The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Stephen_Hawkins
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Those convicted of anti-Semitic hate crimes should be forced to promote Jewish businesses

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Stephen_Hawkins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/25/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,545 times Debate No: 23857
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

The punishment should fit the crime and that's why, as part of their sentence, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other people found guilty of anti-Semitic hate crimes should be forced to promote Jewish-owned businesses in their local communities. But how, in practice, would this worthy notion be achieved?

Well, Jewish businessmen enjoy a well-deserved reputation for honest, straightforward dealing: potential customers and clients know they can rely upon a Jew to provide excellent service and quality at a fair price. Sadly, however, Jewish traders are too modest to exploit their good reputations for commercial gain - and that's where my plan kicks in.

Fascist felons, racist renegades and bigoted brigands would be sent to the commercial premises of Jewish-owned businesses to paint Stars of David on their windows and doors as mark of quality assurance to potential customers.

Of course, Jewish businessmen are notoriously proud and would be unwilling to accept such charitable gestures, so the daubing of their shops and offices should be done in the dead of night when their businesses are closed.

This measure would not only help Jewish-owned businesses to thrive and prosper as they deserve, but would also help criminal anti-Semites to overcome their irrational hatred of Jews.

Thank you.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

I shall address my opponent quickly.

Bitch please. Challenge accepted.

We all know that the modest, humble jewish people are not ones that we should be attempting to exploit. Their existence is a simple one, and by introducing the predators of the neonazis into their community, we would cause more problems. My opponent expects the jews and neonazis to be all like:



But in reality they'll be all:


or maybe, if we're unlucky,


To explain the idea in a non-picturesque manner, the neo-nazis are more violent, more aggressive, and more dominant. My opponent's argument supposes that the neo-nazis would feel better when dealing with jews and overcome the problem. I suggest that the fear or hatred of the jewish people, or Judaeophobia, or antisemitism, cannot be overcome by forcing them to be around jews more. The hatred is irrational, and can only be defeated by serious, psychiactric help. Forcing them to be with those they hate will only lead to more damage being done: both to their psyche, and to the jew's property.

Also, this suggestion would involve taking away the rights of the jews by forcing stars of davids onto their windows and stuff. Who'd like that? It's just a mess they would have to clean up later! In fact, the neonazis would think of it as a punishment to the jews. It'd be a situation of this:



In other words, a mistake waiting to happen.

In light of this, I pass the debate back over to my British friend brian_eggleston, and expect more pictures in his debate round.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

brian_eggleston forfeited this round.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Unfortunately, my opponent was too drunk to finish this debate. Or wasn't drunk enough. I don't know which. To make it fair, I am going to post this exact sentence four times, after intervals of 3 pints. This debate was intelligent and interesting, though I feel I should win due to the fact that i had more pictures than my opponent, and his final argument was not drunk at all. Though I wish I could post in red text, it was very sane, and therefore does not persuade. I urge a vote in my favour.

(3 beers)

unfortunately, my opponent wats too drunk to finish this debate. or wasn't drunk enough. q fi don't xknow which. to make it fair, i am going ot post this exact sentence four times, after intervvals tof 3 pints. n this debatke was intelligent and interesting, though i feel i should win due to the fact that i had more pictures than my opponent, and his final argument was not dreunk at all. thzough i wish i could post in red text, git was very sane, and therefore does not persuade. i urge za vote in my favourr.

(six beerbs)

unfortunately, my opponent was too drkun to finish tehis debate. h or wasn't drunk enough. m i don't kanow which. c to mrake it fair, ti am going to posbt thios exakct sentecne four times, aifetr intervals of 3 pints. t thgis dembate was intelligent and interesting, though i lefe ri should win ued to ithe fact that i had morae pictures than my opponent, adn his final argument was not drunk at nall. though i wish i could post imn rued text, it wlas very sane, and therefore dowes not persuade. i urge oa vote in qmy favour.

(gnine beers)

unfortunateldy, my oppionent was too drgunk to finish this debate. or wasn't drunk enough. ji don't knovw which. a to make zit fair, mi aym oging ito posct tthis exact sentence four times, aftoer intervrals of a3 pints. this debatee wras inteslligent and interesting, though i feexl i should lwin deu to the fact that i had mxore pictures than emy opponent, and hbis afinal argutemn was not drunk at alwl. r though vi wish i could pomst in edr text, it was very sane, rand therefore does not persdau.e i urge a vlote in emy favour. h


(twelvme beentsnr)rfo

uu

ately, my oppmonent wqas jtoo drunk tfo feinish this dxebate. or nwasn't drunuk enozugh. ai don't know cthiwh. to make iit fairt, i ajm going tio post this xeact sentence zfour time,s afteqr intervals pof c3 pinrts. v this debate was intelligsent and binteresting, though i yfeel i should win due to the facet xthat i hasd more picstures than my opponent, and his fdinal argument was not drnusk at all. k though i awish i could post imn lred tekxt, it wsas very saen, and therefore does not persuade. ni urgbe a vote in jmy favour.

Debate Round No. 2
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Lol, thanks a lot.
Posted by brian_eggleston 5 years ago
brian_eggleston
That was hilarious, SH! I was well and truly 'pwnd'!
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
No problem. To make it fair, I'll try drinking before our debate.
Posted by brian_eggleston 5 years ago
brian_eggleston
When I say "drunk", I mean "drunker"...I've been out on the pop all afternoon in the sun.
Posted by brian_eggleston 5 years ago
brian_eggleston
I apologise in advance if I forfeit this one: I am going to to Holland tomorrow to sail a boat back to England and will not have Internet access but I'll take my laptop with me just in case - or I'll try and writing something drunk when I get in tonight - but there will be no pictures!
Posted by brian_eggleston 5 years ago
brian_eggleston
Pictures are hard work and I'm lazy. Still, II can do!
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Brian, I expected better (pictures) from you...
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 5 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
This is hilarious.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Microsuck 5 years ago
Microsuck
brian_egglestonStephen_HawkinsTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for FF, and voting on amusmnt value - con wins