Instigator / Con
8
1553
rating
24
debates
56.25%
won
Topic
#2294

Black Lives Matter (movement)

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
12
Better sources
4
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
0
4

After 4 votes and with 20 points ahead, the winner is...

bronskibeat
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
28
1545
rating
3
debates
100.0%
won
Description

Death23 is Con. Resolution: This house would support the black lives matter movement.

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

A Forfeit would in-arguably lead to the PRO winning, but there was an entire debate before hand, only letting out one round, let's explore it shall we?

Arguments:
Round 1:
Con starts with a argument that's central points are as follows: BLM is ethnocentric movement, BLM will spread false information, and that BLM is a relatively small impact issues by comparing death statistics. The sources are promising, but a notably cherry picking of data is apparent, given sources later provided by PRO
Pro noticeably does not provide a case, instead critiquing Con's case. Pro does indeed respond to every point in Con's initial case, providing sufficient sources and reasoning to rebut these claims.

Overall I'd agree with some of the voter's below that Con would have been much more convincing had they provided clear definitions of the terms being used, and clarified the BoP for all parties sooner in. Pro was convincing, but it is true they would have had a much better start had they provided a constructive and not just a rebuttal.

Round 2:
Con starts out by correctly mentioning that Pro has not fulfilled their BoP; however, the straw man that follow is not nearly as correct. Not only are their no sources provided for any of the claims within the beginning of the argument, but some of their "points" are simply repeated gs from Round 1. Not to mention that half of Con's rebuttal's are simply a dismissal without proper evidence.
Pro does provide a case to support BLM, short and to the point, and well-sourced. This time Pro elaborates on a point that Con simply dismissed in their round, to most every point that Con brought up actually. Correcting some factually incorrect claims that Con had made, with sourcing abundant in their argument.

Overall- this is the last round of the debate, and as such, I'll critique it as such. Last we left off, Con provided very little sources, simply dismisses several arguments without evidence, and every one of Con's comparison's dismantled by Pro.

Bonus: Pro further summarizes, why they have fulfilled their burden, and ties up some loose ends that the round had left off at.

Sources: While Con does provide sources, they are relatively lightly spread throughout their first argument, and nearly nonexistent in their second. This is compared to Pro who provides a source for nearly every point argued.

Conduct: Lack of sourcing on Con's part, Forfeit on last round, etc

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

Con spread disinformation and commited libel regarding BLM, Pro put the right-wing bigot in his/her place and schooled him/her.

Con says utter nonsense like that BLM is ethnocentric and after all these false claims uses a link that doesn't even support this lie. The usage of sources is so incomparably different in skill level and reliability that I'm not sure I need to say more. Pro uses a variety of solid sources such as USCC.Gov, Forbes.Com and JusticePolicy.Org, each to slam home raised points as valid.

Con literally has 0 contentions that are true, literally. Just a series of disinformation and lies that Pro rips to shreds systematically slamming home the points of unfair sentencing, wrongful conviction and much more for black people and explains how it's the poor (who are majority black) and the biases against black people that are why BLM focuses on blacks, not the actual race being itself the focus.

In fact the strongest paragraph for me was this:

"The reality is that black people dying at the hands of police simply doesn't have enough of an objective impact to justify the focus placed on it by the BLM movement. This is a misplaced priority, an undue focus, an overreaction, etc. Problems in policing are important and shouldn't be ignored, but they're not THAT important. Pro characterizing my position as "smaller issues should be ignored" is a straw-man argument. I didn't say that."

This encapsulates the way Pro could have retorted each and every one of Con's vile lies about the great movement that is BLM.

Conduct for pure lies based on bigotry from Con, as well as a Round 3 forfeit. Con intentionally misrepresents Pro's case and the importance of police abuse, which further justifies the loss of Conduct point.

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

Important and timely subject, well argued with strong engagement on both sides. Good debate.

CON's most important mistake was failure to define terms and BoP. This VOTER is confident that given if CON had refined the field of play and defined a few essential terms, CON's argument would prove far more persuasive. Since Burden of Proof was not defined, this VOTER applies the default- INSTIGATOR bears to burden.

