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

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