The Instigator
Aietius
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
Vi_Veri
Con (against)
Winning
47 Points

In the United States, Hate-Crime enhancements are unjust.

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 4/14/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,315 times Debate No: 3621
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (16)

 

Aietius

Pro

The current LD resolution. Come one, come all, and debate me!

Because hate crime enhancements violate free speech, I affirm the resolution, Resolved: Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States. The United States Sentencing Guidelines 3A1.1.(a) currently sets down hate crime enhancements as occurring when:

"The defendant intentionally [selecting] any victim or any property as the object of the offense of conviction because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."

The resolution specifically questions whether a certain policy is just or unjust, and therefore the most appropriate value for this round is Justice, defined by Merriam-Webster as the "maintenance or administration of what is merited especially by impartial adjustments." The maintenance and administration of justice, in the context of the resolution, requires that law objectively give people what they are due. If the law or legislation does not meet this requirement, the law or legislation can legitimately be called unjust. Consequently, the thesis of the affirmative is that hate crime enhancements are unjust because they violate the fundamental human right to freedom of thought and opinion. Therefore, the sufficient value criterion to affirm is comprised of two interrelated burdens. The affirmative must demonstrate that:

1) The action of punishing and suppressing freedom of speech and thought is unjust, and
2) Hate crime enhancements punish and suppress freedom of speech and thought.

Meeting this dual burden of proof would meet the semantic and logical conditions that would make the resolution a true statement, and would thus mandate an affirmative ballot.

My first justification establishes that a law suppressing or punishing freedom of speech and thought is an unjust and formidable evil. Freedom of speech is a universal ideal held as a standard for the respect of human dignity, and is ingrained in both the Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As John Stewart Mill expresses,

"Not the violent conflict between each side, but the quiet suppression of half of it, is the formidable evil; there is always hope, when people are forced to listen to both sides; it is when they attend only to one that errors harden into prejudices, and truth itself ceases to have the effect of truth, by being exaggerated into falsehood... Though the silenced opinion may be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of the truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. "

The reasoning behind this argument is simple. While a suppression of an idea will never allow its errors to be revealed, the expression of the idea will allow for ‘collision of adverse opinions' from which the truth can be seen. If the silenced opinion is without a forum in which to challenge other ideas, those ideas will harden into prejudices and falsehoods. Supreme Court Justice Brandeis also demonstrates the reasoning that repression of ideas leads to hazard rather than safety:

"[Those who won our independence] knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form."

Silence coerced by law is a ‘formidable evil' and suppression of thought through law has dire consequences to stable government and society. Therefore, punishing freedom of speech would be unjust.

My second justification is that hate crime enhancements punish and violate freedom of speech and thought. As Jacob Sullum expresses,

"Hate crime laws, by their very nature, punish people for their opinions. A mugger who robs a Jew because he's well-dressed is punished less severely than a mugger who robs a Jew based on the belief that Jews get their money only by cheating Christians. A thug who beats an old lady in a wheelchair just for fun is punished less severely than a thug who does so because he believes disabled people are leeches."

By punishing certain beliefs but not others, the government is effectively saying that some ideas are bad and wrong. Regardless of whether an idea is ridiculous, disgusting, or offensive in anway way, it is not the role of the government to tell those who believe in it that it is wrong.

So what is it that the government is punishing if it enhances the sentence to a certain crime? If it is the supposed extra harms that stem from hate crimes compared to their normal parallel crimes, there is already an allocated amount of punishment for the crime itself, and even without hate crime enhancement, the perpetrator would be punished for the severity of the crime. Judges use discretion in all cases to "take a crime's impact into account at sentencing." (Sullum, Jacob), and as such the punishment for the crime itself is already taken care of regardless of the enhancement. Thus, the additional punishment is actually punishment for the opinion and thoughts of the perpetrator. As Daniel E. Troy states in a Testimony for the House Judiciary Committee, hate crime enhancements advocate punishment for holding opinions that the government disagrees with, and to reach the goal of justice, the rights of free speech and opinion ought to be protected:

"Hate crime legislation punishes people for the content of their ideas. Of course, these ideas are noxious and repulsive to the vast majority of the population -- and well they should be. However, the level of disgust harbored by the masses for an idea has never been legitimate criteria for allocating punishment. As Justice Robert Jackson said in his 1943 Barnette decision: "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."45 Justice Jackson's eloquent words apply equally to protect flag burners, Jehovah's Witnesses, and even racists."

