• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

1.) false thats what you are ADDING, thanks for proving your own claim wrong.
can you show me in MY examples where it says that? you cant because you are making it up
2.) good thing nobody said that
3.) correct, which is NOTHING like number 1, thank you again for proving your own claim wrong
4.) i dont know since facts, laws, crime definitions and basic English have defeated you each time tell us?
5.) again i wouldnt know, ive never been bullied in political discussion have you?

this is your question: "Can you be charged with a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity"
the factual answer is : "Yes"

do you agree yes or no?

if yes great you learned!

if no, provide the facts you have the prove it

Again how does it feel?

1) "in MY example that I made, was perception involved? nooooooooope" yes because the assailant bombed the church because he hated Christians and was under the perception that the people involved in the church were Christian, not atheists

2) well your suggestion is that since mark zuckerberg owned the church he didn't fall into the bias on the identity, but considering he owned the church gave the assailant the perception he was Christian. If his reasons alone for bombing the church was motivated by his bias for Christianity. If that perception didn't exist why would he go after an atheists personal Christian church?

4) defeated me? You mean interpretation of part of the definition but blatantly ignoring the other part means defeating me? Again how does it feel

5) just tell me how does it feel? Considering you've been "destroyed"
 
1.) false thats what you are ADDING, thanks for proving your own claim wrong.
can you show me in MY examples where it says that? you cant because you are making it up
2.) good thing nobody said that
3.) correct, which is NOTHING like number 1, thank you again for proving your own claim wrong
4.) i dont know since facts, laws, crime definitions and basic English have defeated you each time tell us?
5.) again i wouldnt know, ive never been bullied in political discussion have you?

this is your question: "Can you be charged with a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity"
the factual answer is : "Yes"

do you agree yes or no?

if yes great you learned!

if no, provide the facts you have the prove it

You forgot to tell me where it says meaning in the quote "1.) again ENGLISH, me adding names to it doesnt change anything especially context lol"
 
Again how does it feel?

1) "in MY example that I made, was perception involved? nooooooooope" yes because the assailant bombed the church because he hated Christians and was under the perception that the people involved in the church were Christian, not atheists

2) well your suggestion is that since mark zuckerberg owned the church he didn't fall into the bias on the identity, but considering he owned the church gave the assailant the perception he was Christian. If his reasons alone for bombing the church was motivated by his bias for Christianity. If that perception didn't exist why would he go after an atheists personal Christian church?

4) defeated me? You mean interpretation of part of the definition but blatantly ignoring the other part means defeating me? Again how does it feel

5) just tell me how does it feel? Considering you've been "destroyed"

translation: you are deflecting and still have ZERO facts that back you up. Nobody honest, educated and objective falls for this . . .
facts win again

this is your question: "Can you be charged with a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity"
the factual answer is : "Yes"

do you agree yes or no?

if yes great you learned!

if no, provide the facts you have the prove it
 
translation: you are deflecting and still have ZERO facts that back you up. Nobody honest, educated and objective falls for this . . .
facts win again

this is your question: "Can you be charged with a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity"
the factual answer is : "Yes"

do you agree yes or no?

if yes great you learned!

if no, provide the facts you have the prove it

How does it feel to be continued to look like a 4th grader?

Deflecting hahaha your not even responding to what I'm saying

How does it feel to be "destroyed"?
 
translation: you are deflecting and still have ZERO facts that back you up. Nobody honest, educated and objective falls for this . . .
facts win again

this is your question: "Can you be charged with a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity"
the factual answer is : "Yes"

do you agree yes or no?

if yes great you learned!

if no, provide the facts you have the prove it

You forgot to tell me where it says meaning in the quote "1.) again ENGLISH, me adding names to it doesnt change anything especially context lol"
 
How does it feel to be continued to look like a 4th grader?

Deflecting hahaha your not even responding to what I'm saying

How does it feel to be "destroyed"?
another post, more defletions and ZERO facts to back up your failed claims.

Pleas let us know when you can defined your statments with facts, thank you

this is your question: "Can you be charged with a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity"
the factual answer is : "Yes"

do you agree yes or no?if no, provide the facts you have the prove it
 
Back
Top Bottom