Instigator / Pro
0
1468
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#2519
#BLM is an unnecessary movement.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Intelligence_06
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description
I think it is important for me to state that I believe black lives matter, however am very against the #BLM movement. It is a Marxist organisation which manipulates the media, taking small snippets of footage and dramatically twisting it in favour of their narrative. In accepting this debate, you believe that #BLM is a necessary movement, as black people are being targeted by a systemically racist police force.
Round 1
Pro
#1
There is an estimated 375 million UD police interactions every year. In 2019, 999 ended in shooting fatalities by police (three thousandths percent). Of those 13 of the 999 were black men 1 women. (four millionths percent). Only 1 of those was not attempting to resist or evade arrest. (three ten-millionths percent). Last year, 1000 people were killed by police. (This number includes dangerous criminals such as shooter). As a point of comparison, there is an estimated of 440, 000 deaths from care in hospitals, which constitutes for roughly one-sixth of all deaths that occur in the United States each year.
In America, black people constitute thirteen point four percent of the population. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, black individuals commit fifty-three point one percent of murder, fifty-four point three percent of robbery and forty-three point nine percent of illegal weapon possession. Remember, they consist of less than an eighth of the American population. This year, 287 white men were shot by police and 142 black men were shot. Before you say "but there are so many more white people" it is important to note that people are not shot purely by chance, they are shot for the crimes that they commit. The population ratio means nothing, it is the ratio of violent crime which matters. People are shot for the crimes they commit, and as it turns out, black people commit a large amount of crime.
However, BLM folks are quite literally blind to these facts. So they point to individual cases. In the following, I will discuss the cases of Breonna Taylor, Jacob Black and Tamir Rice perhaps three of the most severely twisted by lefties.
Breonna Taylor
Breonna Taylor was dating and was almost certainly working with a drug trafficker. (According to the 44 page warrant which you can visit yourself on Tatumreport.com, Breonna Taylor was deeply involved with the drug empire). The police were granted a no knock warrant, however out of courtesy, the officers still knocked. The boyfriend grabbed a handgun and began firing at the police officers. The police retaliated and an officer is shot in the leg. Breonna Taylor came into the hallway was sadly caught in the cross fire and killed.
In order to prosecute these officers, lawyers need to show that
A fraudulent warrant was involved
That the officers were aware the warrant was fraudulent
That excessive force was used
All three of these situation have been found to be false. The warrant has been closely examined and found that Breonna Taylor was in fact involved in drugs. The officers went in justly, and when shots were fired and an officer was shot to the floor, they retaliated in self defence.
Somehow, the left wing media has turned this very story into the following; police kick down the wrong door, go to Breonna Taylors room and shoot her in her sleep because she is black. It's actually quite amazing how one can twist the facts into their favour. It is important that a difference needs to be drawn between a tragedy and a racist crime.
Jacob Blake
Jacob Blake was shot 7 times in the back as he reached into his car. This event happened shortly after he was openly resisting arrest, While reaching into his SUV. It is important to note that Jacob Black had a history of assaulting police, Past charges of domestic abuse and sex crimes which resulted in a warrant for his arrest. Is there any evidence that this was racially motivated? No. Is there evidence that there was no weapon in the car? No. Does the video show Jacob Black resisting? Yes. Why do all shootings have to be racially motivated, why can it not just be the police protecting their citizens?
Tamir Rice
The case of Tamir Rice was one of an unfortunate misunderstanding. A man called a dispatcher and notified them that there was a boy waving a gun around "scaring the sh*t out of everyone" and that the gun was probably fake. This information was not relayed to the police and the officers thought they were encountering a dangerous situation. Upon arrival, The officers yelled "put the gun down", to which Tamir Rice ignored and pointed his pellet gun at. However, Some might argue that Tamir was just a little child and that he was not a threat. To that, I redirect you to the James Bulger case, Where a two year old horrifically murdered by two ten year olds. They abducted him, Beat him with a metal rod, Sexually assaulted him and finally tied him onto a train track where he was run over. In no way am I comparing these two killers to Tamir Rice. I am simply showing that officers should approach each case with caution regardless of age, even more so when an alleged firearm is involved.
