The Instigator
boredinclass
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
TheBrightestNeon
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

In the united states, hate groups should be treated as terrorist organizations.

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: 2/17/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,146 times Debate No: 14825
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

boredinclass

Pro

Hello, I'd first like to welcome any other debater to join me. I find this to be a very interesting topic and I look forward to hearing from whomever wishes to debate.
TheBrightestNeon

Con

Good morning/afternoon/evening, debate.org users. I am representing the CON side of this argument (Be it resolved that hate groups shall be treated as terrorist organizations). This is my first argument, be critical, I'll enjoy it more.

ACRONYMS (To save time)
AoT = Acts of Terrorism
KKK = Klu Klux Klan

Let's launch right in, then, shall we?

I'll go over just one point for now, so that I do not exhaust my alternatives. The point I will be making is this; "Hate Groups" do not preform "acts of terrorism", and the second point is that "Hate groups"

First of all, some definitions.

A hate group:
A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hate, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society.

A terrorist organization:
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

I will now launch into my first point, being that hate groups do NOT commit acts of terrorism.

Hate groups, though feared by some, do not commit AoT. No, rather, they simply get their point across in simple and efficient ways. Terrorist groups, on the other hand, commit acts of terrorism, because they deliberately strike out, often without cause. Terrorist attacks will often have no motive, just a sense of wanting to blow some stuff up and get some news attention, all while creating a fearful, hostile area for members of its community.

Hate groups attack individuals for different reasons; for one, sometimes their religions are against it. Maybe it's homosexual marriage laws that have just come out- hate groups will attack the government and the gays, to get their point out there.. that they don't want it to be legal. These types of attacks are most prevalent.

Another huge section of hate groups are competing religions. If Jews, Muslims, Arabs, Christians, etc. are all battling it out for the "best" religion. This often leaves members hating certain groups of people hostile and hateful towards others, which creates hate groups. Now, lets go back on that. Are we willing, then, if this were to become true, to consider Christian Churches, Muslim communities, and other religious places and people as part of "terrorist organizations"?

Finally, a lot of hate crimes are based on racism (ie, the KKK). These groups, though considered extremists by us, are not much different the the average American. A recent poll shows that 80% of Caucasian Americans are racist, though some may not realize it. This is, of course, deeply disturbing, but in the context of this debate proves something important: the ideals and thoughts of hate groups and average citizens are the same, only one being a little more violent. Often, with terrorists, this is not the case. You'll have the extremists, and then you'll have the average Joe. Not all Muslims or Arabs look at whites and say, hey, he's racist/stupid/insert other stereotype here, but 80% of Americans look at them and say, hey, he's a terrorist! The only point being made here, is the difference in the mentality of the public in both areas.

My fingers are getting tired, so I'll let my opponent get back to me. Thanks for the chance to debate you, and good luck.

SOURCES

http://articles.cnn.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
boredinclass

Pro

I'd first like to thank my opponent for joing my first debate on this site.
I'll start by going over what my opponent said and then get onto my arguements

I'll start right from the top. I agree with my opponent's definition of hate groups, but I would like to point out that in his own definition he stated " hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hate, hostility, or violence" and according to his own definition of terrorists ("they deliberately strike out") he contradicts himself because he implies terror acts are violent, hate groups are violent, but hate groups do not perform acts of terror.

AoT definition- He again contradicts himself by saying in his definition that acts of terror are a means for coercian, but in the next paragraph, states that terror acts are completely random and thoughtless. Now my opponent has 1 of two choices:
A. He drops his first definition of AoT and says that they are completely random
B. He drops the second definition and states that AoT are motivated

On the first definition, My opponent stated that since they are a means to get a point accross, I would like to quote him "Hate groups attack individuals for different reasons" So he concedes that hate groups are motivated, and ready

For his second definition, he completely underestimated terrorism. He states that terror acts are just to kill people. That's not true at all. In fact, more people have died by drowning bathtubs than killed in terror attacks. The point of terrorism is to scare you. People are now so afraid of getting on a plane because of the acts of 17 people. This has tanked the U.S. economy, scared everyone half to death, and caused two wars. Thsi is not just random killing.

