In the united states, hate groups should be treated as terrorist organizations.

I thank the member for his remarks, and will now refute his points. "By eliminating the pride that they get from being in the group, they are less likely to act on the impulses they have. They will be less likely to attack and taunt." Tell me, would this added "risk factor" not contribute to MORE pride? This would simply make them look more "bada**" to put it into perspective. Imagine the effects on rebelious youth! We've seen this type of thing already with drugs and sexual behavior, that when children want to rebel they often make poor choices. "I'd like to point out that my opponent insisted in round 1 that 80% of people are biased." Yes, but then I followed it up with " the ideals and thoughts of hate groups and average citizens are the same, only one being a little more violent". My point was that many people may share the beliefs that "all blacks are in gangs", or "all blondes are dumb", it doesn't make all of them violent. which makes your "Obviously this threat is now." point useless. The number of VIOLENT hate clubs has fallen, the number of attacks has as well. People may sympathise with the views of these groups but it will not propel many to kill everyone they disagree with. "I'd like to challenge my opponent to name a successful foreign attack on american soil since 9/11. The reason terror attacks have not gone down is because we have been allocating funds toward foreign terror, when the real threat is domestic terror." I'd like to challenge my opponent to name a successful foreign attack on american soil since 9/11, that was well planned and exectued by rich terrorist groups. The number of attacks has NOT gone down, the number of failures is the same. The only difference, is that no large or well-funded attacks have been carried out recently. "Did I ever mention killing them? no. I would like to disband them in order not to empower the racism within themseves. They cannot recruit if they cannot be legalized." "Once again, there is no death proposition." How on earth do you intend on doing anything without such measures? You can't just say something is illegal. That won't work. People won't listen UNLESS THERE IS PUNISHMENT. How do you expect to punish someone enough to disobay their friends, families, churches, or "bretheren"? A bit of jailtime is still worth it. A life of jail is worth it to a lot. Capital Punishment is the only way you could penalize them enough, no matter which way you slice it. "I took out the link, so this impact. Don't weigh this impact. It has no link to my propasal, because we don't actually kill them" Still, placing someone you love in jail genereates hatred, does it not? No matter what you'll hit problems like these. He dropped my point that this empowers them and pushes the racism to violent limits. Therefore, he concedes that eliminating the groups will solve for their actions. Maybe so, IF you could ever actually get rid of them. We've tried for years with terrorists, but they just keep coming back. In the end, the pro spend his argument arguing against mine, which I just showed not to be true in the slightest. My points were legitimate, I defended them well, and my pro did not either defend his or attack mine well. A lot of smoke and mirrors, I urge you to vote CON. Thanks again, Pro, for a great debate.