The Instigator
Charles_I
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
m93samman
Pro (for)
Winning
48 Points

Should the American Nazi Party be protected under the 1st amendment

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 11/6/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,574 times Debate No: 13578
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (9)

 

Charles_I

Con

The American Nazi Party has been around since the 1960s. Its purpose was to carry on Adolf Hitler's dream of a pure world, but in the 1970s that dream came under attack by the people of the people of Skokie, Illinois. Members of the Jewish Defense League and Jewish WW2 vets lined up in the streets and protested the upcoming Nazi rally there, but during the chaos, the leader of the party (with the help of a Jewish lawyer) called a trial that went to the Supreme Court and held in favor of Skokie. After the incident, in the 1980s, A supporter of the party named William Pierce published one of the most controversial books that crossed the lines between words and action. It was called "The Turner Diaries" and it was a bestseller about a revolution led by the ANP to overthrow the "Zionist Occupied Government" under President Reagan. This book may have inspired events such as the murder of Jewish radioman Alan Berg, the explosion of the Branch-Davidian church, and the Oklahoma City bombing. So i ask you, after all the murders and racial violence should the ANP be protected under the 1st Amendment?
m93samman

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate.

To begin, I'd like to establish the first amendment formally for this debate. It is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [1]

In this debate, it is my opponent's burden to prove that the ANP ought not be afforded the same constitutional rights as everyone else. As pro, my advocacy is that everyone deserves equal protection under the American Constitution, as were the intentions of our founding fathers.

---Pro Case---

To keep it brief, since Con has yet to provide substantive argumentation that pertains to his reasoning against the resolution, I'll put forth just one argument.

1) All humans have certain inalienable rights.

I feel there is no need to explain my argument, but for the sake of debate, I will. Basically, when it comes to American statutes, the underlying intent is to provide everyone with equal protections under our law, be you black, white, gray, American, Australian, African, Zimbabwean or Lithuanian (or otherwise, like myself). I thus contend that there is no rational basis with which we could exclude any group of people from the freedom of speech, religion, press and assembly here within the United States.

With that, I'll turn the debate over to Con. [2]

---Sources---

[1] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

[2] http://cdn2.sbnation.com... (This is a turnover)
Debate Round No. 1
Charles_I

Con

Id like to thank my opponent for accepting. To make it brief, people do have certain inalienable rights. But Thomas Jefferson also said that "all people" have rights. So what about segregation, when the South impeded on the rights of African Americans? There was no justification for it. And then theres the ANP. Sure, its protected under the 1st Amendment, but it doesnt give them the right to murder innocent people just because of their race/religion. We
must put the safety of the American people before the Constitution
m93samman

Pro

Thank you for your quick response.

The first thing my opponent does is question segregation in the South, pre-civil war era. He points out that blacks were also denied civil rights, for no apparent reason. This plays into my case, because it only goes to show that indeed, no matter how different people are, they do in fact deserve rights.

Then, he questions the ANP because there was an instance in which violence broke out because of them, in the 1960s. In that case, let's make a comparison. In the civil rights movement, blacks took both a non-violent and violent stance towards the recultivating of a new American society. Some particular examples are the NAACP and the Black Panthers, respectively. Moreover, the white police force was extremely violent and often fired into crows in response to both of these groups, and others. So, I ask my opponent, should one instance of violence deprive a group of people of their rights?
Moreover, it seems as if the case that my opponent refers to occurred a long time ago, too long for anyone to remember and actually care about. Why would a new group of people who currently lead the ANP need to be punished for what their predecessors carelessly did? There is absolutely no reason.

My opponent has given no solid justification as to why the ANP should be robbed of their rights, and in fact has granted my argument 100% validity. Extend my single argument into the next round.

I eagerly await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
Charles_I

Con

My opponent has stated that the incident in question occured in the 60s. This is not the case. There have been many incidents in which the ANP has instigated violence and/or murder. Such as the infamous 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Timothy Mcveigh read the contraversial book "The Turner Diaries" and was inspired to launch ANP's revolution by attacking a federal building. So i ask, if propaganda makes a man kill, should they deserve rights?
m93samman

Pro

To answer my opponent's question, yes. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
Should the Democratic party be protected under the first amendment? If so, why?
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Nope, it was 8000. Not sure why everything was left unresponded to.
Posted by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
Was there a short character limit on this one?

Arguments to Pro: Pro did better at defending his position and made a coherent argument in his favour; Con used invalid logic, no sources, and weak attempts at leading questions instead of cogent arguments.

Sources to Pro, for having some.
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
"The voting period will last indefinitely."

Fix and I accept.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by S98-SAMMAN 6 years ago
S98-SAMMAN
Charles_Im93sammanTied
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 shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
Charles_Im93sammanTied
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 Zilla2112 6 years ago
Zilla2112
Charles_Im93sammanTied
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 Checkmark-1 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 vickynoh 6 years ago
vickynoh
Charles_Im93sammanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Wise8231 6 years ago
Wise8231
Charles_Im93sammanTied
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 True2GaGa 6 years ago
True2GaGa
Charles_Im93sammanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Pandora9321 6 years ago
Pandora9321
Charles_Im93sammanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
Charles_Im93sammanTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
Charles_Im93sammanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06