deemed as "giving each their due", that just means there's no "unity" in the HUMAN race. "Every man is born equal"? HCE's disagree with my opponent's opening pathos appeals.

They have NOT worked in the past, she provides NO evidence that it works today, I've given an argument that they will NOT work in the future, and EVEN IF I lose all that, it DOESN'T MATTER if it works or not, it matters if HCE's are giving each their due. Through multiple arguments and two turned ones, I've proved that HCE's do NOT give each their due, and since she never responded to my value of justice and since silence is consent, she therefore does not reach justice and that makes the resolution false.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Asia 8 years ago
Asia
Practice practice practice. And get feedback from a lot of people, that helped me a lot.
Posted by draxxt 8 years ago
draxxt
I'm an IE kid myself and I really want to get into LD my sophomore year but... Well, I need training... I'm a decent debator just need to lear the semantics.
Posted by draxxt 8 years ago
draxxt
He knew, he was just being facetious. Note how he adds the ftw. Obviously, a joke.
Posted by thetwilightprince 8 years ago
thetwilightprince
No, LD stands for Lincoln-Douglas. you should start paying attention in class.
Posted by padlockcode 8 years ago
padlockcode
LD stands for learning disabled. policy ftw
Posted by Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
haha, everyone has their first time. I'm from Logan. You won't have to debate me at State, as we are not from the same state xDDD
Posted by Asia 8 years ago
Asia
Okay so this is my FIRST time ever doing LD. I am not an arguer... and you pretty much slayed me. Where are you from? Hopefully I don't have to debate you at State! You are really. good. I really am in uncharted territories so I will try to save my butt, but I don't think it's going to happen...
Posted by Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
Finally, practice on an LD topic.
Posted by nitrogen85 8 years ago
nitrogen85
I would love to debate this, but I feel it lacks argumentation. However, I would like to debate you on a different subject. Seeing you have not debated yet, I am very interested.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
AsiaKorezaanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
AsiaKorezaanTied
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 
Vote Placed by krattyk10 8 years ago
krattyk10
AsiaKorezaanTied
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 
Vote Placed by draxxt 8 years ago
draxxt
AsiaKorezaanTied
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 
Vote Placed by roycegee 8 years ago
roycegee
AsiaKorezaanTied
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 
Vote Placed by ronnyyip 8 years ago
ronnyyip
AsiaKorezaanTied
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 
Vote Placed by cheva 8 years ago
cheva
AsiaKorezaanTied
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 
Vote Placed by kelstwa 8 years ago
kelstwa
AsiaKorezaanTied
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 
Vote Placed by wooferalot101 8 years ago
wooferalot101
AsiaKorezaanTied
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 
Vote Placed by bigdog 8 years ago
bigdog
AsiaKorezaanTied
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