The argument of the affirmative, then, can be summarized easily as a simple syllogism: violations of freedom of speech and thought are unjust, and hate crime enhancements inherently violate freedom of speech and thought. As a result, hate crime enhancements are unjust and the resolution is true. As Thomas Jefferson concludes,

"We have nothing to fear from the demoralizing reasonings of some, if others are left free to demonstrate their errors and especially when the law stands ready to punish the first criminal act produced by the false reasonings."

Indeed, it is the crime that should be punished, not the opinions and beliefs behind the act. For these reasons, I urge an affirmative ballot.
Vi_Veri

Con

"Prejudice is a great time saver. You can form opinions without having to get the facts." - E.B. White

Let's start off with defining Hate Speech and then Prejudice.

Hate speech: a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society. (wikipedia.org)

Merriam-Webster:

1prej•u•dice
1: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims2 a (1): preconceived judgment or opinion (2): an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b: an instance of such judgment or opinion c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

My opponent: "The reasoning behind this argument is simple. While a suppression of an idea will never allow its errors to be revealed, the expression of the idea will allow for ‘collision of adverse opinions' from which the truth can be seen. If the silenced opinion is without a forum in which to challenge other ideas, those ideas will harden into prejudices and falsehoods."

Key words, Prejudices and Falsehoods.

First off, let me state that Hate Speech is a prejudice. Let's give a few examples and please do tell me if you can find any factual information in any of these, or information that doesn't lead to hostile behavior and violations of human rights:

1. "We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves." Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.

2. "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." -- Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994 [Source: N.Y. Times, Feb. 28, 1994, p. 1]

3. "Many of those people involved in Adolf Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals, the two things seem to go together, it is a pathology it is a sickness." - Pat Robertson (Side information: Homosexuals were killed along side the Jews and many others during Hitler's reign.)

4. "In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison." - Hitler

5. "The false teachers of churchianity justify interracial marriages in order to keep the White race blind to administering God's laws." - Ku Klux Klan

I'm going to continue by mentioning an individual who believes Hate Speech should be allowed and his reasoning and my critic against it:

Derek Bok is a graduate of Stanford University, and Harvard University, where he received his degree in law. Mr. Bok was also President of Harvard University from 1971 to 1991. He wrote an article titled, "Protecting Freedom of Expression on Campus." Mr. Bok's thesis is that freedom of speech should be guarded no matter what the circumstance. He gives the conclusion that we need to pull people like racists aside and speak to them in private. Could this possibly educate them? I don't agree with Mr. Bok. Condoning racist speech is supporting it. If racists are educated, given a proper anthropological and biological class, they will learn that race is not even considered true any longer. They will learn that their claims of "race" are meaningless. Letting them make this ugly speech is letting them infect others with their eroded logic. Education cures misuse of our First Amendment rights, Mr. Bok is right, but where Mr. Bok is wrong is when he says that we should keep allowing them to voice their opinions. No, what we should do is change the school curriculum to teach scientific fact and not opinion. If opinions insult you, that may be legitimate, but if facts insult you, you are ignorant.

Ignoring something in the speech department works well. Usually the reason someone announces something is because they want everyone to know. If everyone ignores them, then they have lost their main point. But, unfortunately, it doesn't work for everything. Sometimes ignoring them is just what they want in order to carry out their havoc. The difference between allowing something like racist speech and allowing some other more innocent type of free speech is that racist speech leads to violence. Vote for Hillary Clinton bumper stickers don't lead to someone shooting someone else, but the 'n' word would most likely lead to some sort of black eye.

