Instigator / Pro
7
1762
rating
45
debates
88.89%
won
Topic
#2164

RESOLVED: BLM is a net harm to America

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
0

After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

MisterChris
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

I, PRO, believe that Black Lives Matter is a net harm to America. You, CON, believe that Black Lives Matter is either net positive or net neutral.

ROUNDS:
1. Constructive (Make a case)
2. Rebuttal (Refute my case)
3. Defense (Answer my rebuttal)

RULES:
1. No Kritiks
2. No New arguments made in final round
3. No trolling
4. You must follow the Debate Structure
5. No Plagiarism
6. Must follow debate definitions.
**ANY violation of these warrants loss of debate.**

DEFINITIONS:
"Black Lives Matter/BLM" - The racial justice movement to eradicate white supremacy that has been operating from 2013 onwards, currently organized by the Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc. BLM accounts for the vast bulk of the racial justice movement from 2013 onwards.
"Net HARM" - When all positive and negative impacts have been weighed, the negative outweighs the positive.
"America" - The United States.
"SYSTEMIC racism" - racism tolerated within or perpetuated by the government.
BoP: I, PRO, have the BoP to prove that BLM is a net HARM. You, CON, only have the burden to disprove my arguments.

-->
@RationalMadman

Yeah that really screwed you on sources, and I couldn't trace down some of them

-->
@Barney
@MisterChris

NEVER EVER USE SHORTURL FUCK THAT WEBSITE!!!!

It removed my links?!!!!!! I just relaised it now when reading Ragnar's RFD more in depth.

-->
@MisterChris

None of us are immune to the pitfalls of virtue ethics, as much as the world would be a better place if we were.

-->
@Barney

Plus, you are correct. I really just let that infrastructure point float in the air and snatched it up again at the last second of R3. I needed to hit that home more.

-->
@Barney

Thanks for the vote! Admittedly, if I were to redo the constructive, I would not include the"Christian values" thing or the Marxism point. I would likely just really hammer my evidence about the "3 smart decisions anyone can do."

URL shorteners majorly backfired in con's R2 (all broken).

If anyone is curious, I tracked down the couple which were quoted:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice/race-and-criminal-justice/how-black-lives-matter-changed-way-americans-fight
https://www.akerman.com/en/perspectives/hrdef-the-black-lives-matter-movement-and-the-workplace.html

-->
@fauxlaw

That is an astute observation, I had completely forgotten about that section. And considering a reparations act would more than likely be challenged at the Supreme Court, unless the judges are delusional, that should strike it down (unfortunately, considering the way rulings have been recently, delusion is more likely than it should be).

-->
@MisterChris

Chris, just a note to you as I review the arguments. You mention reparations in r1. Did you know that the proposal does not pass constitutional muster?Article I, section 9: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. Ex post facto is retro-active law. reparations would be retro-active. Can't be done.

-->
@fauxlaw

It is very appreciated

-->
@MisterChris

I will vote on it before the deadline

-->
@Barney
@bmdrocks21
@Dr.Franklin
@fauxlaw
@vector

Any votes on this would be appreciated, despite the forfeit from RM

BLM wants reparations for African Americans. This would require much higher taxes and is bound to drag our country more into debt.

-->
@MisterChris

Fair enough.

-->
@Username

Maybe it could use more, but any more than 10k characters and it becomes an arduous slog for me. I still like to semi-enjoy my debates, even if they are on serious topics

-->
@MisterChris

Serious and relevent topic... I'd say given the size of it that it deserves a little more than 10k characters.

-->
@RationalMadman

suit yourself.

-->
@MisterChris

You are 100% wrong but similar to how I avoided Wylted/Singularity's more extreme debates, there are some debates where I just don't want to be involved as it's too controversial what will come up in it.

-->
@Intelligence_06

Understood. If it helps, I could increase the time for arguments

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

Good objection. The BLM we know was founded in 2013, so I suppose I can amend the definition to include most instances of the "racial justice" movement in the US from 2013 onward.

-->
@MisterChris

I might disagree, but I am too scared to take this lol.

-->
@MisterChris

One of the difficulties in a debate like this is the impossibility of determining where Black Lives Matter begins and ends. There might be a Foundation with a legal address and all that, but it's a movement, as you say. When should the action(s) of an individual be attributed to BLM, and to what degree? Pinning down attribution with a high degree of precision is impossible, as far as I can tell.

Of course, this difficulty may not necessarily prevent a fruitful debate from occurring. But I wouldn't be surprised if Pro and Con tussle over what the 'real' BLM is, just like people debate what 'real' Christianity or 'real' Islam is.