R1
CON: BLM ethno-centric/ethno-supremacist, divisive
focus on black people implies less worth , integration with non-black
*cites short term harms to community trust
PRO counters focus on black oppression need not imply supremacy or exclusion
*cites BLM mission statement (not a very persuasive source on arg)

BLM promotes false narratives
*cites Michael Brown w/ good evidence
*cites Trayvon Martin w/out evidence (what BLM false narratives?)
PRO counters with stats vs. anecdote. BLM getting some facts wrong re: some specific case does not prove false narrative more convincingly than USFG stats.
(best arg of debate, PRO wins this arg)
BLM distracts from bigger problems
*cites black murder rates
*coronavirus
*2.8 mil dead in 2018 (how does less distraction improve this stat?)
PRO concedes smaller issue but argues that racist govt. violence is part of larger continuum and that BLM is multi-issue movement.
(push, PRO's counter is weak but CON's appeal to worse problems (Fallacy of Relative Privation) is a classic non-persuader for this VOTER)

R2
CON doubles and triples down on BLM only cares about Black issues
*cites no evidence
self-*contradicts by arguing that it is "standard for people to value insiders above outsiders" If BLM is exhibiting pretty standard stuff than what is CON's complaint?
*CON's claim is so absolute (if you're not black then you're not part of BLM) that PRO's two examples of protesting Hispanic deaths effectively counter.
CON loses cred built in R1 here.
CON drops False Narrative "big picture" args.
PRO wisely concedes anecdotal falsehoods and expands big picture with local and Fed findings of racist conduct, justifying BLM's concerns in the big picture.
PRO wins false narrative arguments. Demonstrating that an organization persists in at least one false narrative does not justify non-support. Name some large org that does not collectively persist in at least one false narrative- religions, govts, fraternal orders, etc.
PRO effectively shows that BLM is more than just some falsehoods from Ferguson.
PRO effectively shuts down the "bigger problems" argument by opening several affirmative arguments documenting the impacts of racism on the black community and the positive national impacts inspired by BLM protests.
CON undermines his "bigger problems" argument further by bringing up the national response to George Floyd's death. Clearly, much of the nation agreed with BLM's concerns and priorities this summer.
PRO really pulled ahead in R2 and unfortunately CON forfeited R3- assuring that
ARGUMENTS go to PRO
PRO clearly had the edge in SOURCES but not sufficient to warrant PRO
CONDUCT to PRO for CON's forfeit

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

CON gives the slightly predictable argument that BLM is a strongly ethnocentric movement. CON argues that instead we should abandon racial identities entirely. He also gives the more strong argument that BLM spreads false propaganda to further its cause, an inherently harmful endeavor. Finally, CON argues that BLM distracts from more important issues, like black on black violence.

PRO gives the tried and true response that "BLM does not imply no other lives matter." PRO responds to the false propaganda argument by saying that the core message of BLM is the empowerment of mistreated black people, even if they are not 100% accurate on every case. I feel like this response ignores the core issue CON brings up, which is that misinformation hurts people. Still, it at least demonstrates there is a systematic issue to be addressed. PRO has a very solid response to CON's distraction point: "I disagree with the logic that because a larger issue exists, that smaller issues should be ignored. This is the same argument that anti-maskers use to downplay the severity of COVID19. Indeed, BLM has a section of their website devoted to COVID19 resources: https://blacklivesmatter.com/covid-19-resources/"

From here on out CON basically rehashes his R1 arguments with some disproportionate focus on the weaker citations from PRO.

PRO finally gets around to responding to the core contention with Michael Brown. PRO introduces more positive points.

VERDICT:

Look, I'm writing this as someone who generally has very little good to say about BLM... but CON, you've got to come with a more organized case than that. It felt more like a forum rant than anything. PRO, good job picking apart his arguments. My one piece of advice is to really contend that core issue of misinformation instead of just outweighing it.

Conduct to PRO for forfeit.