The Instigator
dinokiller
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
gizmo1650
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

We should prevent a discriminating political group from rising in power.

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 3 votes the winner is...
gizmo1650
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/22/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,131 times Debate No: 13748
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

dinokiller

Pro

Right now, such political groups exists because there is a law where everyones opinions are allowed. We should also add a law where discriminating a certain group as your political group goal is forbidden. Most notable these days are political groups aiming to discriminate muslim immigrants and banishing them from countries.

This is to give you an idea of what im trying to tell you.

Argument should be posted in round 2, ok challenger?
gizmo1650

Con

I will post in round 2
Debate Round No. 1
dinokiller

Pro

My arguments:
1. Its unrightfull to just blame a lesser group for the worlds crisis. As you know, the NSDAP (Nazi Party) has been known to use the Jews as scapegoats to blame for the increases of unemployment. At the end, they were nearly wiped off from the earth by the Germans. We should prevent such discrimination from happening in the future!

2. All people are the same, we shouldn't judge people from their looks and their nationality. But as now, everyone blames the muslim immigrants for the world economic crisis again. We should prevent that from happening also!

Examples of such groups:
PVV, the leader of the PVV is Geert Wilders (Holland) [1]
Nazi Propaganda, for a reason i do not know, its allowed in US. [2]
SVP, a right wing political party. Also trying to expel muslim immigrants. (Switzerland) [3]

And i can continue giving you examples as how racistic the world has become.

And so, i give back the spotlight to you.

Source:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[3] http://www.faithfreedom.org...
gizmo1650

Con

Your arguments:
1A. It's unrightfull to just blame a lesser group for the world's crisis.
This is to much of an umbrella statement for me to agree with, but in general i agree, and for the sake of argument i will accept your claim (so you have no need to spend next round proving this)

1B. we should prevent [Nazi-like] discrimnation from happening again in the future
I agree

2A. All people are the same
Again, i agree with what you are trying to say, my only objection would be that this is phrased on an individual level, and ignores distinctions which are functions of definition, such as black people are darker skinned than white people, but these are largely irrelevant semantics, and as long as you don't go crazy i won't worry about them.

2B. we shouldn't judge people from their looks and their nationality.
I agree

2C. we should prevent [anti-Muslim] discrimination
I agree

If i have mis-represented any of your arguments i apologize and please correct me so i can provide an accurate response.

My Arguments:
Your resolution is "We should also add a law where discriminating a certain group as your political group goal is forbidden"

1. This law would be, necessarily, a violation of freedom of speech.
It basically says that people with certain views should not be allowed to peaceably assemble.

2. This law is discriminating against racists

3. This law threatens everyones future rights
It sets the precedent that it is ok to forbid certain views from politics, in your law i happen to disagree with those views (assuming it is properly enforced), but what happens when they outlaw something i do agree with. What happens when they outlaw everything they don't agree. That is exactly what happened in WWII Germany.

4. The first amendment
"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."
Debate Round No. 2
dinokiller

Pro

Your arguments:
1A. It's unrightfull to just blame a lesser group for the world's crisis.
This is to much of an umbrella statement for me to agree with, but in general i agree, and for the sake of argument i will accept your claim (so you have no need to spend next round proving this)
1B. we should prevent [Nazi-like] discrimnation from happening again in the future
I agree
2A. All people are the same
Again, i agree with what you are trying to say, my only objection would be that this is phrased on an individual level, and ignores distinctions which are functions of definition, such as black people are darker skinned than white people, but these are largely irrelevant semantics, and as long as you don't go crazy i won't worry about them.
2B. we shouldn't judge people from their looks and their nationality.
I agree
2C. we should prevent [anti-Muslim] discrimination
I agree

You agree with all of these so theres no point in arguing with me about discrimination.You are also against discrimination so my question is now, what reason is there for you to defend such discriminatic parties?

My Arguments:
Your resolution is "We should also add a law where discriminating a certain group as your political group goal is forbidden"

No, I dont want to add another law because a similiar law already exists. The Hate Speech.

1. This law would be, necessarily, a violation of freedom of speech.
It basically says that people with certain views should not be allowed to peaceably assemble.

No, its not a violation at all, actually why there is such a group makes no sense because they went beyond the border of freedom of speech. I think its called Hate Speech and Hate Speech as all you know is FORBIDDEN.

2. This law is discriminating against racists

Yeah, so what? Are you gonna support racists now? Discriminating a racist or discrimination is normal as we see.

3. This law threatens everyones future rights
It sets the precedent that it is ok to forbid certain views from politics, in your law i happen to disagree with those views (assuming it is properly enforced), but what happens when they outlaw something i do agree with. What happens when they outlaw everything they don't agree. That is exactly what happened in WWII Germany.

