The Instigator
TheSilentHorseman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
InVinoVeritas
Con (against)
Winning
7 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...
InVinoVeritas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 770 times Debate No: 40443
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)

 

TheSilentHorseman

Pro

As my opponent cancelled his account before making an argument on this case, I'm going to place this debate on the open again. 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.
InVinoVeritas

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
TheSilentHorseman

Pro

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 by CM addon" href="../../Resolved-The-US-Armys-classification-of-the-American-Family-Association-as-a-hate-group-is-sound./1/">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 by CM addon" href="../../Resolved-The-US-Armys-classification-of-the-American-Family-Association-as-a-hate-group-is-sound./1/">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. http://www.splcenter.org.......



[2] by CM addon" href="../../Resolved-The-US-Armys-classification-of-the-American-Family-Association-as-a-hate-group-is-sound./1/">Ibid.



[3] by CM addon" href="../../Resolved-The-US-Armys-classification-of-the-American-Family-Association-as-a-hate-group-is-sound./1/">Ibid.



[4] by CM addon" href="../../Resolved-The-US-Armys-classification-of-the-American-Family-Association-as-a-hate-group-is-sound./1/">Ibid.



[5] Reed, Jeffrey. "Another View On Chick-Fil-A Donations Controversy." Times-Herald, , sec. Opinion, August 26, 2012.http://www.times-herald.com...;(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.http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com......



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



[8] Southern Poverty Law Center, "Quotes from the American Family Association." Last modified 2011. Accessed November 10, 2013. http://www.splcenter.org.......



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


InVinoVeritas

Con

My opponent states that "my definition [of] 'hate group' is similar to the definitions of many organizations" and that he "concedes to my definition," but I have not yet even provided a definition of "hate group." I am guessing that my opponent hastily copy-pasted his argument from his last debate of the same name. Anyway, this is neither here nor there; I just wanted to clarify this point, in case any readers are left confused.

---

The US Army's classification of any domestic organization as a "hate group" is unsound. (As an aside, despite performing an extensive search through the internet, I cannot find an official source that evidences that the US Army currently has an actual list of
hate groups.")

Here is a description of the domestic functions of the US military (as found in the "2002 National Strategy for Homeland Security"): "Federal Law prohibits military personnel from enforcing the law within the United States except as expressly authorized by the Constitution or an Act of Congress. The threat of catastrophic terrorism requires a thorough review of the laws permitting the military to act within the United States in order to determine whether domestic preparedness and response efforts would benefit from greater involvement of military personnel and, if so, how." [1]

Indeed, we can see that the US military has a very, very ability to enforce domestic law--and even in the case of "catastophic terrorism," a serious review would have to be conducted before military intervention would be allowed. The US Army, as a branch of the military, has little to no influence on the enforcement of domestic laws. There is no practical reason for the US Army to store a list of domestic hate groups--regardless of whether or not the category is justifiably applied. Unless TheSilentHorseman can explain why it is sound for the US Army to be organizing a list of domestic "hate groups," the resolution is, of course, deemed null.

Moreover, until TheSilentHorseman explains this, the arguments he has posed are meaningless--at least, in the context of this debate. This is because government agencies' categorization of "hate groups" can only be rationalized through the practical purposes that that the practice serves. Until this "practical purpose" is defined in the case of the US Army, we cannot determine what ought to be categorized (and what ought not to be categorized) as a "hate group" under the US Army's jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the US Army's classification of any domestic organization as a "hate group" is unsound.

Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's response.

[1] http://usacac.army.mil...
Debate Round No. 2
TheSilentHorseman

Pro

I never got a response from my opponent yet, but I'm actually going to cancel this debate in order to change the wording of the resolution to something more appropriate.
InVinoVeritas

Con

Damn, it feels good to be a gangsta.
Debate Round No. 3
TheSilentHorseman

Pro

TheSilentHorseman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
TheSilentHorseman

Pro

TheSilentHorseman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheSilentHorseman 3 years ago
TheSilentHorseman
Yes, yes, you're right. I'll change the resolution and cancel this debate then. I'll send you a resolution shortly. Does that work for you?
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
(This is a lesson on why you have to be very careful about how you frame your resolution. A premise that the resolution is built on can be attacked to dismantle your entire argument.)
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
This resolution is centered on the policies of the US Army.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Well, that would be a different debate topic, entirely.
Posted by TheSilentHorseman 3 years ago
TheSilentHorseman
Would you rather just debate this under a new resolution that doesn't involve the American military instead?
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
"Any classification whatsoever"... by the US Army. The classification has to be upheld by the actual US Army, as a holistic entity--and this would tend to carry a sense of officialism. Just because some schmuck who happens to be enlisted in the Army states that the Army upholds a certain classification system doesn't actually make it actually the case.
Posted by TheSilentHorseman 3 years ago
TheSilentHorseman
Well, considering the lawsuit that the AFA is considering putting on the American military, it sounded like it was official or at the very least, it opened an image of what the American military perceives the AFA as. However, the resolution doesn't necessarily have to be about an official classification, just any classification whatsoever.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Uh, the US Army hasn't classified the AFA is a "hate group." Perhaps, it was informally claimed during a briefing--but this doesn't reflect any official position that the Army stands by.
Posted by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
My bad. I visited the Family Associations page.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
a very, very LIMITED ability*
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
TheSilentHorsemanInVinoVeritasTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF