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
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

First off, con had 6 of the 7 days to post his argument before he was banned (and was given notice it was coming and extensions). This leaves forfeiting the third round an active choice.

Note: The definition of "SYSTEMIC racism" is a little flawed, as leadership and/or systems within any institution can commit it. However, it should still function just fine for this debate.

PRO's CONSTRUCTIVE:
1 Contention: BLM’s Misguided Agenda
Pro does a detailed if fairly standard opening. As was "BLM has had no agenda to reduce black-on-black violence, meaning no solvency."
A highlight was property damage committed against blacks by BLM protests, which con challenges citing that a white guy looted a mall and blamed BLM. Pro calls back to the amount of damages, leaving the white looter inflating the numbers unchallenged (I actually got curious enough to read the whole article, and it would have been very easy to flip as he did not loot or vandalise anything).

2. Contention: BLM’s Ideology
A highlight was the way people of any heritage may raise themselves from poor to middle class.
Con wisely accepts the Marxism angle, and talks about how it better represents them than some people, and they stand up for the poor. Pro defends that capitalism has decreased worldwide poverty by a massive amount in in just a few decades, and asks con to demonstrate how Marxism has improved poor black communities.
Con challenges the claim that they attack Christian values (not sure why that was in there anyway). Marxism ties in, the value of the family unit, the harm of unwed mothers... While I see that both debaters want to explore this, it's honestly it's not holding my attention the way the destroyed infrastructure did.

CON'S CONSTRUCTIVE:
Con opens with a complaint that pro did not list the good BLM does... That is kinda not how a debate like this usually goes, as con's constructive should be providing the benefits to be weighed by voters against pro's harms. Con seems to be attempting a discourse Kritik, that pro was wrong to say unkind things about BLM in this comparative debate.

Con asserts without evidence that it has uplifted the poor, and says they were responsible for #MeToo via the butterfly effect.

Sources:
This leans pretty far in pro's favor. We end up with sources like Fortune describing the protests (tied to BLM) trying to destroy wealth in Chicago with millions of damages in that one city, vs someone unlikeable being caught wandering a mall during a riot. Even taking the mall source as it was presented, that's one out of a few thousand, without showing a general trend of the looting actually being white youtubers. Con's R2 broken links, sealed the deal, reducing many of his important claims there to just assertions.

Conduct: Forfeiture and structure violations.

S&G: Con's lack of headings hurt the organization of his case, but not by enough to cost this.