Nice, you contradicted yourself, no one has the power to outlaw everything if he/she doesn't agree with. Also, outlawing everything they dont agree with is more something a discriminatic party would do, wont you agree?
And no you got it wrong about the WWII. (i wonder where your source came from)
The reason why NSDAP even came to power is because of the economic crisis. Countless people became unemployed and guess what they did? They were searching for a scapegoat and support.(Sole reason why everyone voted for NSDAP as they promised bread)
And as you said in the beginning, you AGREED with me that blaming a lesser group for the crisis shouldn't be allowed, as that is what truly happened with Germany.[1]

4. The first amendment
"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."

Why do they have to create another law? All I want is that discrimination should be listed as Hate Speech.
Oh and Hate Speech already exists, saving the trouble.[2]

Source:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
gizmo1650

Con

First, to clarify to the gallery, i do agree with all of pros initial assertions.
All of my arguments thus far, and i suspect throughout the debate are an attempt to answers pro's question "what reason is there for you to defend such discriminatic parties?", if Pro feels as though an argument is irrelevant to this please post explaining.

Responses:

1. Violation of freedom of speech
As i have pointed out, this law prevents people with discriminatory views from spreading their message and/or assembling peaceably. I see no counterargument in your response. As i read it your response goes:

A. Assert that the law is not a violation.
Good writing skills, saying what you are trying to prove, but an assertion by itself is simply an assertion

B. the existence of such groups make no sense
Many things that are legal don't make sense, Religion, preaching 2012 doomsday scenarios ETC
The point is just because we, or the government, thinks a group or their beliefs make no sense does not mean we forbid them from speaking those beliefs. That is the principle behind the freedom of speach

C. Hate Speech laws already exist
I am opposed to these laws and
The legal definition of hate speech is "any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group" (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
Note that, legally, hate speech incites violence.
The act of inciting violence is already covered covered under other laws
Hate speech laws punish the motivation for the crime, not the crime itself.
We are talking about restrict peoples ability to spread their message without inciting violence, so these laws do not apply.
The fact that their might already be laws in place which restrict freedom of speech does not mean that similar laws do not.

2. Such a law would discriminate against racists
Pro agreed to this statement.
I will come back to this later.

3.This law is a threat to everyones future rights
A) i agree, no one has the power to outlaw everything, but that doesn't make it okay to outlaw most things
B) yes, outlawing something you do not agree with is discrimination, so why are you outlawing racists.
C) WWII validity
i) All of your statements on the subject are correct
ii) You are excluding the fact that in addition to the six million jews he sent to the death camps because they were jewish, he also sent some (i am not claiming this is the reamaning 5 billion) people to the death camps because they voiced views contrary to his.
iii) Slight clarification, i agreed it was wrong to blame a lesser group, not that it should be forbidden.

4.The first amendment to the USA CONSTITUTION
"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."

Just because i didn't right it, doesn't mean you don't have to respond.

New Arguments:

5. Proof by contradiction
A. Pro's resolution "We should also add a law where discriminating a certain group as your political group goal is forbidden" | given (round 1)
B. Pro's resolution discriminates against racists | Pro has already agreed to this (round 3 #2)
C. Assume Pro's proposed law is enforced | the law would be pointless if it was not
D. Consider a racist group
E. According to the law, that group is illegal.
F. Therefore the government must use the law against that group.
G. This is discrimination |Pro has already agreed to this (round 3 #2)
H. therefore it is illegal to enforce this law |remember we are assuming the law was passed
I. Therefore the law is unenforceable
Debate Round No. 3
dinokiller

Pro

Hehe kind of a personal question i guess, but even so, if you think that discrimination is wrong, why protect discriminatic parties? I just put that aside for now.
Also, i think we have taken a wrong side of direction in this debate, i think i should clear everything up in the end.

1. Violation of freedom of speech
As i have pointed out, this law prevents people with discriminatory views from spreading their message and/or assembling peaceably. I see no counterargument in your response. As i read it your response goes:

A. Assert that the law is not a violation.
Good writing skills, saying what you are trying to prove, but an assertion by itself is simply an assertion

Certainly its not an assertion, yes i want that discriminatic parties listed as Hate Speech, but even now, such parties already fulfills the requirement for it to be called a Hate Speech, not many people realize that and still call it freedom of speech.

B. the existence of such groups make no sense
Many things that are legal don't make sense, Religion, preaching 2012 doomsday scenarios ETC
The point is just because we, or the government, thinks a group or their beliefs make no sense does not mean we forbid them from speaking those beliefs. That is the principle behind the freedom of speach

You don't understand my point, my point is why such groups exists and are legal though they are indulging to discriminate lesser groups?

C. Hate Speech laws already exist
I am opposed to these laws and
The legal definition of hate speech is "any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group" (http://en.wikipedia.org......)
Note that, legally, hate speech incites violence.
The act of inciting violence is already covered covered under other laws
Hate speech laws punish the motivation for the crime, not the crime itself.
We are talking about restrict peoples ability to spread their message without inciting violence, so these laws do not apply.
The fact that their might already be laws in place which restrict freedom of speech does not mean that similar laws do not.

Sadly, you are wrong. Hate Speech doesnt have to end with a crime. Just discriminating a certain group (thats discrimination) is already punishable as Hate Speech. I can just shove your source back to you to prove you wrong.
Also, how does a people spreading bad messages about groups not apply as Hate Speech? I ask you.
I think i have answered your question. If such people comes spreading messages, we should silence them with our law to prevent further discrimination!

