azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

A) It is not written that way, or it is not enforced that wayYes, it is.http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/245 B) If it were written that way, why would you need it?For the reasons I gave earlier:1) Federal hate crimes laws allow the federal government to prosecute cases where local governments do not. For instance, if a crime happens against a Muslim, or other religious group, and the local law enforcement does not pursue enforcement because of a similar bias against that group - the federal government can, in some instances, step in and prosecute.2) They address the added terroristic element of some hate crimes which intimidate others in the community.it is how other people perceive what the perpetrator perceivedThat is true of all crimes where there is an element of intent.Looking at a compendium of information and deciding that beyond a reasonable doubt the perpetrator committed the crime based on race, religion, etc. does not make the judge, jury, law-makers, etc. bigoted against the same groups as the perpetrator.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

A) That sounds like anti discrimination law not hate crime law. Can you tell me which section is allowing hate crime prosecution?B) Awesome, it is racist and a violation of the constitution. If it is a local crime and the feds step in and claim jurisdiction that's bad.C) Except with real element of intent cases the lawyer has to present evidence not just say look this guy is black and that guy is white.Looking at a compendium of information and deciding that beyond a reasonable doubt the perpetrator committed the crime based on race, religion, etc. does not make the judge, jury, law-makers, etc. bigoted against the same groups as the perpetrator.Yeah, they are bigoted against the group the perpetrator belonged to.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

A) That sounds like anti discrimination law not hate crime law. Can you tell me which section is allowing hate crime prosecution?Finally, the cognitive dissonance is kicking in - you are almost there.That sounds like anti discrimination law not hate crime law.That's because hate crime law is anti discrimination law.If it is a local crime and the feds step in and claim jurisdiction that's bad.The feds assume jurisdiction in these cases when a person is pursuing federally protected activities.with real element of intent cases the lawyer has to present evidence not just say look this guy is black and that guy is white.Can you feel your ignorance melting away... I wonder if you will you miss it. These cases are prosecuted by providing evidence of intent, not by anyone saying this guy looks white and this guy looks black therefore it's a hate crime, case closed.Yeah, they are bigoted against the group the perpetrator belonged to.The only group the perpetrator belongs to is perpetrators.18 USC § 245 - Federally protected activities18 USC § 249 - Hate crime acts
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

That's because hate crime law is anti discrimination law.Do you not know the difference between hate crime laws and anti discrimination laws?The feds assume jurisdiction in these cases when a person is pursuing federally protected activities.You have no idea what a hate crime is do you?Can you feel your ignorance melting away... I wonder if you will you miss it. These cases are prosecuted by providing evidence of intent, not by anyone saying this guy looks white and this guy looks black therefore it's a hate crime, case closed.Can you give an example of a hate crime case?18 USC § 249 - Hate crime actsFinally, the hate crime laws. I don't think these are enforced the way you claim. I have never seen a case where a black guy got an extra 10 years because he attacked a white guy. Do you have an example?From the law mentioned:Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any personWhy do you need to add extra punishment? Are we not punishing people enough for shooting people, setting them on fire, or blowing them up? Why aren't we punishing people the proper amount?
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

You have no idea what a hate crime is do you?Here is the final version of the NDAA of 2010 which included the "Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act."http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr2647enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr2647enr.pdf (Starts on page 646)It uses the definition of hate crime from the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994'(a) DEFINITION.—In this section, ‘‘hate crime’’ means a crimein which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in thecase of a property crime, the property that is the object of thecrime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion,national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientationof any person.'Page 649 of the NDAA specifically shows the creation of § 249 which is exactly what I linked you to above.Here is an overview from the FBI on what a hate crime is:http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overviewHere are the FBI statistics related to hate crimes:http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2011/tables/table-1Notice that it records crimes that were: Anti-White, Anti-Black, Anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native, Anti-Asian/Pacific Islander, Anti-Multiple Races, GroupCan you give an example of a hate crime case?Yes: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Three-white-men-convicted-of-hate-crime- in-attack-3486507.php You really can try to find out things before putting your foot in your mouth.I don't think these are enforced the way you claim.Only because you prefer to remain in ignorance. Do you have an example of how it works in your imagined world??
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

