Hate crime laws
Debate Rounds (3)
Keep it friendly is all I ask.
My first point is that hate crime laws create protected classes.
Point two is that hate crime laws make the issue no longer about the crime committed but then focuses on why they did the crime. If a person is assaulted, would it make it hurt more if the assaulter did it because the victim was gay? Assault is illegal and should be charged because of the crime not also because of how they felt about it.
Point three. By all definitions hate could be a factor in every crime. And minorities can commit hate crimes to the majority. So literally every person should be in a protected group, but if everyone is 'protected' then nobody really is. Which would beg the question off, why do we need these laws
If people are worried about the intimidation factor of crimes we should increase the penalty of the crime, to say they were thinking the wrong thing when they commuted the crime seems out of line and could lead to problems in the future like certain groups being valued above another and inequality in the court of law.
Good luck to you as well
Well I was expecting some points but I suppose ill use this to elaborate a little bit more.
When said protected groups we tend to think of sexual orientation, but race, ethnicity, and religion ect. ect. are all included.
the problem with the groups is who decides what groups are allowed in. Mankind, according to most religions and even to some non religious people, is not perfect. With this being said we know we are susceptible to greed, lust, power and many other things. With the protected groups we are giving a person or group the power to decide what groups are protected and being imperfect can and does cause problems discriminating against different groups not giving equal laws to them all.
With my second and third point together I will make quote the incedibles because they say it well "if everyone is super, no one will be." this maybe is a little easier to understand. So all that is being said is that the point of hate crimes is irrelevant if everyone is protected. even if a crime is done with the intent to intimidate or because the group was disliked, the criminal has the right to dislike them as much as they want just his actions can not defile the law. Granted a hate crime can only be if an initial crime is done, but like I said before it says that not only is it not good enough to punish you for breaking the law, we punish you for disliking these people while you did it.
We have hate crimes laws because we want security. We want to know that if people are after our 'group' that they get what they deserve and hate crime laws specifically address that. But what we are doing is giving the power to people to decide what groups are the 'right' groups and can lead to breaks in the law and society. As Benjamin Franklin said "those who are willing to trade freedom for security, deserve neither and will lose both"
I apologize for not making my points in round 1. This is my first debate acceptance, and I thought that all you had to do was say 'I accept' and be over with it. Sorry! Anyway, great points.
Hate crime - "a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence" 
Protected class - "a characteristic of a person which cannot be targeted for discrimination" 
Protected Groups - Rebuttal #1
I will start by addressing CON's points on protected groups. CON states that giving people the ability to judge who goes in a protected class and who doesn't is not good, because mankind is imperfect (lust, greed, etc.). This can lead to discrimination and more. What I'd like to point out, though, is that if we thought like this for every situation, we might as well debunk presidential elections, committee groups, and leadership roles altogether, because mankind isn't perfect. CON's argument here is like some sort of general transitive property:
If a human in power is imperfect, he/she can't make fair decisions. If he/she can't make fair decisions, people are discriminated against.
So, if a human in power is imperfect, people are discriminated against.
There are many holes in this logic, however. What if the person is part of a group that makes decisions? What if the person isn't allowed to make certain decisions due to laws in place? What if the person in power is advised by others who don't agree with him? I haven't named them all, but there are a lot of ways out there to make this statement untrue.
CON is saying that humans, being imperfect, should not be able to lead or dictate other people because we're all susceptible to the seven deadly sins (lust, greed, etc.). Living in today's society, we know that leadership roles are actually beneficial both to society and lifestyle. The structure of the United States government prevents some forms of extreme discrimination, even in the government itself. The government would have a hard time passing laws that target racial groups without addressing others. Because of that fact, protected class laws are generally not specific about which race, religion or whatnot. This is why, for example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws discrimination based on any race, color, religion, sex, etc. , not discrimination based on being specifically black.
Incredible's Quote - Rebuttal #2
CON has stated (using a quote) that "if everyone is super, no one will be." That may be true, but this is totally different when it comes to protection. Being super is trait that describes either personality, appearance, or ability. If everyone has generally the same ability, power, or personality, than yes, it makes sense to say that in being the same, no one is different from the other. However, when it comes to something specific such as protection from discrimination (or protection from anything in that matter), everyone having it doesn't mean no one has it. For example, if we lived in a state where everyone was provided with high security home systems, and everyone got a system, we'd still all have protection. Just because everyone around me has the same system doesn't mean that now no one has it. Another example would be if every single person on earth were turned red. Just because everyone else around me is red, does that make me not red? I'm still red.
Referring to a criminal's right to dislike a group, yes, that's true. But when his dislike causes him to harm another person or damage another's property, then he is punishable by law. The criminal isn't being punished for how he felt during the crime. He is being punished because he'd decided to discriminate against a protected group, which is illegal. This is a tactic used to help others avoid acting based on feelings. So now people who dislike groups won't go out and vandalize property, thinking that they'll get away with just vandalism charges. People should also understand this tactic's purpose in a place like the United States. In a country with a long history of discrimination, superiority/inferiority, and abuse based on superficial things like race, gender, religion etc., measures to prevent or punish these types of crimes to stop the past from repeating itself is only natural.
Is my opponent saying that a person should be allowed to act based on prejudiced feelings? If his prejudiced feelings are the motive, should we let motive slide? Or should we encourage others to act based on these beliefs?
Hate crimes are necessary because they help discourage future offenders from acting. This beneficial to the offender, the community, and the victim.
I look forward to CON's argument next round! Great job!
TheKnifeKnight forfeited this round.
My opponent has forfeited, which is disappointing :(. No rebuttals have been made, no evidence presented. This lack of support only propels what I've said further. Vote PRO!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.