The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Resolved: The US Army's classification of the American Family Association as a hate group is sound.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/7/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 661 times Debate No: 40102
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Once again, I'm not at all draconian about acceptance of the debate. All are welcome to accept the debate. By accepting this debate, one will concede to the following rules:

(1) The first round of the debate will only be for the acceptance of the resolution whereas the succeeding rounds will debate the resolution.

(2) The forfeit of any rounds will not constitute the loss of the debate, but any arguments that go unrebutted against will be extended to the next round and cannot be rebutted again. Any arguments that go unargued against will receive the automatic and implicit concession from the opponent.

(3) No semantics whatsoever.


1. Fair enough.

2. Fair enough.

3. To avoid future semantics disagreements then, perhaps you could clarify where you're getting your definition of a hate group, or where the Army is getting theirs.

Wikipedia defines "hate group" thusly:

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

I think that's a fair definition, though I would request greater elucidation of the word "hostility." Is simply disagreeing with someone hostile? (I certainly hope not, or else this debate itself is a hostility!) What about disagreement over whether certain behavior is fundamentally moral or whether certain policies are socially beneficial?

I contend that one can have such disagreements without hostility. Further, I would define hostility, in this context, as "an aggressive or threatening way of speaking or behaving which is meant to signal a promise of future violence."

Can we agree to the above definitions?
Debate Round No. 1


I affirm the resolution. As my opponent’s definition for a hate group is similar to the definitions of many organizations, I’ll concede to his definition. However, other terms in the resolution require elaboration in order to fully understand the resolution.

Hostility: an unfriendly or hostile state, attitude, or action;

Hostile: not friendly : having or showing unfriendly feelings; having an intimidating, antagonistic, or offensive nature; unpleasant or harsh

Both definitions come from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Because I am the Pro, I will be the one with the burden of proof to prove that the American Family Association (from now on to be called the “AFA”) is a hate group. However, if I can manage to prove that the AFA displays or promotes hatred, hostility, or violence against even one subset of society, it can be classified as a hate group. Therefore, my opponent’s burden is to prove that the AFA neither shows nor promotes hatred, hostility, or violence against any group of people.

Contention 1: The AFA has shown great hostility to the LGBT community.

Following many states’ actions to approve of same-sex marriage and the Supreme Court’s recent decisions on DOMA and Proposition 8, the AFA has made enormously offensive statements on the LGBT community. In addition to this, the AFA has also had a hand in many anti-gay projects.

Sub-point 1a: Offensive statements against LGBT community.

The AFA, especially their Director of Main Issues Analysis Bryan Fischer, has known to release many offensive statements against the LGBT community, portraying gay men as lecherous, sick, and dangerous. Fischer has mentioned: “Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and six million dead Jews.” [1] After the termination of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the military, Fischer’s response was: “Now the only people that are going to be allowed to wear the uniform of the United States military will either be sexual perverts, sexual deviants, or people who support sexual perversion or sexual deviancy.” [2] Fischer has also commented that homosexuality should be against the law. “But by the time of the founding until the late 20th century, homosexual activity was a felony offense in the United States of America, there is no reason why it cannot be a criminal offense once again, absolutely none.”[3] However, the statements of the AFA in terms of the LGBT community do not end with Bryan Fischer. President of the AFA Tim Wildmon said the following on President Obama’s recognition of same-sex parents: “[H]ere we have the leader of our nation and the Democrat Party celebrating sexual behavior which is contrary to nature and pushing a household structure that we know is harmful to children. … “[O]ur President is so committed to normalizing homosexual conduct that he is putting the twisted sexual desires of adults ahead of the needs of children.” [4]

Sub-point 1b: The AFA has promoted sanctions against homosexuals in Uganda.

American Family Association took their donations and went to Uganda, of all places, to try and convince the Ugandan government to outlaw homosexuality in their constitution. In Uganda, gay people are regularly kidnapped, beaten and murdered or just disappear. The perpetrators are rarely caught and if they are, they claim they were being hit upon and their crimes are treated as self-defense. Many times the victims, if they survive, are jailed for years on trumped up charges.” [5] After Uganda had passed the bill, Fischer wrote, “Homosexuality now against the law in Uganda, just as it was for 200 years in the US. It can be done.” [6]

Contention 2: The AFA has shown hostility toward Islam.

The LGBT community has been the main victims of the AFA, but not at all the only ones. The AFA has also previously released equally hostile statements against Muslims. Fischer has stated that Islam is “‘grossly incompatible with American values,’" and therefore no place in America should allow a mosque to be built.” [7] Fischer has also mentioned of Islam: “There is no spirit of God in Islam. It is the spirit of Satan. It is the spirit of darkness. It is the spirit of tyranny. It is the spirit of bondage.” [8] In an article that Fischer wrote, he wrote about guiding public policy toward banning Muslims from certain different events for the sake of public safety. “First, we must understand that the threat to our freedoms comes not from radical Islam but from Islam itself. While there may be moderate Muslims in America, there is no such thing as moderate Islam…What can and should be done? First, it makes sense, as Andy McCarthy has suggested, to stop immigration altogether from Muslim majority nations. While many would-be Muslim immigrants to our shores surely would not have evil designs against us, we have yet to discover a way to distinguish the Muslims we must worry about from those we don’t. If our priority concern is the safety and security of the American people, the risk of unfettered Muslim immigration is simply too great.

Second, it makes sense to prevent Muslims from serving in the United States military. I would suggest it is folly of an extraordinary magnitude to allow men to wear the uniform who have a sworn, sacred and solemn duty to kill American infidels. There is simply no rational world in which that makes sense.

Surely this will prevent Muslims from serving who represent no threat to our interests. But the fault in that case lies not with us but with the Muslims’ prophet, their holy book, their god, and those Muslims who take seriously his grisly commands. Again, until we are given a foolproof means of detecting dangerous Muslims and distinguishing them from the rest, simple prudence dictates this course of action. The Muslim doctrine of taqiyya, which commends the practice of lying to advance the cause of Islam, means that even the oath of service taken by a Muslim recruit cannot be trusted. Major Nidal Hasan took that oath, and yet 13 of his fellow soldiers lie dead today at his hand. Third, sound, rational, clear-headed public policy would dictate that we stop the practice of building mosques in America, as Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders has suggested. Religious liberty and First Amendment issues will naturally be raised, but such challenges are answerable if we apply the Constitution as given to us by the Founders rather than the one which has been distorted beyond recognition by activist judges.” [9]

[1] Southern Poverty Law Center, "Quotes from the American Family Association." Last modified 2011. Accessed November 10, 2013.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Reed, Jeffrey. "Another View On Chick-Fil-A Donations Controversy." Times-Herald, , sec. Opinion, August 26, 2012. (accessed November 10, 2013).

[6] Badash, David. The New Civil Rights Movement, "American Family Association Leader Praises Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Law." Last modified November 25, 2012. Accessed November 10, 2013.

[7] Southern Poverty Law Center, "18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda." Last modified 2010. Accessed November 10, 2013.

[8] Southern Poverty Law Center, "Quotes from the American Family Association." Last modified 2011. Accessed November 10, 2013.

[9] Fischer, Bryan. The American Family Association, "What To Do About Islam." Last modified September 11, 2012. Accessed November 10, 2013.



GoodFences forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Because my opponent has forfeited the round, he has conceded to all of my points. This, thus, achieves my burden of proving that the AFA is hostile to even one group of people, so the Pro is already winning this debate.


GoodFences forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


TheSilentHorseman forfeited this round.


GoodFences forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


TheSilentHorseman forfeited this round.


GoodFences forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF