People hate me just because I am a bad person. thats not fair.

RFV
My vote goes to Con, 'even though the BOF is heavily placed on Con in the description, if Pro doesn't attack their arguments they stand fairly unopposed.
Con is also the only one to define fair, and Pro never disagrees with their definition or application.
I have vague criticisms of Con's arguments, but those are 'my criticisms, not Pros.
. . . On another hand, Con did not engage in the Free Will and Programming points by Pro.
The 'problem with the Free Will and Programming points though, is that they weren't in the description, thus they are not 'forced to be a point of contention for Con.
Pro 'briefly raises the 'idea of Free Will and Programming, but they didn't heavily 'argue them.
So Con is able to attack in their own chosen ways, and Pro never attacks Pros arguments.

Title,
"People hate me just because I am a bad person. that's not fair"

Hm, is that two contentions that have to be proved?
Or is the first assumed?
Eh, probably assumed.
. . . I wouldn't say I hate SatanLucy, I've found some of our conversations interesting. Of YouTube and survival methods, such as home farms, or being able to identify edible plants.

Description,
Puts burden of proof on Con, and I'd say clarifies the title.
Eh, is it 'fair to hate someone for being a bad person?
. . . Maybe in a way yes, maybe in a way no.
We're all much molded from our circumstances, genes and experiences.
But as Zeno said to the slave fated to steal, yes, and to be beaten too.
. . . Though I'd rather try not to hate people when they do something I dislike. . . Fair. . . Fair mi- . . Hm, what does 'fair mean?

SatanLucy Round 1
Seems to be a throw away round.

LancelotDuLac Round 1
I'm not sure if it matters if someone was a fat person or a morally bad person.
Pro seems to alude to fate, but on another hand, they 'do zero in on bad person being the reason.
And that is what Con narrows in on.

Ahab argument focuses on haters,
Some truth in that, but honestly some people 'are more hate-able (statistics wise) for their actions. One expects and individual who commits evil, to be hated by others.
. . . Though, earlier argument points out some evil people are liked.

Hatred seems an emotion to me,
And as Con Ahab argument goes, people have their biases.
I think 'real fairness might be hating everyone equally?

SatanLucy Round 2
Focuses on fate.

. . . Is it 'fair to hate someone for something out of their control?
. . . . . . We often don't think it's right to harm an animal for harming a person, a cat for example, scratching someone while playing. It's a dumb animal, doesn't know better.
Same with Ahabs whale.
. . . Course on another hand, some animals 'are malicious, and why 'not hate even a mindless storm?
Fairness. . . ?
Con is the 'only person in the debate to define fairness, and engage with said description. That's going to lean me heavily in their direction.

LancelotDuLac Round 2
I wouldn't say Programming and free will are unrelated, but Pro did not put significant effort into explaining 'why they are important,
Nor did Pro criticize Con's argument.

I don't think likability and hate-ability are 'totally separate from moral character,
They 'can be a reason for people to dislike a person.
Though admittedly, someone can make up for a bad moral character in other ways.
A person's moral character isn't the 'one reason people have for liking or disliking someone.

I'm not convinced by point 2,
If the whale didn't cause Ahab's leg loss, Ahab wouldn't hate the whale, regardless of whether it is fair of Ahab to hate the whale or not.
If a person behaves in an evil manner, there are often going to be people who hate said individual.
Predictably so.
. . . But the point Pro wants addressed is fate. They claim the evil person is 'fated beyond their control to be evil, and thus is not morally responsible?

I'm not sure there 'is such a thing as objective analysis, unless the analysis is within an agreed upon system. . . And even then. . .
Boxing has agreed upon rules, and both individuals are judged by them.
But before weight classes for example, a match can still be unfair.
. . . But the 'rules in their 'application are fair.
Hm, and that's Con's argument I think in 3, People have a moral judging system, and it get's applied to everyone in life.
. . . If someone was born with blue skin though, would such be a fair reason to hate them?
Just because it is an objective analysis of the individual?
Everyone being judged by the same bias, making it fair?

"Burden of proof is on Con to prove that hating someone for being a bad person is fair."
"So I assume Con must prove that person chose to be bad, in other words, that free will exists and that person isnt just programmed to be bad."
-instigator.

So its up contendor to prove it is fair to hate a person for choosing to be bad.
Meaning pro must defend that it is Unfair to hate a person for choosing bad.
Though choice seems to be optional according to bop.

There is no definitions for fairness by instigator, bad or hatred.

R1: Contendor immediately shows there is no proof of instigator being hated.
There is no foundation for instigator (if referring to self as the title suggest) that they are hated.
Contender points out the bop isn not related to instigator, so showing they do not have to prove instigator right or wrong concerning themselves.

Instigator then points out 3 things.

1:likability and hatability do not equal moral character.

He gives examples of people who are distinctively less likable in their settings.
I would have liked a real world examples instead of fictional to verify this... but i will move on.

2:hatred reveals more about the person than their target of hatred.

Again citing fictional characters, but ultimately asserting that hatred is not dependent persay on the actions of instigator.

3:hatred bases on moral character.

Contender asserts that if someone does hate a bad person, they do so without "independent of any emotional biases, or feelings that would affect their personal judgment."

This is a stretch, and contender has laid no ground work definitionally or through example of wether this is true or not. There are standards to weighing actions and people like judges have to discard their feelings and judge according to laws or precedent, but not every person does this.

This caveat aside

Contendor then gives link to oxford languages dictionary, i would have liked if it actually linked to definition of fairness!
But seeing as it didnt, i have to weigh the debate as if fairness isnt defined.

R2: instigator asserts
"No proof of people not being programmed or having free will, so nothing for me to respond to. It is not fair to hate a person for something person was forced to do."

Reworded. Proof of people being programmed or having free will. And sees no reason to respond to contendor's arguements. And citing unfairness to hate an unwilling person.

Due to double negative instigator asserts there is proof. So due to language shot himself in the foot.

But contender reminds instigator that proof of or lack of programming and free will is not in his BOP.

Final thoughts:

This was a messy debate, very little ground work from either side and no definitons, though in fairness, contender tried harder.

The bop of contender is very clear, to prove someone hating someone for being bad is fair.

And their 3rd point in r1 is the closest they did in attempting to define fairness. And assert that its more fair to hate someone for being bad, due to supposed lack of emotional biases.

Instigator made no defense against the opposite other than assertion and said there is proof (via use of double negative words) people being programmed, defeating their own non bop opening statement.

I therefore rule contender won.

But make no mistake, i expect better. More groundwork and more definitions