'(a) DEFINITION.—In this section, ‘‘hate crime’’ means a crimein which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in thecase of a property crime, the property that is the object of thecrime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion,national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientationof any person.'Ooh, I guess you missed the part about a crime. A hate crime is a crime already and there is the extra bias part. Firing someone is not a crime, so firing someone for being black is not a hate crime.A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias.Guess what, anti discrimination does not fall into this category.Here are the FBI statistics related to hate crimes:http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2011/tables/table-1 Oh look at this. Anti white is 504 and anti black is over 2000. About 6000 overall incidents. How is it that 10% of the population is the target of 33% of hate crimes? Do you actually believe that there is that much anti black sentiment in this country. There is only 760 anti gay. It looks very much like the hate crime laws are being enforced in a biased manner.Notice that it records crimes that were: Anti-White, Anti-Black, Anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native, Anti-Asian/Pacific Islander, Anti-Multiple Races, GroupThat's good at least.You really can try to find out things before putting your foot in your mouth.I knew I could, I was specifically asking if you had the ability because you didn't know the difference between hate crime and anti discrimination.Only because you prefer to remain in ignorance. Do you have an example of how it works in your imagined world??Yeah dumbass, you just gave it. White guy(s) gets in trouble for attacking black guy. Where is the black guy getting in trouble for attacking the white guy?
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

I guess you missed the part about a crime.I literally linked you to the exact text of the law.anti discrimination does not fall into this categoryIt doesn't 'fall into' this category, it encompasses it.Anti-discrimination is a panoply that includes to several sections of US law (housing, employment, voting, etc.) including hate crimes.Do you actually believe that there is that much anti black sentiment in this country.I used to live in the South so, yes. I would actually have guessed a bit higher. What do you think the ratio of White Supremacists to Black Supremacists is? You will need a lot more than those statistics to prove discrimination in enforcement. Additionally, discrimination in enforcement does not make lawmakers bigoted.When people want the statistics to show something else, you get this:http://www.wnd.com/2001/03/8380/Where is the black guy getting in trouble for attacking the white guy?You mean like thisor this:or, Black teen charged with hate crime against white "agendered" personor Latino on Black hate crimeor, black on Asian - notice that it says the "DA's office will have to show that Washington either intentionally selected the victim based on his race, or committed the act itself based on the victim's race" which is exactly how I described and you said "I don't think these are enforced the way you claim."
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

It doesn't 'fall into' this category, it encompasses it.Anti-discrimination is a panoply that includes to several sections of US law (housing, employment, voting, etc.) including hate crimes.That's like discussing squares and saying shapes have some bearing on the conversation. Sure squares are shapes, but that doesn't mean discussing shapes means you are getting anywhere with squares. Plus, your idea is wrong anti discrimination law that you pointed me to does not encompass the hate crime law that you had to separately show.When people want the statistics to show something else, you get this:http://www.wnd.com/2001/03/8380/Why have hate crime legislation if it leads to this?Additionally, discrimination in enforcement does not make lawmakers bigoted.The fact that they decided race should be considered when punishing someone is what indicates they are bigots.notice that it says the "DA's office will have to show that Washington either intentionally selected the victim based on his race, or committed the act itself based on the victim's race" which is exactly how I described and you said "I don't think these are enforced the way you claim."I didn't see it, but I guess they are doing the right thing. I still don't understand how punching someone in the face so hard they die 5 days later requires hate crime law to prosecute it. Aren't these all violations of free speech?
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