I will agree with my opponent's definition of hate group acts, but on his arguement of banning churches and mosques (paragraph 11, line 3). We cannot allow people to form hate groups out of spite of other religions. that is the point of the resolution. As I will state in my first contention, people cannot continue acts such as these. To do so is to give in to acts such as the holocaust. That is why I chose pro, to prevent the rise of more hate groups

On his (hate groups share ordinary ideas). To quote Men in Black- a person is smart, people are stupid. I challenge anyone who has a friend who has been in a gang, to ask them what it was like. They'll tell you that it empowered them and made them feel important, That's what hate groups do, if a person does not fully consider themselves racist, then they are likely to hold it in. Until they get in the group. Then they will act. It is only through a group that people will act racially.

Now onto my reasons
protection

When the Ku Klux Klan started out, It was a gentlemen's club. (frat house) They drank and gossiped and were happy. James Crowe, one of the founding fathers, said the Klan had no political significance and existed only "to have fun, make mischief and play pranks on the public. Soon, the Klan began to harass black residents by breaking up church meetings and other gatherings where blacks were present. White southerners deeply resented former slaves who imagined they had the same rights as whites. See what happened? The ideas of racism, were so intoxicating that it distorted a friendly social group into evil villains. This soon spread out through society of america like a plague. soon Aryan groups began popping up everywhere. This was followed by horrible impacts
-Watkinsville, Oconee County, Georgia 1905.- hundreds came out to execute 8 prisoners multiple shots were fired and even some civilians were hit. There were no charges.
-1998, Joan lefkow's parents were murdered in their home because of their daughter's refusal to agree to an aryan lawsuit.
-the 16th street bombing.
-Klansmen killed more than 150 African Americans in a county in Florida, and hundreds more in other counties
These monsters have shown their hand time and time again. They have instilled fear into the nation and therefore, are a terrorist organization
TheBrightestNeon

Con

I'd like to thank the Proposition side for their remarks, as well as their feedback. I will try to be more concise (this is my first debate as well).

I also urge him to point out where I said terrorist attacks were motivated. Terrorist attacks (as I'm certain I didn't mention) are never (or almost never) motivated, with the exception of fear.

Let's just go over the point my opponent made. He claimed that treating these hate groups as terrorist organizations would make it safer for the people the hate groups are against.

I would like to pose the question, how will it possibly make anything safer? As far as I am concerned, from the examples my opponent has stated, the KKK has not been active for at least 13 (Calender) years, and is therefore sliding into the abyss. If their kind are falling (not necessarily racists, but people who violently strike out against people based on race), then why bother waste taxpayer's money on a group that is no longer a great threat?

As well, increased spending has done almost nothing to prevent terroirsm on our soil, nor has it done anything on foreign soil. Since 9/11, when the world got "tough on terrorism", we've had hundreds of random attacks, classified as terrorism. We cannot stop terrorism- it will always be there. It will always be a factor, be it of our or others' citizens. My point is that being classified as terrorist doesn't help anything.


So... my next point is that hostile hate groups like the KKK will not be stopped by being classified as terrorist.

One of the interesting things about terrorism is that the more you kill, the more they recruit. When we kill terrorists, those people are brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, even grandparents of others. Those others now think poorly of us, because, let's face it: no matter what the circumstance, we killed their relative. They'll never forgive us for it. These people are now anti-western and hard to convert back. Imagine this effect with hate groups- the effect would balloon, because there's nowhere near the amount of consequence required to join (terrorism you give up your life, hate groups you give up...?)

This, in effect, could quite possibly make more hate group members and strengthen them.

Lastly, I'd like the prop to clarify what he meant by "be treated as terrorist organizations". After all, terrorists still can't be tortured or harmed, and hate groups are easy to spy on anyways (wiretapping, infiltration, etc)


Debate Round No. 2
boredinclass

Pro

I'll just do a line-by-line of our arguements, and then end with a conclusion

>>>>I also urge him to point out where I said terrorist attacks were motivated
"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." COercian is defined as "to impose one's will on another by means of force or threats. Coercion may be accomplished through physical or psychological means"- u.s. legal dictionary Means is defined as "to have in mind as one's purpose or intention" Because my opponent stated that the use of terror were for the MEANS of COERCIAN, he concedes that AoT are motivated

>>>>I would like to pose the question, how will it possibly make anything safer?
By eliminating the pride that they get from being in the group, they are less likely to act on the impulses they have. They will be less likely to attack and taunt.

