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

Hehe kind of a personal question i guess, but even so, if you think that discrimination is wrong, why protect discriminatic parties? I just put that aside for now. Also, i think we have taken a wrong side of direction in this debate, i think i should clear everything up in the end. 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 Certainly its not an assertion, yes i want that discriminatic parties listed as Hate Speech, but even now, such parties already fulfills the requirement for it to be called a Hate Speech, not many people realize that and still call it freedom of speech. 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 You don't understand my point, my point is why such groups exists and are legal though they are indulging to discriminate lesser groups? 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. Sadly, you are wrong. Hate Speech doesnt have to end with a crime. Just discriminating a certain group (thats discrimination) is already punishable as Hate Speech. I can just shove your source back to you to prove you wrong. Also, how does a people spreading bad messages about groups not apply as Hate Speech? I ask you. I think i have answered your question. If such people comes spreading messages, we should silence them with our law to prevent further discrimination! 2. Such a law would discriminate against racists Pro agreed to this statement. I will come back to this later. Of course i discriminate racists and trust me, everyone would if they hated to be discriminated. But lets hear your answer then. 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 As I say, no one would outlaw most things unless its serve on their favor and whos favor does it serves more then the discriminatic parties? Also, if we make discriminating parties illegal, it even serves you the favor of not outlawing everything they wanted, no? B) yes, outlawing something you do not agree with is discrimination, so why are you outlawing racists. Now, are you telling me its wrong to discriminate racists? They think themself to be pure and a higher race then any others so tell me, why is it wrong to punish these selfish people? 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. Remember!! This was because NSDAP (Hitler) rised in power and ordered people opposing against them to be executed. I tell you now for example at these days a nazi party says we should exterminate all Jews, but you or I opposes against it, you think that Nazi Party or the government could get you executed? No! But lets look at a different angle. Lets say that the Nazi Party rose in power, even higher then the government and says "All Jews should be exterminated" and you or I oppose against it, do you think that the Nazi Party would allow us to get away with it after the opposition? They wouldve wanted our heads! By the way, all the time you see racism and discrimination as wrong and yet, you protect them now. I find this action odd, you know? 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." I see discrimination already conflicting the first amendment. It clearly states that you are free to worship your religion and prevent others from punishing you cruelly. Discrimination fits in here as discrimination involves in targeting a group (you are free to worship your religion or race colour) and punishing it by discriminating it.[1] [2] This is from the US Amendment so basically, its YOUR PROOF. 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 My, you should stop saying that i want to create another law to fight against that certain group. FIRST of all, I already said countless times, I want Hate Speech to be applied on discriminatic parties. (nullifies your proof) Second of all, how is discrimination against racism a crime?And certainly no such group has ever been created, no? And yes, this is all to fight AGAINST discrimination as racism is also a kind of discrimination.(further nullifying your proof) Anyway we seem to have taken a wrong course after such a long debate. We debate about PREVENTING discriminating political groups from rising in power, not to make a law against discrimination or saying that discrimination isnt allowed. Many things you have proven so far doesn't have anything to do with this debate and most things even serves at my advantage. Also, my point all the time was to have discriminating parties listed as Hate Speech so they will never rise in power. Why? Because they are discriminating. Yes, if I discriminate a discriminating party, im als guilty of Hate Speech, but Im not a political party and I dont need the power. Self defense against discrimination is allowed, so if someone discriminate me, i can discriminate him back. Confusing end, maybe you could puzzle this up. Source: [1] http://en.wikisource.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...