What has BLM achieved
Perhaps my opponent could help me here, because I am truly bamboozled by what these folks think they are achieving. The following is all I could find. There have been over 1000 police officers injured, 36 people killed and over 8 billion dollars worth of property damage. And for what? Ninety percent of black people killed were killed by other black people last year, one can hardly blame white people for racially targeting black men. Why do cities have to be burnt down for this ten percent? Why don't they fix their own crime to prevent a significant number of deaths from occurring? Despite all this evidence, some hard-core lefties may still argue that black people are just targeted in this country. In that case, how did Barack Obama become the president? How can Jay Z make a billion dollars speaking quickly into a mic? How can Oprah make millions hosting a talk show? How could Michael Jordan make million from throwing an orange ball around? The reason is that there is one thing stopping black people from being successful and that is hard work, something people of all skin colour need to do.
Conclusion
In your first argument, I would like you to provide answers to the following questions.
Why is BLM a necessary movement?
How are black people oppressed?
Why does anger constitute to a viable argument?
What would you have done if there was an active shooter and a fellow officer was shot in the leg?
What would you have done if a boy pointed what you thought was a gun at you?
What would you have done if you came in contact a man whom you knew had a history of assaulting officers and he reached into his SUV?
Why assaulting officers is justified?
How the people I listed previously got into positions of power (don't say they got lucky. One does not become a president simply out of luck)
Con
#2
An impressive argument for a 15-year-old, however, I still respectfully disagree. The situation I am in is equivalent to a shackled prisoner voluntarily fighting a free man, but why must I fight? Because I know that the free man is incorrect about this topic.
Rebuttal: Tamir Rice and Jacob Blake
It is important to note that Jacob Black had a history of assaulting police, Past charges of domestic abuse and sex crimes which resulted in a warrant for his arrest. Is there any evidence that this was racially motivated? No. Is there evidence that there was no weapon in the car? No. Does the video show Jacob Black resisting? Yes.
Bolded sentence illustrates a fallacy by ignorance. Pro did not prove that there WOULD BE weapons in the car at all. Jacob Blake, although was guilty of some crimes, does not deserve to be shot to near-fatal states compared to other crime committers, especially White Americans.
For example, Kyle Rittenhouse, a White Amerian teenager with a gun has shot more than three people, yet he is peacefully arrested, the cops did not shoot him and he was arrested like any normal person that committed a non-felony charge[1], whereas Blake has only resisted the cops with possibly the same weight of crimes, but this time he is shot to near-fatal states. How is this fair when a White person actively breaking the law get peacefully arrested whereas a Black person who has only a criminal record gets shot on the back?
That brings me to Tamir Rice. You have a white teenager illegally carrying a gun and killing/injuring people on the scene and not being shot once by the cops whereas the cops killed a kid that has a weakened gun and isn't even shooting it. Is this fair at all? The police are designed to serve justice, not to kill people when they are not supposed to. I inquire evidence that merely threatening the police with a gun warrants for death, as I am in China with a limited knockoff internet. I don't need to have evidence of that yet, because as long as Pro does not bring up evidence for that, I stand the ground on this that Tamir Rice was unjustly killed.
The officers have every reason to disarm and inspect the gun, but no, they shot him, because he was black, partly.
I have proved that two out of those three are killed unjustly. If Kyle Rittenhouse is not killed by the police, then neither should they be.
By some reasons else, somehow fabricating a check warrants for death for a black man. That is unjust[2].
Argument: Black Lives, they DO matter
Pass. Even my opponent recognizes that it is correct. Do I need to say anything more?
Argument: Black people indeed face systemic racism
I got zero ideas if I am using the same source as Pro, but hey, Black people are killed in more proportions compared to Whites[3]. They would also be more prone to get in the jail for similar crimes, and that they may serve longer sentences[4]. That is just a few examples. The fact that Blake and Rice are killed but not Rittenhouse perfectly illustrates this.
Legally, Blacks are exposed to systemic racism. Black people also earn less than their white counterparts, on average[5]. Teachers are also more likely to label black students as troublemakers, for some reason[6]. Job employers are less likely to hire someone with a name originated from the Black culture[7]. There is no need for me to drone on and on. These are just a few of extremely many examples of how Black people face racism in the United States of America.
If Black people are a victim of systemic racism, then there must be a force against it. BLM is thus, necessary.
Sure, you can just kritik that the movement is "Black Lives Matter", not "#BLM", but it is what it is, and even my opponent agreed on the same movement. BLM is the main movement against white-on-black systemic racism, and since the problem exists, it is undoubtedly necessary, no matter how it is carried out, good or bad[8]. Marxism-Leninism is real communism, National Socialism is not real communism. You cannot blame on Communism the examples that are not real communism, for that if Communism is necessary, these examples do not make it unnecessary.
