The Democrats are not protecting the US Constitution right and have communist views.

My opponent claims that he talked to his friend who said that he wanted to illegalize being mean. What does this mean? It sounds like his friend has a personal belief. You cannot illegalize being mean; that's a broad subject that lacks clear definition. Mean in what way? I invite my opponent to find an article online proving this statement. 1. Hate CrimesFirst, again I ask when is a band a credible place of information about hate crimes. Music can make statements, but they are usually more focused on making good music that people want to listen to. Threshold is not a team of political analysts; they are a band. Also, do you understand what treason is? Here is a definition:The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies. (1) Treason is betraying the security of a country. This is done by selling secrets, selling government weapon/technology plans, etc. It does not cover hate crimes. Hate crimes get penalized more for hate because it's dangerous to the surrounding environment. Hate crimes can cause civil unrest in communities. Hate crimes are serious threats for many people around the world. How many hate crimes happen in the Middle East or in Africa because of nationality, religion, or beliefs? Lastly, how does this relate to the Democratic party. Both parties do not want to have hate crime happening on their watch; it won't win any voters or make for a happy country at all if it runs rampant in our streets. How are these communistic views?2. Gun ControlI don't understand what my opponent is challenging me to argue. Is the challenge that a criminal will practice with a bow to commit a murder while the victim won't have access to his trusty gun? I don't think my opponent understand how a bow even works and how difficult it is to use one. That being said, saying that guns should be banned because guns are imported in illegal manners doesn't make any sense. Does my opponent understand that the government is trying to regulate guns, not ban them? The government is well aware that we have the right to bear arms. Yes we can bear arms, but armor piercing rounds in a military grade assault rifle? Why would you need that to gun down an intruder in your house? How about a simple handgun? The point is that we should have the right to bear arms, but not to have a Call of Duty armament in our basements.Also, how is this communistic? What does this have to do with democrats? My opponent fails to relate his points back to his central argument.3. Soda BanningHow is soda banning communistic? How is banning soda against the constitution? I would like to see more specific information to back up this bizarre argument.So my opponent believes that people voted for him because he was black. He believes that people voted for him to prove that they're not racist. Perhaps my opponent doesn't understand how politics work. People voted for them because they believed in his campaign promises, or at the very least liked him over his opponents. I also call into question why my opponent believes the gay argument is "Off topic and minor".Once again, I wish good luck to my opponent and await his response. (1) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...