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

"Hate Crime" Legislation

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 529 times Debate No: 86243
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




The State of Indiana is voting on implementing hate crime laws today.
I think this is completely wrong.
Why should your skin color or sexual preferences make crimes against you any worse than a crime against a straight white person?
I am so sick of our society trying to divide people based on race, religion, and sexual orientation. And all of these laws have 1 thing in common: They are designed to belittle and demean straight white people and Christians.
I personally have been attacked and beaten up for be white in the wrong neighborhood. But that's less of a crime because I'm white? If I was a black guy and got beat up for being in a white neighborhood, now that's a hate crime!
So being hated because you're white is perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the law?
Crimes against white people shouldn't be considered as serious as crimes against people of color?
The double standards in our society are sickening!


I accept this debate.

I believe you misunderstand the meaning of the word 'hate crime'. A crime does not automatically become worse if it's against a POC (person of color) or an LGBT person, or a non-Christian. A hate crime is a crime /specifically/ targeted towards those people. Take the deaths of multiple trans woman, for instance, in something known by the eyes of the law as "trans panic" (which is ridiculous, but that's not the point). These women were killed specifically because they were transgender. /That/ is a hate crime.

Further arguments on my part will come in round 2.
Debate Round No. 1


I still don't see the need to somehow legitimize a crime based on who it was aimed towards or why.
I was attacked and beaten for being white in a black neighborhood and the police blamed me for being there. The words "Hate crime" never even came up. But that's in the past.
The reason I find the whole "hate crime" thing to be wrong, unfair, and misguided is that a crime is a crime and should not be treated differently because the victim is gay or a minority.
Example: An old lady is walking home from a grocery store and is attacked, beaten, and robbed because she was an easy target. Or a transvestite is walking home and attacked. beaten and robbed for being a man dressed as a woman. Should the old lady's attacker be given less of a punishment, or the transvestite's attacker be given more of a punishment based on this ridiculous "hate crime" criteria? No!
Hate crime legislation is a racist, sexist way of cramming political correctness down our throats and trying to convince people that crimes against certain races or beliefs are more serious than crimes against others.
And regardless of whether a person wants to admit it, if you scan the news, etc. you're not going to find much about hate crimes against straight, white people. Not because they don't happen, but because the whole "hate crime" thing is not put in to place to protect certain people. It is racist BS.


I agree that they should have the same amount of punishment, but we do need things to be specified as hate crimes. It's important to be able to classify those types of people. It's important to LGBT people to identify those who committed hate crimes in order to stay away from them.

I would like this debate to use proper language. Please don't refer to people as 'transvestites'. They're transgender people, who deserve to be referred to by their correct pronouns.

There's also a difference between people being attacked for being easy targets and people being attacked for being transgender. Anyone can be seen as an easy target. But when specifically transgender people are targeted, that's a hate crime. That's an issue.

Violence against white people usually isn't because they're white. Violence against straight people or cis people is almost never because they're straight or cis. And that is why hate crimes against minorities and oppressed groups should be recognized as such. If a trans person is attacked, but it is not because they're trans, it is not a hate crime. If they're attacked for being trans, it is.

I agree the crimes should not be treated different. But hate crimes are not their own specific category of crime, they're more of an identification to keep minorities and the people who could be attacked safe.
Debate Round No. 2


Well as far as my use of the word "transvestite" goes, I can't change my entire vocabulary every time the PC police decide to change what wording is acceptable and what is not. I have no desire to try to keep up with the latest verbal censorship.
And your saying that crimes against white people aren't usually because they're white just proves my point. Nobody knows that because people just automatically write the whole idea off. I personally know more white people that have been the victims of racism than I do minorities but people don't care.
I don't know what cis means so I have nothing to say on that.
I stand by my opinion that hate crime legislation is just another form of pc racism. It is perfectly acceptable for comedians and black or minority actors to make fun of white people. It is perfectly acceptable for gay comedians and actors to make fun of straight people. It is perfectly acceptable for atheists and muslims to make fun of Jesus and/or Christianity. But if a straight, white or Christian person says anything even remotely translatable as offensive about any of the above, the whole country is up in arms and trying to destroy their lives and careers.
Hate crime legislation is just another extension of the same mindset. More PC, liberal, racism put into law to somehow make it more serious to commit crimes against anyone other than straight, white Christians.


I understand you can't change your "entire vocabulary", but this isn't a new "censorship". Transvesite has, and will always be, a slur. The context to that, as well as the definition of "cis", can be found here:

Crimes against white people are due to prejudice, not racism. This point can be better explained here ( , rather than a wordy and most likely incorrect (seeing as I am white) explanation by me. White people are victims of prejudice.

I already refuted your claim that it is more serious to commit crimes against minorities and underprivileged groups in Round 2. But now, I have a source, here:

The web page above does acknowledge all the points I hit, while pointing out that, like any other crime, the punishment is made to fit the crime.

Humor, as you pointed out, is part of the retaliation against oppressors. Also, these jokes often are not inherently harmful towards the people they poke fun at, whereas jokes about underprivileged groups tend to be. Take, for example, white people jokes vs. black people jokes. Jokes about white people tend to be about non-harmful characteristics: such as, for example, an inability to handle spicy foods, or wearing Crocs. Nobody would ever be shot or hurt over these circumstances. However, many black jokes are about inherently harmful stereotypes: "gangster" or "ghetto" language, or black people being dangerous thugs. Things black people in our society are oppressed, taunted, and even killed over.

I rest my case on this point.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Sincerely_Millenial 2 years ago
Racism goes both ways people.
Posted by Linkstart 2 years ago
I really enjoyed what Pro posted. But next time Pro, You might want to post a link proving what you said making the debate even better.
No votes have been placed for this debate.