Conclusions:
- Systemic Racism exists against Black Americans in many different ways and is concerning
- BLM is meant to solve this issue that exists
- BLM is necessary
Round 2
Pro
#3
Thank you for your kind compliment. I also, respectfully disagree with your points.
Section 1
Counter Rebuttal
Bolded sentence illustrates a fallacyby ignorance. Pro did not prove that there WOULD BE weapons in the car at all.Jacob Blake, although was guilty of some crimes, does not deserve to be shot tonear-fatal states compared to other crime committers, especially WhiteAmericans.
When a police officer apprehends an individual, their are three situations in which officers are permitted to use lethal force.
- Suspected of a "severe" crime,
- Posing an immediate threat to officers, and
- Actively resisting arrest.
- In the case of Jacob Blake, the suspect was indeed involved in a severe crime. Officers were informed by the dispatcher that there was a wanted man at the cite of apprehension and that there was a warrant for Blakes arrest for a third-degree sexual assault.
- Jacob Blake was indeed an immediate threat to the officers when he reached into his SUV and reached into the cup holder. At this point, officers could not determine what Blake was grabbing , which immediately raised the threat of which they were in.
- This point is quite self explanatory. The whole video captured Blake resisting arrest. He ignored all orders to drop his knife, and even forcefully put one of the officers in a headlock. According to the police union,
"Based on the inability to gain compliance and control after using verbal, physical and less-lethal means, the officers drew their firearms,"
This brings me to the bold sentence above. I, nor the police need to prove that their is a weapon in order to use lethal forces. As long one of the three criteria's occur, the police can legally use their pistols.
Kyle Rittenhouse
The situation of Kyle Rittenhouse is quite different to Jacob Blake, in fact, it is quite ironic that you bring him up. One reaches into their car and proceeds gets shot, the other puts his hand in the air and doesn't get shot. This is a key point which I will revisit later. Rittenhouse is a 17 year old boy who was protesting on the streets of Kenosha. In the footage, a gang of 5+ teens/adults are chasing Rittenhouse when he trips and falls on the ground. You can clearly hear that one man screams "get his ass", while the men circle around him. One man jumps at Rittenhouse with a skateboard, to which he responded by shooting in self defence. Then the men go after him, one by one being shot by a presumably terrified Rittenhouse. After the men scatter, Rittenhouse walks towards the police vehicle with his hands in the air. If you revisit the three criteria's which allow an officer to use lethal force, not one was broken. Rittenhouse was not suspected of any crimes. Rittenhouse was not posing an immediate threat to the police while walking towards them with his hands in the air and Rittenhouse was not resisting arrest.
This is exactly the danger of identity politics. Human beings can be divided in an infinite amount of ways. We can segregate men from women, tall from short, intelligent to unintelligent, black from white and brunettes to blonds. However, this is a one way road to chaos. When inspecting Rittenhouse and Blake, their a countless number of physical differences between then. Besides race, one is taller, one weighs more, one has larger feet and one is older than the other. Why divide by race? Why divide at all is the real question. Apprehension is not based on physical appearance, it is based on the crime or threat you pose. Imagine this. Imagine if Blake was Asian and the same situation played out. An Asian man resists arrest, walks around the hood of his car, opens his SUV door and reaches in. How will you feel about this? I have found that ironically, a white lives matter movement would be more relevant in todays society, as a white straight man is always assumed to be a sexist, white supremist. But that's another topic for another day.
Tamir Rice
You have a white teenagerillegally carrying a gun and killing/injuring people on the scene and not beingshot once by the cops whereas the cops killed a kid that has a weakened gun andisn't even shooting it. Is this fair at all?
I agree with the first part, somewhat. It is idiotic for anyone to be roaming the streets with AR-15, however, it may have saved his life. I'm not saying the act of carrying the weapon wasn't wrong, in fact, he should be charged like anyone else for that. You then state that he is killing/injuring people on the street and you express surprise as to why he was not shot. I have essentially debunked the second half of that, so will not go over it again. According to the dictionary, self defence is
The defence of one's person or interests, especially through the use of physical force, which is permitted in certain cases as an answer to a charge of violent crime.
