The Instigator
Arganger
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
Anonymous
Losing
0 Points

Hate Crimes

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Arganger
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2018 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 559 times Debate No: 110398
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Arganger

Con

This argument is about whether or not hate motivated crimes should have stricter sentences than the same crime with a different motivation.

I am against hate crimes being treated differently than otherwise motivated crimes.

Hate crime: A
crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence.

Pro

I think that hate crimes are good; there is nothing wrong with hating others, because the only alternative to hate is lust. Lust, as I last checked in the Constitution, is illegal.
Debate Round No. 1
Arganger

Con

The opposite of hate is love, not lust.
http://www.thesaurus.com...

Love is a strong and active choice to put someone else before yourself. Lust is a desire for a person, and often only sexually.

Lust is disrespectful. Love is the greatest honor.

The constitution never mentions lust.
https://constitutioncenter.org...

However, it does mention due process. Which is not so easily achieved if law takes the form of revenge, rather than justice and rehabilitation.

Pro

Hate is perfectly natural-I don't know why you think hate is bad. Russian people hate Indian people, and that's okay. Why? Russians are naturally supreme, whereas Indians are brown and ugly and poor and stinky. All they do is fart and have sex.
Debate Round No. 2
Arganger

Con

Natural isn't always good.
So yes, hate is natural. However, it is natural in the same way as deadly hemlock. It exists on it's own but can kill you.

Most people agree that death isn't good, nor is pain. Both come out of what is "Natural".

https://www.ars.usda.gov...

Russians are not superior to another.
Russians were poor as heck even, before the tsar was overthrown. People starved in masses and were forgotten to history.

Racism can lead to longterm health issues for a population.

https://www.npr.org...

What you are arguing for, of hate not being bad, would prove my point if true.
Because if hate isn't wrong, then harsher sentencing would be based entirely.

Pro

I don't see anything with hate. Case closed.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued that "hate crimes are good". As Con pointed out, that supports his position that hate crimes should not have stricter penalties. Therefore, arguments to Con, as both parties were supportive of the Con position.

[*Reason for non-removal*] This debate is over 2 months past the end of the voting period, and therefore no longer subject to vote moderation.
************************************************************************
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
Arganger
Amphia thank you.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
Amphia
You turned his/her argument nicely.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
Arganger
Amphia I know, and it makes me sad. But I'll debate it all the same.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
Amphia
I am so sorry Arganger.

Icebeartheawesome is a troll. You won't get a good debate out of him.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
Amphia
Perhaps it is that way because America has been known to harbor prejudiced views and wants to prove that it isn't biased.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
ArgangerAnonymousTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued that "hate crimes are good". As Con pointed out, that supports his position that hate crimes should not have stricter penalties. Therefore, arguments to Con, as both parties were supportive of the Con position.

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