The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Do hate crimes exist in the way we think it does?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
honeywhat2019 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 646 times Debate No: 105631
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




We hear it all the time: "Oh, he just said something that is hate speech against homosexuals". Or "Your hate speech is unacceptable". That would be considered "hate speech", which in turn becomes a "hate crime". But are hate crimes really like that, or are we just blowing smoke out of our noses. I believe that we as a society have begun to take "hate crimes" too far by basically persecuting people who have different opinions. But, my opponent may go ahead and try to enlighten me.

Debate Rules and Structure:
1. Civility is key
2. Don't waste each others time if you're not going to keep up with the debate
3. Respect

ROUND ONE: Acceptance and Opening Argument
ROUND TWO: Rebuttal
ROUND THREE: Counterargument
ROUND FOUR: Closing Statement (Make it short and sweet)

With that, I await for my opponent. Thank you.


I accept this debate and the rules set forward.

My primary disagreement with your opening statement is the claim set forward that hate speech is being considered a hate crime. The Left does generally claim is not that hate speech and hate crime are the same- hate crime is defined by most on the left as a crime motivated by hate towards a certain group. However, this is beyond the point of the argument. What I believe you to be saying is that the left has gone too far, and has begun to make a crusade out of persecuting "hate speech" through social means.

I believe that the "persecution" of hate speech has not gone too far. While I agree that hate speech should have legal protections, I do not believe it should be immune from criticism by society. Because our government should refrain from tyranny, it is the job of the people to "correct," so to speak, people who say something that is problematic. This takes the form of calling out bigotry when it is seen. While some may say that this has been taken to the extreme- for example, getting people fired for saying the n word- it also must be noted that this is part of society's obligation to create tolerance. In order to maintain peace in a diverse society, it must be made clear that intolerance is not acceptable. Thus, this so-called "persecution" is really the result of a society trying to create a peaceful and diverse community.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting. I agree with your statement that the left has taken a bit of a crusade. But allow me to make my point clearer. Most people usually associate hate speech with hate crimes in the fact that even saying something that is not politically correct can get you labeled as a "hate-mongerer". As for the persecution of people who use "hate speech", I agree that there are certain things we shouldn't say or whatever. However, we cannot overlook the different examples of people being persecuted for saying their beliefs, like Christians saying homosexuality is a sin can be considered "hate speech". Or Trump supporters speaking out against illegal immigration is now be considered "hate speech". You stated that "in order to maintain peace in a diverse society, it must be made clear that intolerance is not acceptable". Intolerance? You mean where people disagree with certain ideas like gay marriage or abortion? If we are not allowed to speak our minds on what we think of these topics, then what's the point of having the 1st amendment, which by the way, gives us the right to speak what's on our mind? (Side note: I know we are limited in what constitutes as free speech, but i'm just making a point here.) We can have a peaceful and diverse society while also being allowed the right to have our opinions and be able to speak about them. Also, I would like to point out that there is no dictionary definition of hate speech. So how can we tell what is hate speech? We can't. But the left and most other people want to use hate speech as a way to silence critics of their agenda. By going against what they consider "hate speech", they essentially turn it into a crime. Even quoting bible scriptures can become "hate speech".


Personally, I have never seen hate speech be equivocated to hate crimes. However, there is significant concern about whether or not hate speech does cause hate crimes. For example, when President Trump "speaks out against illegal immigration," as you said, the issue is not that he wishes to prevent illegal immigration, but rather that his labels of immigrants as "murderers" and "rapists" (a statement which is, statistically speaking, incorrect, as immigrants and illegal immigrants are less likely to commit violent or property crimes than native born citizens) justifies to some the violence against Hispanics, who often get mistaken as immigrants. Similarly, it's not that the opinion that homosexuality is a sin is inherently hateful, but rather that many people- in the process of asserting this opinion- use hateful terms and perpetuate hateful stereotypes (i.e. the belief that gay men are pedophiles), creating a rhetoric that justifies violence against the LGBTQ+ community.

The intolerance that I spoke of is not the opposition of gay marriage or abortion that you mentioned. Its the denial of rights of others due to personal objections. Religious morals should never be imposed on others against their will. Many people are open to debate on issues, but they are not open to the removal of their rights.

Finally, you asked how we can tell what hate speech is. There is not a dictionary definition- nor even a legal definition- of what makes speech inherently hateful. However, that does not mean that we cannot identify it. In the 1964 case of Jacobellis v. Ohio, Justice Potter Stewart said of pornography, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description... But I know it when I see it." Hate speech, similarly, cannot be defined properly in an all-encompassing way. But we know it when we see it.
Debate Round No. 2


You stated in your rebuttal that Trump labeling Hispanic illegal immigrants would cause violence against them. I would like to disagree with that as I have seen no actual violence from actual Trump supporters towards Hispanics (can't say about alt-right wingers, though). Also, the only people who attack LGBT+ people are people who are not christian. Christians don't endorse violence towards anyone, let alone LGBT+ people. They try to give them a different point of view, like in debates like this. And they don't impose beliefs against their will. Also, we know we can identify certain hate speech, but the point I make is that people are misconstruing things like religious beliefs as hate speech. And soon, that could become law as it would be illegal to state your beliefs. In places like Canada, they have hate crime laws in which you cannot say something that "offends" a Muslim. That is considered a hate crime law. Again, there are certain things you shouldn't say, but telling a christian that stating their religious beliefs to a Muslim is offensive is not only a violation of free speech, but also a human rights violation as we are allowed to speak and express our beliefs. It's up to the person listening whether they want to hear it or not.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by nobleislandbag 2 years ago
The concept of hate crime is stupid. Obviously, hate speech is real. People say stuff to others out of pure hatred towards their religion or race (it's hard to deny that). But saying that hate crime (in the way the left portrays it) is real is not right. Also, it seems that hate speech as evolved to "you don't agree with my opinions, so you are spewing hate speech."
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
Can you define "hate crime" a bit more? I'm interested.
Posted by Surgeon 2 years ago
Hate speech and hate crimes are false and quasi-Orwellian inventions of leftists to stop dissent against their politically motivated nonsense. This whole category of "crime" was invented by the Soviet Union to enable government control of what people say and think. Now calling a person with a penis, who prefers to wear a dress is apparently hate speech.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.