The footage clearly shows that Rittenhouse was in immediate danger, and therefore acted within reason. It is important to note that he wasn't just firing blindly into a crowd like a maniac, he was shooting the people charging at him with skateboards and planks.
You then state that it isn't fair that Tamir wasn't even shooting. To this I ask, when is it too late? Do you want to wait until shots are fired? Do you want to wait until someone's bleeding out next to you? Returning once again to my three criteria for use of lethal force, Tamir ticks the 2nd criteria as he is posing a direct threat by pointing what they thought was a pistol at them. As I stated before, this is a matter of miscommunication. The person who called the dispatcher stated that
He's scaring the sh*t out of everyone... [the gun] is probably fake
Although the dispatcher forgot to relay that piece of information, I do believe that the police can still be justified. Imagine the danger the police would be in if the gun was real. Remember, even the man who called the dispatcher wasn't certain it was a toy. The police should approach every situation with caution, especially if an alleged firearm is present. Upon arriving to the scene, the police did in fact yell, "put down the gun", which was of course ignored. You state that the police could
disarm and inspect the gun, butno, they shot him
Do you think the police have quicksilver reaction? The bezel was pointed at the officer. He believed that his life was in legitimate danger. Also, according to this reasoning, all shooters should be disarmed and have their guns inspected, since their is no way to determine whether anyone's guns are real, including fully grown individuals.
Black people indeed facesystemic racism response
Claim: Black people are killed in more proportions compared to whites.
Correct, but it's not what you think. Consider this for a moment. If you picked 100 people randomly, 13 would be black and 76 would be white. Now, if you had 100 dead bodies in a room, 53 of them would be because of those 13 people. Think! If you had another room full of robbery victims, 54 of the victims will be because of those 13 black men.
Now, one may say that "but you are nit picking and choosing the numbers which suit your narrative. White people are at the top of the list for other crimes such as rape and burglary". However, this is purely due to the sheer number of white individuals living in America. Returning to my room of people analogy, those 76 white men would be responsible for 67 rapes. Which number looks nicer? 76 white men committing 67 rapes, or 13 black men committing 52 murders?
Claim: They would also be moreprone to get in the jail for similar crimes, and that they may serve longersentences
Correct. Completely correct. However, there is a key factor which you have neglected. The reason for black individuals having longer sentences is because the average black criminal has as more problematic record than the average white criminal, and since your past convictions are taken into consideration when the judge decides your sentencing, the average black male does indeed have a longer sentence. There is a commission called the US sentencing Commission federal board which oversees all sentencings. When questioned about black individuals having harsher sentences, they stated that the difference can be explained by "legitimate factors." Even if this was true (it's not) and black men really were getting longer sentences because of their race, then where are the lawsuits against this racist criminal justice system? If this was proven to be true, one could get treble damages which equates to a multi-million dollar pay-out. Surely, someone would have pointed out the elephant in the room and had it fixed and cashed out if it really was a legitimate issue. The reason this has not occurred is because the data does not support the racism claim. It is false.
Claim: Black people also earn lessthan their white counterparts, on average
There is a wonderful book written by Satoshi Kanazawa, which debunks this entirely. It is quite similar to the "gender wage gap" myth thrown out by the left. Essentially, it is nothing to do with race and everything to do with choice. In short, it is illegal to pay a black individual less than a white man who has the same qualifications, just like how it is illegal to pay a women less than a man. If this were the case, than Mc Donald's would strategically employ black women as they can be payed less. The gap measures over all wealth, which doesn't take in account occupation, qualification and hours dedicated. Not only that but it is actually illegal to pay someone less because of their race. Like I mentioned in my last paragraph, if this were the case, then where is the law suit? There will be an extraordinarily large pay out to anyone who puts an end to this injustice. Of course, the reason this hasn't occurred is because it is false.
Claim: Teachers are also morelikely to label black students as troublemakers, for some reason
Also correct. However, you once again neglect a key factor by ignoring the critical data regarding disciplinary disparities: do black students in fact misbehave more than white students? You assume that black students and white students act identically in class and proceeds to document their different rates of discipline, a fatal flaw. According to federal data black male teenagers between the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicide at nearly 10 times the rate of white male teenagers of the same age (the category “white” in this homicide data includes most Hispanics; if Hispanics were removed from the white category, the homicide disparity between blacks and whites would be much higher). That higher black homicide rate indicates a failure of socialization; teen murderers of any race lack impulse control and anger-management skills. Lesser types of juvenile crime also show large racial disparities. It is fanciful to think that the lack of socialization that produces such elevated rates of criminal violence would not also affect classroom behaviour.