2. Such a law would discriminate against racists
Pro agreed to this statement.
I will come back to this later.

Of course i discriminate racists and trust me, everyone would if they hated to be discriminated. But lets hear your answer then.

3.This law is a threat to everyones future rights
A) i agree, no one has the power to outlaw everything, but that doesn't make it okay to outlaw most things

As I say, no one would outlaw most things unless its serve on their favor and whos favor does it serves more then the discriminatic parties? Also, if we make discriminating parties illegal, it even serves you the favor of not outlawing everything they wanted, no?

B) yes, outlawing something you do not agree with is discrimination, so why are you outlawing racists.

Now, are you telling me its wrong to discriminate racists? They think themself to be pure and a higher race then any others so tell me, why is it wrong to punish these selfish people?

C) WWII validity
i) All of your statements on the subject are correct
ii) You are excluding the fact that in addition to the six million jews he sent to the death camps because they were jewish, he also sent some (i am not claiming this is the reamaning 5 billion) people to the death camps because they voiced views contrary to his.
iii) Slight clarification, i agreed it was wrong to blame a lesser group, not that it should be forbidden.

Remember!! This was because NSDAP (Hitler) rised in power and ordered people opposing against them to be executed. I tell you now for example at these days a nazi party says we should exterminate all Jews, but you or I opposes against it, you think that Nazi Party or the government could get you executed? No!
But lets look at a different angle. Lets say that the Nazi Party rose in power, even higher then the government and says "All Jews should be exterminated" and you or I oppose against it, do you think that the Nazi Party would allow us to get away with it after the opposition? They wouldve wanted our heads!

By the way, all the time you see racism and discrimination as wrong and yet, you protect them now.
I find this action odd, you know?

4.The first amendment to the USA CONSTITUTION
"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."

I see discrimination already conflicting the first amendment. It clearly states that you are free to worship your religion and prevent others from punishing you cruelly. Discrimination fits in here as discrimination involves in targeting a group (you are free to worship your religion or race colour) and punishing it by discriminating it.[1] [2]
This is from the US Amendment so basically, its YOUR PROOF.

5. Proof by contradiction
A. Pro's resolution "We should also add a law where discriminating a certain group as your political group goal is forbidden" | given (round 1)
B. Pro's resolution discriminates against racists | Pro has already agreed to this (round 3 #2)
C. Assume Pro's proposed law is enforced | the law would be pointless if it was not
D. Consider a racist group
E. According to the law, that group is illegal.
F. Therefore the government must use the law against that group.
G. This is discrimination |Pro has already agreed to this (round 3 #2)
H. therefore it is illegal to enforce this law |remember we are assuming the law was passed
I. Therefore the law is unenforceable

My, you should stop saying that i want to create another law to fight against that certain group.
FIRST of all, I already said countless times, I want Hate Speech to be applied on discriminatic parties. (nullifies your proof) Second of all, how is discrimination against racism a crime?And certainly no such group has ever been created, no? And yes, this is all to fight AGAINST discrimination as racism is also a kind of discrimination.(further nullifying your proof)

Anyway we seem to have taken a wrong course after such a long debate.
We debate about PREVENTING discriminating political groups from rising in power, not to make a law against discrimination or saying that discrimination isnt allowed. Many things you have proven so far doesn't have anything to do with this debate and most things even serves at my advantage.

Also, my point all the time was to have discriminating parties listed as Hate Speech so they will never rise in power.
Why? Because they are discriminating. Yes, if I discriminate a discriminating party, im als guilty of Hate Speech, but Im not a political party and I dont need the power. Self defense against discrimination is allowed, so if someone discriminate me, i can discriminate him back.

Confusing end, maybe you could puzzle this up.

Source:
[1] http://en.wikisource.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
gizmo1650

Con

I don't know how to respond, so i will end with two quotes from Pro within this debate:

"We should also add a law where discriminating a certain group as your political group goal is forbidden" Round 1

"We debate about PREVENTING discriminating political groups from rising in power, not to make a law against discrimination or saying that discrimination isnt allowed." Round 4
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Agreed, too many people are blinded by the lies these days.
Posted by gizmo1650 6 years ago
gizmo1650
I said that is what voting for me would say, as a response to saying it means they agree with me
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Lol you got it other way around :O
If government should censor freedom of speech based on content, you should vote for PRO, not CON.

No one has ever said you had better convincing arguments or sources as the sources i used are based on YOURS and the argument that you uses are based on YOUR own source.
So, no u dont have the better arguments and source.
Posted by gizmo1650 6 years ago
gizmo1650
No. By voting for pro you agree that I had better conduct, better spelling and grammar, made more convincing arguments, and/or used better sources.
By selecting the irrelevant agree with pro box you agree that things like peaceful anti-Jewish demonstrations should be allowed, By agreeing with Con you are agreeing that the government should censer freedom of speech based on content.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Also, by voting for Pro, you agree that things like Jews massacre should be allowed to happen again.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Lol made a typo there in the first round, didnt even ment that.
Posted by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
. . . tough . . . debate . . .
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Deku 6 years ago
Deku
dinokillergizmo1650Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
dinokillergizmo1650Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
dinokillergizmo1650Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20