>>>>If their kind are falling, then why bother waste taxpayer's money on a group that is no longer a great threat?
I'd like to point out that my opponent insisted in round 1 that 80% of people are biased. Obviously this threat is now. And the money problem, i ask that you don't even weigh it. According to the 2010 Department of homeland security budget report, they had an excess of 10 million. They have the resources and capital.

>>>>As well, increased spending has done almost nothing to prevent terroirsm on our soil, nor has it done anything on foreign soil
I'd like to challenge my opponent to name a successful foreign attack on american soil since 9/11. The reason terror attacks have not gone down is because we have been allocating funds toward foreign terror, when the real threat is domestic terror.

>>>>As far as I am concerned, from the examples my opponent has stated, the KKK has not been active for at least 13 (Calender) years
First of all, the Joan Lefkow incident was not of the KKK it was of the neo-nazis of america. The Klan is not the only group in america. And my opponent is talking like this is a localizd problem, No, No matter who you are, somebody hates you and groups give them the ability to act on their hatred. Without the support of their brothers, they are nothing.

>>>>We cannot stop terrorism- it will always be there. It will always be a factor, be it of our or others' citizens
It is impossible to solve the entire world, but we have the moral obligation to solve whatever we can. If we can prevent the harrassment and murder of anyone, then we have done good. Dehumanization must be our number one priority otherwise, what is the point of living.

>>>>One of the interesting things about terrorism is that the more you kill, the more they recruit.
Did I ever mention killing them? no. I would like to disband them in order not to empower the racism within themseves. They cannot recruit if they cannot be legalized.

>>>>we killed their relative
Once again, there is no death proposition.

>>>>terrorism you give up your life, hate groups you give up...
Your soul. Dehumanization should be the only weighed impact,

>>>>This, in effect, could quite possibly make more hate group members and strengthen them
I took out the link, so this impact. Don't weigh this impact. It has no link to my propasal, because we don't actually kill them

>>>> After all, terrorists still can't be tortured or harmed, and hate groups are easy to spy on anyways (wiretapping, infiltration, etc)
Once again, this has no relevance, becasue we want to take out the groups, because they empower.

He dropped his contradiction choice, and because he contradicts himself, you must weigh my definition of terror acts (The point of terrorism is to scare you.). And because of the historical reference of the groups, they have intilled fear, therefore they are terrorists.

He dropped my point that this empowers them and pushes the racism to violent limits. Therefore, he concedes that eliminating the groups will solve for their actions.

Impact calc- My opponent offers no real impact, therefore, perfer the impact of dehumanization. This impact is happening now, And If we help one person, then we have solved for alot. Also, I would like to use the biggest impact of all. The holocaust was the direct result of hate grups allowed to run amuck. I would perfer to not let another one of those happen, and By classifying them as terror organizations of terror, We prevent their future rise. This solves the impacts.

I urge you to vote pro, and I thank my opponent for an awesome first debate.

Resources
http://www.dhs.gov...
TheBrightestNeon

Con

I thank the member for his remarks, and will now refute his points.

"By eliminating the pride that they get from being in the group, they are less likely to act on the impulses they have. They will be less likely to attack and taunt."

Tell me, would this added "risk factor" not contribute to MORE pride? This would simply make them look more "bada**" to put it into perspective. Imagine the effects on rebelious youth! We've seen this type of thing already with drugs and sexual behavior, that when children want to rebel they often make poor choices.

"I'd like to point out that my opponent insisted in round 1 that 80% of people are biased."