Using your analogy, all I said was squares (hate-crimes laws) are shapes (anti-discrimination laws), and you responded that I don’t know what hate crimes are, etc. - implying that you think hate crime laws are squares but anti-discrimination laws are circles.Anti-discrimination laws are any laws designed to prevent/punish acts based on discrimination.The fact that they decided race should be considered when punishing someone is what indicates they are bigots.That's absurd. It does not take a racist to say "Don’t attack someone because of what race you think they are." Why have hate crime legislation if it leads to this?I have already told you why the laws are useful. The link just shows that one person looking at the statistics can say, "How is it that 10% of the population is the target of 33% of hate crimes?", and someone else looking at similar numbers will say, "given the arrest rate versus population percentage, the data indicates that blacks are one-and-a-half times more likely to be arrested for a 'hate crime' than whites" – people bring their perceptions to the statistics.I didn't see itHow do you not see it?? Do you not click the link, does the link not work, can you not read down to the 6th paragraph (or do a search based on the quoted text)?? but I guess they are doing the right thing.A) § 245 has been around since 1968; don’t you think that if it was racist and unconstitutional, etc. it would have been overturned in court? Even § 249 has already been challenged and upheld in the US Court of Appeals (United States v. Hatch)B) If you didn't see it, why do you now "guess they are doing the right thing"?? Shouldn't you base your belief on the truth when it is so readily available rather than truthiness, especially if you are trying to assert that you have knowledge on a given subject? Are you conceding that your prior belief of them prosecuting these cases wrongly was baseless?Aren't these all violations of free speech?Is speech a crime?? Remember when you knew at least this much: "Ooh, I guess you missed the part about a crime. A hate crime is a crime already..."
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

Using your analogy, all I said was squares (hate-crimes laws) are shapes (anti-discrimination laws), and you responded that I don’t know what hate crimes are, etc. - implying that you think hate crime laws are squares but anti-discrimination laws are circles.There is a difference between anti discrimination, anti discrimination laws, and hate crime laws. In my analogy anti discrimination is shapes, and anti discrimination laws are completely different from hate crime laws. So, anti discrimination laws are circles and you gave me circles and said they were squares.That's absurd. It does not take a racist to say "Don’t attack someone because of what race you think they are."How can you make a claim that you aren't judging people by race when you clearly think about race? What I am saying is a real non racist wouldn't take race into account.I have already told you why the laws are useful.The only thing they do is provide a form of cruel and unusual punishment, another violation of the constitution. Do you not click the linkIt was link(s). Not one link.§ 245 has been around since 1968; don’t you think that if it was racist and unconstitutional, etc. it would have been overturned in court?No, I think the courts have their heads up their asses too.Are you conceding that your prior belief of them prosecuting these cases wrongly was baseless?Yes, but I still don't see the point.Is speech a crime?? Remember when you knew at least this much: "Ooh, I guess you missed the part about a crime. A hate crime is a crime already..."Hey, if saying the n word before punching a black guy gets you an extra 10 years, how is the freedom of speech not under attack.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

I'm not sure it can be made much clearer for you than this:discrimination - acts based on biasanti-discrimination laws - laws directed at preventing/punishing acts based on biashate crimes laws - laws directed at preventing/punishing criminal acts based on biasClearly hate-crimes laws are a subset of anti-discrimination laws.Why do you continue to make assertions when you know that you are not informed on this topic? The law you think is anti-discrimination law rather than hate crimes law, 18 USC § 245, has been one of THE quintessential federal hate crimes laws in this country for decades.How can you make a claim that you aren't judging people by raceThey are not judged on their race, they are judged on evidence of their bias as I have already shown.The only thing they do is provide a form of cruel and unusual punishmentSentencing someone who commits a crime to jail is not cruel and unusual punishment, you are grasping at straws..It was link(s). Not one link.So, multiple links is an insurmountable hurdle? Sorry for backing up my position with too much information. It was the link just before the quote.This oneif saying the n word before punching a black guy gets you an extra 10 years, how is the freedom of speech not under attack.The same way it isn't under attack when someone is charged with a stiffer crime when they say "I'm gonna kill you" before killing someone. Using someone's words and deeds to show intent is different than making those acts into illegal ones.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

Clearly hate-crimes laws are a subset of anti-discrimination laws.No, that's not how laws work. They are completely separate.Why do you continue to make assertions when you know that you are not informed on this topic?Because you have failed to show what you are talking about. You say hate crime law is part of one law then show a completely different law proving yourself wrong. 18 USC § 245, has been one of THE quintessential federal hate crimes laws in this country for decades.No, anti discrimination, not hate crime.Sentencing someone who commits a crime to jail is not cruel and unusual punishment, you are grasping at straws..Sentencing someone to an extra tens years than what would usually be assigned is not unusual how?So, multiple links is an insurmountable hurdle? Sorry for backing up my position with too much information. It was the link just before the quote.If I gave you a 20 page link and said my proof was somewhere in there go find it, I would be an asshole.The same way it isn't under attack when someone is charged with a stiffer crime when they say "I'm gonna kill you" before killing someone. Using someone's words and deeds to show intent is different than making those acts into illegal ones.You don't get an extra sentence for saying I'm gonna kill you because if you had the time to say it they will conclude it is 1st degree with or without you saying it. It was 1st degree either way.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

anti-discrimination laws - laws directed at preventing/punishing acts based on biasThis statement is not accurate. If you want to use the term that way fine, but that isn't accurate. Actual anti-discrimination laws have nothing to do with hate crime laws. Since it requires separate laws to be written for hate crime legislation they are different things. You started off the conversation confusing the 2 and that's where the problem is. I am simply trying to explain to you how it was confusing.You have no idea how laws work as evidenced by your posts. Now you are confusing naming terminology with actual laws. I am trying to say that the first law you quoted was the anti-discrimination law, and the second was the hate crime laws. If you call them some other name that doesn't mean you are right or that I am wrong. The first law you quoted originally is completely separate from the second hate law crime you quoted.That would be like saying we can't pass any new laws because we don't already usually consider something as illegal.No, it is nothing like that. If you steal a necklace and get 1 year, how is stealing the same exact necklace but getting ten years not unusual? How would that be a different crime? Can you give a non hate crime example where that makes sense?A) That's not what I did. I know, you gave me multiple links. You are worse than an asshole.Saying "I'm going to kill you" before killing someone would basically rule out negligent homicide and mean 2nd degree murder, and if the person indicates their plans in any way, that would generally make it 1st degree. You can get all the way from 3rd to 1st with nothing but speech.1st degree murder is always more evident than just saying I'm going to kill you. Sorry if it was in Swahili before.It really doesn't take much effort to compile a list of groups who refer to 18 USC 245 as a hate-crime lawAnd that doesn't make sense. So what the heck do they think 249 is? I guess you are right, but it doesn't make sense.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

If you want to use the term that way fine, but that isn't accurate.You must do more than say nu-huh for something to be true, or not true.Actual anti-discrimination laws have nothing to do with hate crime laws.As I said, and you did not address, a law is just a law - it can be described as belonging to multiple categories. This is the heart of your confusion. I am trying to say that the first law you quoted was the anti-discrimination law, and the second was the hate crime laws.Both sections relate to hate-crimes law and, since hate-crime law is a subset of anti-discrimination law, they both relate to anti-discrimination law also. Can you give a non hate crime example where that makes sense?Yes, eco-terrorism. It not only has the element of the original crime, but is designed to intimidate others and is prosecuted as a Federal crime.you gave me multiple linksall 5 links were brief one page summaries.1st degree murder is always more evident than just saying I'm going to kill you.saying "I'm going to kill you" would exclude negligent homicide and generally result in at least 2nd degree, and saying something like "I am going to run you over" and then running them over would show intent and planning and would generally result in 1st degree.Speech can show intent.what the heck do they think 249 is?Multiple laws can relate to the same topic - e.g. hate crimes.18 USC 245 (b)(2) was one of the major ones (passed in 1968)18 USC § 249 was an additional section added by the "Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act" which added discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, and disability.The "Hate Crime Statistics Act", "Violence Against Women Act", "Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act", etc. are all Federal acts that created additional statutes which would be considered hate-crimes laws.I guess you are right, but it doesn't make sense.indeed.