"Thus, the additional punishment is actually punishment for the opinion and thoughts of the perpetrator." – opponent

Almost in the same way that a crime is more punishable if a person's intentions are more vile. Like, let's take for example a person who has been planning to execute an individual for weeks, has set everything up perfectly, and then goes and kills them as compared to a person who accidentally runs them over with their car. They both have killed him, yes, but the intention is what is what makes the crime more dangerous. Things will happen on accident, but when there is a specific purpose, it condones the act itself.

As for Judge Jackson:

The West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette was a court decision made because of religious belief that Jehovah Witnesses could not pledge to political symbols. This is a freedom of speech case, yes, but it is not hate speech. The Jehovah Witnesses were not outright spitting on the flag or cursing America. They were just expressing how they didn't want to pledge themselves to a political symbol. Bad example, Pro. And I doubt Justice Jackson, one of the main prosecutors in the Nuremberg trials, wouldn't know what hate speech could accomplish.

Going to add a final point before I had the argument back over to my opponent:

Hate Speech breeds indoctrination. Children get indoctrinated in false, non-fact based opinion instead of being taught a rounded opinion of things (What my opponent thinks letting hate speech will do; that is, teach people both sides. It doesn't do this, I'm afraid).

Regards,

Vi
Debate Round No. 1
Aietius

Pro

First of all, I'd just like to thank my opponent for taking this debate, it's a great topic and we'll see where this goes!

For the purpose of clarity, I'll start this round by restating my argument briefly.

My argument is based on a syllogism:

Major Premise: The action of punishing and suppressing freedom of speech and thought is unjust
Minor Premise: Hate Crime Enhancements punish and suppress freedom of speech and thought.
Conclusion: Hate Crime Enhancements are unjust.

A=B, B=C, therefore A=C

My opponent chose to attack the Major Premise of the syllogism by arguing that free speech ought not be protected, and she presented a variety of reasons for that. Even if I accepted that free speech should not be protected, my opponent did not address in any way the second part of the premises, which is that hate crime enhancements would also punish freedom of thought, and she therefore concedes the point.. Even if suppressing freedom of speech is just, Con has conceded that suppressing freedom of thought is unjust. Since she did not address and therefore accepts the minor premise of the syllogism, which is that HCEs punish and suppress freedom of speech and thought, there is only one conclusion we can draw: Hate Crime Enhancements are unjust. As such, the semantic and logical conditions in order to prove the resolution true have been met, and you must vote affirmative.

Please don't allow my opponent, Vi_Veri, to respond to the arguments centered around the suppression of freedom of thought. She already conceded that suppressing freedom of thought is unjust, and she also already conceded that hate crime enhancements suppress freedom of thought. These arguments have been extended, and we must ignore any response to them in her future responses.

Even though I've already demonstrated why I should win the round, I will now respond to my opponent's case just so she can't spuriously extend anything to claim the win.

My opponent's first and only contention is essentially that the suppression of freedom of speech is just. She provides various examples of hate speech in a list of quotes, and then goes on to say why we shouldn't allow people to say those things. For the purpose of clarity I'll list out her justifications for her contentions, followed by my response.

1) Her first justification is this: "Condoning racist speech is supporting it." She provides no evidence for this statement, no warrants or explanations. She simply assumes that the rhetorical power of the statement will buy over the judges. The fact is that this is not true, and I challenge my opponent to show why it is.

My response to it is this: For the government to punish or suppress free speech, including hate speech, is to say that the content of ideas is a realm that the government can control. It also means that the government is favoring one idea over another, and like I said in my case - which my opponent did not respond to - it is not the responsibility of the government to say which ideas are right and wrong. John Stuart Mill elaborates:

"Not the violent conflict between each side, but the quiet suppression of half of it, is the formidable evil; there is always hope, when people are forced to listen to both sides; it is when they attend only to one that errors harden into prejudices, and truth itself ceases to have the effect of truth, by being exaggerated into falsehood... it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied."

Supreme Court Justice Brandeis continues:

"Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, [our forefathers] eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form."