Yes, but then I followed it up with " the ideals and thoughts of hate groups and average citizens are the same, only one being a little more violent". My point was that many people may share the beliefs that "all blacks are in gangs", or "all blondes are dumb", it doesn't make all of them violent. which makes your "Obviously this threat is now." point useless. The number of VIOLENT hate clubs has fallen, the number of attacks has as well. People may sympathise with the views of these groups but it will not propel many to kill everyone they disagree with.

"I'd like to challenge my opponent to name a successful foreign attack on american soil since 9/11. The reason terror attacks have not gone down is because we have been allocating funds toward foreign terror, when the real threat is domestic terror."

I'd like to challenge my opponent to name a successful foreign attack on american soil since 9/11, that was well planned and exectued by rich terrorist groups. The number of attacks has NOT gone down, the number of failures is the same. The only difference, is that no large or well-funded attacks have been carried out recently.

"Did I ever mention killing them? no. I would like to disband them in order not to empower the racism within themseves. They cannot recruit if they cannot be legalized."
"Once again, there is no death proposition."


How on earth do you intend on doing anything without such measures? You can't just say something is illegal. That won't work. People won't listen UNLESS THERE IS PUNISHMENT. How do you expect to punish someone enough to disobay their friends, families, churches, or "bretheren"? A bit of jailtime is still worth it. A life of jail is worth it to a lot. Capital Punishment is the only way you could penalize them enough, no matter which way you slice it.

"I took out the link, so this impact. Don't weigh this impact. It has no link to my propasal, because we don't actually kill them"

Still, placing someone you love in jail genereates hatred, does it not? No matter what you'll hit problems like these.

He dropped my point that this empowers them and pushes the racism to violent limits. Therefore, he concedes that eliminating the groups will solve for their actions.

Maybe so, IF you could ever actually get rid of them. We've tried for years with terrorists, but they just keep coming back.


In the end, the pro spend his argument arguing against mine, which I just showed not to be true in the slightest. My points were legitimate, I defended them well, and my pro did not either defend his or attack mine well. A lot of smoke and mirrors, I urge you to vote CON.

Thanks again, Pro, for a great debate.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Spoken 3 years ago
Spoken
I believe the best thing to do is strip rights of any and all members of hate groups. No licenses to practice law. No freedom of speech because it disturbs the peace of the general population. Any "hate act" they perform is grounds for jail time, if children are involved then it should constitute psychological and emotional child abuse, brain washing, negligence, bullying, and anything else we can come up with to place against them.
Posted by TheBrightestNeon 6 years ago
TheBrightestNeon
I thank RoyLatham for his comments, and I hope to use these to my benefit in the future.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro should have made an opening argument that include key definitions, including terrorist and hate group. Also, Pro should have said what he proposed to do with the so-classified "terrorist organizations." Much later, he said they should be disbanded. However, present laws against terrorist organizations suggest that members should be locked up in GITMO or tried and imprisoned. Not making an opening argument leaves it up to Pro to define terms and give their implications.

"Hate" is a thought crime, while "terrorism" is acting out the hatred with violence. Con correctly included "or violence" in the definition of a hate group, but Pro took it to be "and violence." That was central to Con's winning the arguments. Con could have made a strong case along the lines of: Mothers Against Drunk Driving hate drunk driving. So should they be imprisoned or disbanded?"

Both sides could have made better use of references, using web searches to find laws against terrorism, the problems with punishing hate as a thought crime, and looking for examples and counter examples. The debate would have been better constructed with numbered contentions.

Still, not a bad job for new debaters. There was good back-and-forth interchange, and both debaters made their points clearly. It was a good debate topic.
Posted by TheBrightestNeon 6 years ago
TheBrightestNeon
Hey, I'll do this one with you. My first debate, so sorry if I'm not much of a challenge.
Posted by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
Thanks for the advice man. I think that should be the resolution. it's my first one here.
Posted by brian_eggleston 6 years ago
brian_eggleston
Are gangs illegal in the US? I don't think they are, are they?

Terrorist groups are illegal though, perhaps hate preachers and their activists should be treated like terrorists?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Brenavia 5 years ago
Brenavia
boredinclassTheBrightestNeonTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: no impact from con
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
boredinclassTheBrightestNeonTied
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 RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
boredinclassTheBrightestNeonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments.