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

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.From what you found, everyone calls anti discrimination law hate crime law, which is inaccurate and causes confusion.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 get extra years in prison if you blow up a tractor while it is knocking down a tree as opposed to when it is not doing anything?all 5 links were brief one page summaries.And 4 of those links were bull. 80% of what you linked was not worthy of clicking.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.If you run someone over, regardless of what you say, it will be considered planned. That's what I am saying.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.Calling it the wrong thing doesn't help anyone. Those laws don't fit your definition of hate crime from before. They are wrong. Calling everything a hate crime law is clearly an effort to divert attention from them being racists onto "racist" perpetrators.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

The simple definitions that the world uses and that I will continue to use throughout this debate regardless of when/if you come to the same conclusions are:discrimination: acts based on biasanti-discrimination: against acts based on biasanti-discrimination laws: laws against acts based on biashate-crime: criminal acts based on biashate-crime laws: laws against criminal acts based on biasAnd since criminal acts are a subset of acts, it follows logically that hate-crime laws are a subset of anti-discrimination laws.This is simple English and logic. If you disagree with any of the above, you are wrong. Study some more and come back when you understand.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

Haha, you are wrong. No one uses those terms like that, therefore you are wrong based on your logic. Hate crime laws is considered to be anything racially motivated, no crime actually has to be committed.This is simple English and logic.I wish, but the hateful bigoted lawmakers use language to make people think they are stopping some great evil. What sounds more effective, anti hate, or anti discrimination? They use anti hate to lie to the American public. It is sad.If you disagree with any of the above, you are wrong. Study some more and come back when you understand.HAHAHAHA, you disagree with yourself.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

Hate crime laws is considered to be anything racially motivated, no crime actually has to be committed.um - it has 'crime' right there in the name... are you seriously this dense?No one uses those terms like that"DEFINITION.—In this section, 'hate crime' means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - page 301"A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias."FBI Civil Rights Division"The current federal law regarding hate crimes deals with crimes where the offender is motivated by bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or ethnicity/national origin."Legal Dictionary"Of all crimes, hate crimes are most likely to create or exacerbate tensions..."Department of Justice"laws mandating additional penalties for bias-motivated crimes"Encyclopedia Britannica
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

um - it has 'crime' right there in the name... are you seriously this dense?I will just call murder fun time and it is no longer a crime, sweet.In this sectionFor one section doesn't make you correct. Like I said, they use hate crime for everything. You are wrong about anti discrimination. There is no such thing as anti discrimination law apparently.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

There is no such thing as anti discrimination law apparently.wow - this is pretty hilarious now.I'll phrase it another way for you.If an act by itself is not a crime, like not giving someone a job, or not renting to someone, then a law against performing that act based solely on race, religion, etc. would be described as an anti-discrimination law.If an act by itself is a crime, like murder, assault, then a law against performing that act based solely on race, religion, etc. would be described as a hate-crime law.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

If an act by itself is not a crime, like not giving someone a job, or not renting to someone, then a law against performing that act based solely on race, religion, etc. would be described as an anti-discrimination law.WRONG. THE DOJ CALLS IT A HATE CRIME.I wish your last 2 paragraphs were correct. I was trying to argue that is what it meant, but you pointed out that the DOJ disagrees with you.I was arguing the last 2 paragraphs initially and you stopped me.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

WRONG. THE DOJ CALLS IT A HATE CRIME.Where?The DOJ calls housing and employment discrimination - just that, discrimination - not hate-crimesrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefrefI was arguing the last 2 paragraphs initially and you stopped me.If you re-read the posts that we have made, you will see that I have made the correct argument all along.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

The DOJ calls housing and employment discrimination - just that, discrimination - not hate-crimesI didn't see them call it anti discrimination laws though either.If you re-read the posts that we have made, you will see that I have made the correct argument all along.Impossible, I was arguing for those definitions and you shot me down for it, so you couldn't have been arguing it the whole time.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

I didn't see them call it anti discrimination laws though either.I'll give you a puzzle and have you work backward: What would you call a law that is in opposition to discrimination??? (hint: the prefix anti- means against, or in opposition to.) I was arguing for those definitions and you shot me down for itre-read.Me: posted a link to 18 USC 245You:"That sounds like anti discrimination law not hate crime law."- you were right that it was anti discrimination law but wrong that it did not include hate-crime lawMe: "hate crime law is anti discrimination law"- in the squares are shapes senseThen you went on a tirade with: "Do you not know the difference between hate crime laws and anti discrimination laws?" and "You have no idea what a hate crime is do you?" obviously not knowing what you were talking about.I consistently stated that anti-discrimination laws "encompassed" hate-crimes laws and conversely that hate-crimes laws were a subset of anti-discrimination laws.The record is plain to see. laws are just laws. people use adjectives to describe some group of laws but that doesn't make a law fall into any one category.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

I'll give you a puzzle and have you work backward:What would you call a law that is in opposition to discrimination??? (hint: the prefix anit- means against, or in opposition to.)Apparently hate crime if I follow everyone else. Sucks right? I wish you were right because you make sense. Other people don't agree with you, so you are wrong.Me: "hate crime law is anti discrimination law"- in the squares are shapes senseNot according to the courts. The courts seem to think anti-discrimination law is hate crime law. If those assholes didn't get it wrong we wouldn't have a problem.I consistently stated that anti-discrimination laws "encompassed" hate-crimes laws and conversely that hate-crimes laws were a subset of anti-discrimination laws.Good for you. When the courts agree with you I will.laws are just laws. people use adjectives to describe some group of laws but that doesn't make a law fall into any one category.They use improper adjectives to cover their own racism.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

Apparently hate crimeindeedOther people don't agree with you, so you are wrong.No, everyone who is in a position to know disagrees with you.The courts seem to think anti-discrimination law is hate crime law.The court referred to 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(B) as a hate crime exactly as I did. Here is a summary of that provision again:Whoever by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person engaging in federally protected activities because of his race, color, religion or national origin shall be fined or imprisoned under this title.They referred to a hate crime as a hate-crime. Anytime someone refers to squares, should they also have to mention that squares are shapes??When the courts agree with you I will.They do - so I appreciate you agreeing.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

indeedGood, so you agree that you are wrong and it is not called anti discrimination.No, everyone who is in a position to know disagrees with you.Yeah, because I initially had the same definitions as you.The court referred to 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(B) as a hate crime exactly as I did.No you didn't. You agreed with me that it was an anti discrimination law.They referred to a hate crime as a hate-crime. Anytime someone refers to squares, should they also have to mention that squares are shapes??THEY ARE ALSO CALLING NON HATE CRIMES HATE CRIMES, WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? THEY ARE CALLING RECTANGLES SQUARES.They do - so I appreciate you agreeing.You said it was anti discrimination statute, not hate crime. They don't agree with you.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

Remember when you said hate-crimes laws weren't written as racially neutral and I said:"Yes, it is.http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/245" That's me saying here's a link to a hate-crime statute and you can see for yourself that it is racially neutral.You agreed with me that it was an anti discrimination law.It is an anti discrimination law - since all squares are shapes, understand???THEY ARE ALSO CALLING NON HATE CRIMES HATE CRIMESWhere? There is only one reference in that document to hate crimes statute and it refers to 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(B)."Defendants Eli Mungia and Roy Martin appeal their convictions under the federal hate crimes statute, 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(B), for shooting three African-American men. Finding no error, we affirm."
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

That's me saying here's a link to a hate-crime statute and you can see for yourself that it is racially neutral.Yeah, it is racially neutral and written by racists. What's your point?It is an anti discrimination law - since all squares are shapes, understand???THEY CALL IT HATE CRIME.Where?"federal hate crimes statute" That does not say anti discrimination statute.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

That does not say anti discrimination statute.Every time you refer to squares do you parenthetically mention that squares are shapes?? The court presumes that people reading these documents have some prior level of knowledge.See how hate-crime laws are referred to as Anti-Discrimination Laws: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/civil-rights Whereas you claimed:"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."ref
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

In my analogyGuess what. If we are using my analogy, it doesn't matter what you define stuff as.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

I was pointing out that your analogy is untenable.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

I wish your last 2 paragraphs were correct.Ah, right - my second to last paragraph is imprecise.This paragraph is correct:If an act by itself is a crime, like murder, assault, then a law against performing that act based solely on race, religion, etc. would be described as a hate-crime law.and the other paragraph should be:Laws against performing acts based on bias against on race, religion, etc. whether they are crimes in and of themselves or not would be described as an anti-discrimination law.This is the correct definition and is consistent with all of my prior posts.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

Laws against performing acts based on bias against on race, religion, etc. whether they are crimes in and of themselves or not would be described as an anti-discrimination law.Other people consider this a hate crime as well. According to you if other people believe it then they are right. So, you are wrong. It is consistent with your prior posts, but all of your prior posts turned out to be wrong according to the courts.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

According to you if other people believe it then they are right.reading comprehension still getting the better of you, eh?if basically "everyone" (not anyone) agrees on a definition, then that is the definition.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

Not everyone agrees to your definition, therefore you are wrong either way.Unless you are everyone now.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

I have given dozens of links showing that all three branches of government and several groups dedicated to the issue all use the same definitions that I do. You have only presented your assertions and misinterpretations.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

They called what you called anti discrimination hate crime. That is a different definition than you use. I told you that I believed that it was an anti discrimination law and you shot me down because they call it a hate crime law. Now you are saying they call it anti discrimination. Make up your mind.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

I told you that I believed that it was an anti discrimination law and you shot me downI think you misunderstand how that transpired and is the heart of why you still aren't getting it.I linked to 18 USC 245 as a source that hate crime laws are racially neutralYou said that looks like anti-discrimination lawI responded that hate-crime law is anti-discrimination law (squares are shares)You felt this was shooting you down, etc. then somehow devolved into saying anti-discrimination laws are circles etc. and it only got worse from there...They called what you called anti discrimination hate crime.They called what you called [a shape] [a square] - see how that still works?
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

Let's see if I can clear this up.Is firing someone because they are black a hate crime?They called what you called [a shape] [a square] - see how that still works?All shapes are squares?
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

Is firing someone because they are black a hate crime?No.All shapes are squares?I called x a shapeThey called x a squareIf x is a square, we are both correct.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

No.Good. But, that is included in the "hate crimes statute". That is my problem.I called x a shapeThey called x a squareIf x is a square, we are both correct.Here is the problem. We have a whole bunch of shapes. Circles, squares, rectangles. You and the courts see the one square and label the whole set of shapes as squares. So, in this example x is a bunch of shapes with a few squares. Calling it a square is deception.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

Good. But, that is included in the "hate crimes statute". That is my problem.Right, that is your problem since no, it isn't included in the hate-crimes statutes.The court is calling one specific x (18 USC 245 (b)(2)(B)) a square.I initially said it was a square also.You said it is a square, but not a shapeI said a square is a shape.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

anti-discrimination laws = shapeshousing discrimination laws = circlesemployment discrimination laws = hexagonshate-crimes = squares
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

Ok, fine. Now that we have cleared that up, why is it ok to have unconstitutional squares?
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

Ok, fine.That took long enough.why is it ok to have unconstitutional squares?If congress passes it, and the President signs it and the Supreme Court upholds it as Constitutional - then it is Constitutional.At least until any future date where the Court rules differently.That is how our system works.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

At least until any future date where the Court rules differently.At least you acknowledge that it isn't with this statement. Thanks.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

Acknowledging that it is possible for the Court to overrule prior decisions (i.e. Plessy v. Ferguson) is far from saying that they ever will or should in this case.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

Right, but all you said hate crime laws do is give extra power to the federal government and assign unusual punishment. So, we are on the same page, you just think that if the government does something it is ok.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

So far you have proved yourself a bit slow on the uptake, but apparently I am a glutton for punishment so I will attempt to tell you why your understanding of the eighth amendment in this area is incorrect.all you said hate crime laws do is give extra power to the federal government and assign unusual punishmentThe federal government applies the same punishment for a bias motivated crime as it does for the same crime when done against a federal employee as you can see by reading 18 USC 245. Therefore the punishment is not unusual for the crime as far as the federal government goes.The second important piece of information that you are missing is that the federal punishment is not seen as being applied 'on top of' the state punishment; they are seen as separate cases prosecuted by separate sovereigns which is also why the 5th amendment double-jeopardy clause does not apply.See United States v. Lanza and Heath v. Alabamayou just think that if the government does something it is ok.Thinking that one thing the government does is ok is different than thinking that everything the government does is ok. Nice straw-man though.If your prior legal acumen is any indication, I look forward to the pretzel-like logic you will use to insert your foot into your mouth. Please proceed...
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

The federal government applies the same punishment for a bias motivated crime as it does for the same crime when done against a federal employee as you can see by reading 18 USC 245. Therefore the punishment is not unusual for the crime as far as the federal government goes.The second important piece of information that you are missing is that the federal punishment is not seen as being applied 'on top of' the state punishment; they are seen as separate cases prosecuted by separate sovereigns which is also why the 5th amendment double-jeopardy clause does not apply.None of this explains how adding on a punishment to something that is already a crime isn't unusual. Since you have already admitted this is unusual punishment previously there is nothing more for me to argue.Thinking that one thing the government does is ok is different than thinking that everything the government does is ok. Nice straw-man though.It isn't a straw-man. You said that there wasn't anything wrong because the government approved it.The constitution is supposed to protect us from the government, not from each other. Giving the federal government more power is not a plus.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

None of this explains how adding on a punishment to something that is already a crime isn't unusual.Yes, it does exactly that, only you chose not to (or cannot) comprehend what was presented.I don't feel any need to convince you as that tends to take dozens of inane posts, I just wanted the information out there for any actually interested (and capable) reader.Since you have already admitted this is unusual punishment previously there is nothing more for me to argue.Of course that is patently false and anyone can review the discourse to prove as much.You said that there wasn't anything wrong because the government approved it.I contended that there was nothing wrong and that the government approves it - not because. You have a real knack for creating the argument you want to attack in your head since you cannot actually attack the substance.