2) My opponent's second justification for the suppression of free speech is that "racist speech leads to violence." This is a blatant assumption, a statement with no evidence, just a piece of rhetorical fluff that sounds good as a sound-byte. Furthermore, by allowing people to express their opinions, racist or not, into the marketplace of ideas promotes discussion. For the government to punish people based on the content of their ideas only sweeps the problem under the rug, and those opinions will still prevail, perhaps more vehemently.

Vi_Veri seems to misunderstand the concept of free speech. By allowing everyone to express their opinion, perhaps we can reach some truth through the exchange of ideas. She claims that we ignore hate speech when we don't punish people for their ideas, but it's quite the opposite. When we punish people for their ideas, all we're doing is putting them in prison, where those ideas fester. We hide those ideas from society, and in fact it is THAT process that promotes ignorance. By allowing people to say what they think, we confront issues head-on. This is the basis behind John Stuart Mill's marketplace of ideas, and if my opponent disagrees, she missed her chance when she failed to respond to the John Stuart Mill card in my case.

3) My opponent's third contention is that it is okay to punish people more if they think something we disagree with. She cites the example of the state punishing people more if their intentions are more vile. However, in this exploration into the intent and motive of the accused, the government steps into a realm it is not equipped to go into. Daniel E. Troy explains why:

"For many crimes, mens rea, or intent, must be established. Yet the inquiry into whether a defendant acted willfully is very different than an inquiry as to whether the criminal was motivated by bias or prejudiced....

The wilfull inquiry is based on conduct not constitutionally protected. By contrast, a successful hate crime prosecution might well rely on evidence of the books the defendant read, the political organizations to which he belongs, and even the remarks one makes. For example, an important piece of evidence in Hate crime laws ultimately force courts into making rulings like this one, because they must enter a domain for which they are ill-equipped and ill-suited -- the probing of individuals' constitutionally protected beliefs and associations. Courts of law should be wary of inquiring into the most intimate details of an individual's personal beliefs, and then meting out punishment accordingly."

4) My opponent attacks the example I use of Justice Jackson because the case in which he ruled in favor of free speech was not a case involving hate speech. I don't see why this is important. I cited Justice Jackson to provide evidence as to why it is not the job of the government to "prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." I wasn't trying to justify hate speech, as seem to think I was, but rather I was saying why the government is not justified in punishing people for the content of their ideas.

As you can see, my opponent really has no offense on my case, and she provides no reason that hate crime enhancements are indeed just. She gives the judges no reason to vote affirmative.

FURTHERMORE, as I showed at the start of my response, my opponent essentially accepted my syllogism by failing to respond to all parts of the syllogism, and instead focused only on a part of one of the premises.

For all these reasons, I urge an affirmative ballot.

Remember:

Punishing freedom of speech and thought is unjust.
Hate Crime Enhancements punish freedom of speech and thought.
Therefore, Hate Crime Enhancements are unjust.

btw vi_veri ur hot lets go out sumtime k?
Vi_Veri

Con

Ok, let's start from the top of my opponent's argument:

"My argument is based on a syllogism:

Major Premise: The action of punishing and suppressing freedom of speech and thought is unjust
Minor Premise: Hate Crime Enhancements punish and suppress freedom of speech and thought.
Conclusion: Hate Crime Enhancements are unjust.

A=B, B=C, therefore A=C"

If it is assumed that his syllogism is correct just because of his property, the Transitive Property Fallacy is being preformed. Transitive' s never really prove anything, because not all relations are transitive.

Also, I would like to argue against the soundness of his statements.

I already disproved the soundness of his "Major" premise in my above argument. Therefore, the soundness has been broken in his syllogism.

Opponent: "Even if suppressing freedom of speech is just, Con has conceded that suppressing freedom of thought is unjust."

We are arguing Hate Crime Enhancements which are punishments against actions not thoughts. Speaking is an action.

I already ruled out that punishment of freedom of speech is unjust -- it can be just. Therefore his second premise does not stand

If you delete the first premise, you can't get the same conclusion out of just the second one.

Let's give it a go:

Premise: Hate Crime Enhancements punish and suppress freedom of speech and thought.

Conclusion: Hate Crime Enhancements are unjust.

