The Instigator
Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Ethanthedebater1
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points

Resolved: 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Ethanthedebater1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,068 times Debate No: 5841
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating

Con

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I personally believe that they aren't in some cases. Take the case of Matthew Shepard, intentionally targeted and beaten to death by 2 anti-gay assailants. They planned to kidnap the next "gay" they came across in a gay bar and then attack him.

But there are others that aren't hate crimes. Like if a white gang member intentionally shoots a rival gang member, but doesn't know that he's black, or jewish, or what.

I would greatly appreciate a debate here. I need to write a paper by Fri. And any help would be good. (It's a Lincoln-Douglass debate Case, for the NEG side, meaning that NO, hate crime enhancements are NOT unjust in the UNITED STATES).
Ethanthedebater1

Pro

Observation 1: The affirmative needs only to show that Hate Crime Enhancements (HCEs) are unjust. That is, I don't have to prove they don't work, et cetera, only that they are unjust.

Value: Justice
Justification: Justice is explicitly stated in the resolution. This makes the assumption that it has value.
Cr:The Fourteenth Amendent
Justification: In the United States, we recognize that all men are created equal and deserve equal protection under the law. The 14th amendment to the constitution creates a good standard.
C1: Hate crimes are inadequately defined
A. There is no consensus on what a hate crime is. Different states have different definitions. In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court found **that** definition to be consistent with the 14th amendment, however Indiana hate crime laws have been overturned because they were in violation.
B. Any universal definition would be too broad or too vague.
A universal definition would either a) include more or less every crime, as it would include any crime in which any discrimination whatsoever was shown; which is ridiculous, because everyone discriminates when choosing a victim, a mugger would not choose a body-builder to mug, but under this definition, he would get an HCE, or b) leave important minorities unprotected. Neither of these alternatives would be "just" and so you throw both out.
C. Hate Crime Enhancement laws are vague.
This is important, because it allows prosecutors to abuse these laws to give longer jail terms to men that don't deserve them. That, by any means is unjust.

C2: Motive can't be proven sufficiently to support hate crime enhancements
A. Even if the defendent showed prejudice in the past, it doesn't mean that he was prejudiced in commiting the crime.
People change. A different motive is always possible, and with the burden of proof on the prosecutor, conviction is nigh impossible.
B. Even if slurs were yelled during the crime, it doesn't indicate racism for sure, as they may have been just words of anger.

C3: Hate crime enhancements are used unjustly
A.Because of the high burden of proof, prosecutors don't always use HCEs, even when applicable, thereby violating my Cr. of the 14th Amendment, which requires "Equal Protection under the Law"
That isn't equal, so you can't accept HCEs as just.
B. HCEs are used disproportionately against minorities, indicated that they may have become a tool for prejudiced people, rather than a deterrent
Again, this violates equal protection under the law. Anything that does this is not "just."
Debate Round No. 1
Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating

Con

Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating forfeited this round.
Ethanthedebater1

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent to their response to my argument.

"Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating forfeited this round."

This is not a response to my argument. In fact, this is a crowning reason to vote affirmative.

1. My opponent loses grammar, as (s)he has referred to him or herself in the third person, which is not ideal grammar.
2. My opponent never thanked me for my response. I know I neglected to thank him in Round 1, but I thanked him this time. He hasn't thanked me once.
3. Convincing Arguments goes to me, as my opponent only posted one sentence claiming that he forfeited. He has conceded the validity of his arguments.
4. Conduct goes to me, simply because I didn't give up.
5. Sources goes to me, as I provided the example of Wisconsin v. Mitchell.
Debate Round No. 2
Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating

Con

Crimes against minority groups, or between different groups of people, are probably as old as humanity itself. Human history is filled with accounts of genocide, and human rights violations motivated by the race, ethnicity, gender, religion, and sexual orientation of the victim. However, efforts to enact legislation to impose heavier penalties for crimes motivated by hate are a relatively new phenomenon in a number of countries. One of the key conflicts in enacting such laws is whether or not it is appropriate to penalize someone because of their beliefs and motives. Critics of hate crimes legislation argue that it is perfectly appropriate to criminalize acts of violence, but not appropriate to add additional punishments for a person's thoughts or speech. Another problem associated with hate crime proposals is the difficulty of determining which groups are to be "protected." While some countries have laws adding penalties for crimes motivated by acts against ethnic or religious minorities, most countries do not have special penalties for crimes committed against people for their gender or a different sexual orientation. It is also possible to conceive of other identities based on group affiliation, such as political party, occupation, or social status. Acts of violence against the poor, for example, could also be considered a hate crime. As more groups are defined as "protected" the distinctiveness of the penalties becomes lessened. Proponents of hate crimes legislation are quick to point out, however, that the most egregious hate crimes against minority groups are often part of organized social movements or an extension of an ideology of hate that permeates entire segments of a society. Strong penalties are necessary to indicate the intensity of government or societal condemnation of such crimes.
Ethanthedebater1

Pro

This argument has no offense, and no impact in general. The affirmative case still stands.

I win this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Ethanthedebater1 8 years ago
Ethanthedebater1
What the EXPLETIVE?!?!?!?!?!?

I am losing a debate to an opponent who posted no argument R1, forfeited R2, and plagiarized R3.
Posted by Ethanthedebater1 8 years ago
Ethanthedebater1
Thank you.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
WOW - sorry, man. Unwarranted, and just for the record, you won by all accounts.
Posted by Ethanthedebater1 8 years ago
Ethanthedebater1
There's this guy called "antisemantic" and he hates me, and about ten other members on this site. He creates multiple accounts and votes all of our debates down.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
Why is con winning?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Da_Baby_Mami_of_debatingEthanthedebater1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Numquam 8 years ago
Numquam
Da_Baby_Mami_of_debatingEthanthedebater1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
Da_Baby_Mami_of_debatingEthanthedebater1Tied
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 Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating 8 years ago
Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating
Da_Baby_Mami_of_debatingEthanthedebater1Tied
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 Mr.Alex 8 years ago
Mr.Alex
Da_Baby_Mami_of_debatingEthanthedebater1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05