Doesn't work anymore.

One only needs to disprove one of the two premises in order to conclude that a syllogism is not valid.

_____________________________________

Now that we have completed the syllogism tid bit of our debate, let me move on to the second installment.

***First off, I do not enjoy it when people are outright arrogant in their arguments. I leave it up to the judges to decide what they believe, not assume what they will believe or flaunt that I am right or beating my opponent or showing up my opponent.***

Now then...

1. "It also means that the government is favoring one idea over another, and like I said in my case - which my opponent did not respond to - it is not the responsibility of the government to say which ideas are right and wrong."

In fact, it is the government's responsibility to say what ideas are right and wrong. Communism, Nazism are both not parts of our government. The government has agreed that those ideas are wrong for our country. Customs preformed in many cultures are not tolerated in America. The ideas of prostitution, recreational drug use, genital mutilation, etc. are all banned in the United States. The government does have say in what ideologies are right and wrong, and that is why we have laws (no murder, no rape, etc).

As for the Mill quote, I do believe I commented on it even without directly bringing up Mill's name:

Me:

"If racists are educated, given a proper anthropological and biological class, they will learn that race is not even considered true any longer. They will learn that their claims of "race" are meaningless. Letting them make this ugly speech is letting them infect others with their eroded logic. Education cures misuse of our First Amendment rights, Mr. Bok is right, but where Mr. Bok is wrong is when he says that we should keep allowing them to voice their opinions. No, what we should do is change the school curriculum to teach scientific fact and not opinion. If opinions insult you, that may be legitimate, but if facts insult you, you are ignorant."

2. Hate speech is not the same as a valid opinion. There is no fact in hate speech, and therefore it can not be used in a valid discussion. That is why I believe it has nothing to offer. Say if we figure something out like "Oh, maybe atheists REALLY DO eat babies!" We can use this as actual discussion, but if they make irrational statements like, "Atheists all destroy families!" then we can not have a proper discussion with them.

As for misunderstanding the idea of free speech... I think I do understand it quite well. I just like to add the idea of valid speech to it. I don't believe in slander, in other words.

And I think I pointed out the Mill bit in section 1.

As for examples of hate speech (immediate or not) leading to violence:

1. Danish Cartoons

2. World War II

3. Sports Violence

4. Irish Protestants Vs. Irish Catholics

5. Rodney King

6. Salman Rushdie

Maybe if people were more educated on real differences and not false made up hate speech differences between them, these problems wouldn't occur. All I am saying is we should advance logical thinking and not illogical thinking that leads to violence and hate and disorganization. It is not in the government's best interests for its citizens.

3. An individual has all the right in the world to be a part of any private organization in which they please, but once they start actions with their prejudice is when things get on the hazy side.

Why shouldn't a hate crime be punished? Again, it was a form of motivation. Someone stalking a person for days before killing them deserves a higher sentence then someone killing in the heat of the moment. Someone beating someone because they are black, for example, is different from someone beating someone for money. The first is irrational. There is no need (the person beating for money may need it desperately). The person beating because of racist notions has no personal need or gain.

4. Again, the case had nothing to do with hate speech. My opponent says he was not trying to justify hate speech, but what my opponent must realize is that is exactly what he must do. His whole debate is that punishing hate speech is unjust. Now he must explain why hate speech specifically.

I explained my reasoning for his example above, and stick to it. It was not a good enough example. There are lots of forms of free speech that are banned from us. For example, you can't go outside at 3 am in your car with a loudspeaker blaring out the stock market quotes.

Even child porn can be debated as "free speech." But we don't allow it for obvious reasons.

___________________________________________________

Opponent: "FURTHERMORE, as I showed at the start of my response, my opponent essentially accepted my syllogism by failing to respond to all parts of the syllogism, and instead focused only on a part of one of the premises."

What I said earlier to counter this directly:

I already ruled out that punishment of freedom of speech is unjust -- it can be just. Therefore his second premise does not stand

If you delete the first premise, you can't get the same conclusion out of just the second one.

Let's give it a go:

Premise: Hate Crime Enhancements punish and suppress freedom of speech and thought.

Conclusion: Hate Crime Enhancements are unjust.

Doesn't work anymore.

One only needs to disprove one of the two premises in order to conclude that a syllogism is not valid.

________________________________

And as for this little statement he made:

"Please don't allow my opponent, Vi_Veri, to respond to the arguments centered around the suppression of freedom of thought. She already conceded that suppressing freedom of thought is unjust, and she also already conceded that hate crime enhancements suppress freedom of thought. These arguments have been extended, and we must ignore any response to them in her future responses."

What I concede and don't concede should not be of your authority to suppress. I beg my opponent to please leave the judging up to the judges. If I so fancied I could end this argument and start talking about ponies for the next argument, and that still wouldn't be under your authority to suppress. Again, please leave it up to our judges and don't suppress my arguments. If I make a mistake, it is my fault and it would help you in the end.

Regards,

Vi
Debate Round No. 2
Aietius

Pro

Aietius forfeited this round.
Vi_Veri

Con

I wont debate this issue any further as my opponent hasn't given a new argument. -------------------
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
I see a few objectivists scattered around here, tigersandgreenweather! Spiral, I'd assume, is one of them :)
Posted by tigersandgreenweather 8 years ago
tigersandgreenweather
Ayn Rand! I love you Vi!! anymore on this site???
Posted by HellKat 8 years ago
HellKat
There is oppinion and then there is slander, which is what I consider the hate crime you are referring to, and last I checked slander was not a part of free speech.
Posted by Aietius 8 years ago
Aietius
"What I concede and don't concede should not be of your authority to suppress. I beg my opponent to please leave the judging up to the judges. If I so fancied I could end this argument and start talking about ponies for the next argument, and that still wouldn't be under your authority to suppress. Again, please leave it up to our judges and don't suppress my arguments. If I make a mistake, it is my fault and it would help you in the end."

I didn't mean to be arrogant, I wasn't trying to "suppress" what you had to say, I was simply following through on traditional debate format. If an argument goes unaddressed then that argument is considered "dropped," and if a debater drops an argument and his/her opponent picks up on it, that argument is extended. In other words, dropping an argument is equivalent to conceding the point.

Also, when an argument is extended it means that it cannot be addressed in later rounds by the opponent. So when I say "don't allow my opponent to respond to the argument" I am simply stressing that the argument was extended, and therefore conceded, and therefore not up for debate in later rounds.

I'm not making this up =P
Posted by Aietius 8 years ago
Aietius
Take lots of pictures, please.
Posted by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
No thanks, Aietius, but I'll take your girlfriend out sometime ;)
Posted by Aietius 8 years ago
Aietius
Oh, by the way, that last statement? A joke. My girlfriend is my profile picture, =D
Posted by Aietius 8 years ago
Aietius
Wow, some typos . . .

"I wasn't trying to justify hate speech, as seem to think I was, but rather I was saying why the government is not justified in punishing people for the content of their ideas."

should be:

"I wasn't trying to justify hate speech, as Vi_Veri seems to think I was, but rather I was saying why the government is not justified in punishing people for the content of their ideas."
Posted by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
"Going to add a final point before I had the argument back over to my opponent:"

hand* not had!
Posted by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
Thanks, Luke :) I'll get on that.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
AietiusVi_VeriTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by LaSalle 7 years ago
LaSalle
AietiusVi_VeriTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Aietius 8 years ago
Aietius
AietiusVi_VeriTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
AietiusVi_VeriTied
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 MaxHayslip 8 years ago
MaxHayslip
AietiusVi_VeriTied
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 Oolon_Colluphid 8 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
AietiusVi_VeriTied
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 tigersandgreenweather 8 years ago
tigersandgreenweather
AietiusVi_VeriTied
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 HadenQuinlan 8 years ago
HadenQuinlan
AietiusVi_VeriTied
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 Issa 8 years ago
Issa
AietiusVi_VeriTied
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 11matrix11 8 years ago
11matrix11
AietiusVi_VeriTied
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