Section 2
#BLM does not care about black lives
Back in May, when this whole situation arose, the #BLM folks did indeed protest against police brutality (doesn't exist). However, they quickly evolved into an organisation which debates over the validity of rioting, looting defunding the police and tearing down statues of Christopher Columbus. The following is an exert from a piece written by lawyer and chief editor of the Daily wire, Ben Shapiro.
In Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser emblazoned the enormous yellow words "BLACK LIVES MATTER" on 16th Street. Protesters quickly added "DEFUND THE POLICE." One month later, 11-year-old Davon McNeal was shot in the head while heading to a family cookout on July 4. His grandfather, John Ayala, lamented: "We're protesting for months, for weeks, saying, 'Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter.' Black lives matter it seems like, only when a police officer shoots a black person. What about all the black-on-black crime that's happening in the community?"McNeal was just one of the latest victims of a wave of violence gripping America's major cities. Last weekend, at least 89 people were shot in Chicago, leaving at least 17 dead. Shootings in Philadelphia have spiked 67%. In the first week of June, Los Angeles saw a shocking 250% increase in murders from the prior week. New York City's shootings have skyrocketed 44% over last year's numbers; every person shot there the week of June 29 — 101 — was from a minority community.
It turns out that the agenda of Black Lives Matter, which includes fighting against the prevalence of police — a call taken up by Democratic mayors and city councils around the United States — endangers Black lives far more than the presence of police.
If black lives really mattered, then why are black peoples stores being broken into? If #BLM really believed that black need help, then they should be tutoring the disadvantaged kids, doing yard work, painting houses and helping black individuals with their lives instead of breaking into LV stores and snagging some Louis bags for themselves. (I will get into more detail in my next argument, as I am close to hitting my word limit)
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, last year, 549 48 white men were killed by black people, while 59 778 black men were killed by white men. Like I mentioned before, white lives are actually more in more danger than black lives. #WLM
Questions for you to clarify
How are black people oppressed?
What would you have done if a boy pointed what you thought was a gun at you? (Since you continued to mention Tamir Rice)
What would you have done if you came in contact a man whom you knew had a history of assaulting officers and he reached into his SUV? (Since you continued to mention Jacob Blake)
How did Barack Obama get elected in a supposedly racist country which only has a population of 12 percent black people?
Miscellaneous
Me saying "I believe black lives matter, but am against #BLM isn't some sort of paradoxal kritik". I believe that the movement is detached from the meaning and have very clearly stated why
Conclusion
Good points overall, however, you are yet to convince me that #BLM is necessary.
The Myth of Racial Discrimination in Pay in the United States - Satoshi Kanazawa
Con
#4
Very impressive arguments.
1: Stopping about individuals
I won't waste thousands of characters arguing about four people and what happened to them. Let's just contemplate as if those people got whatever they deserved, and I can still prove well that BLM is needed.
(Also, my opponent completely dropped the point on George Floyd, the guy who fabricated a check and died for it. In no way is that fair at all. As well I could bring up the tale of Michael Brown, which the police officer murdered him without charges. Sure, Michael Brown had criminal records serious enough to let the police use lethal forces, but the police openly murdered someone they thought had no criminal record[1].)
2: Systemic Racism
Correct, but it's not what you think. Consider this for a moment. If you picked 100 people randomly, 13 would be black and 76 would be white. Now, if you had 100 dead bodies in a room, 53 of them would be because of those 13 people. Think! If you had another room full of robbery victims, 54 of the victims will be because of those 13 black men.
The group "Black people of the United States" is too broad, and it is not like any gang in the college. Just because Blacks commit more crimes doesn't mean you have to be more suspicious on Black people. My opponent clearly brings up that everyone SHOULD be equal, and I agree. Keeping tracks of tens of millions of people as of a few characteristics, other than that they have black skins, would probably be irrational just like having stereotypes for White people, other than for them to have White skin, would be harmful. It is ironic that my opponent brings up "It is ironic that a white lives matter movement would be relevant because White straight men would be considered sexist and racist", because he is perpetuating the stereotype that Black people would commit crimes. The crime history of the Black people is the past and cannot be redefined(and my opponent tagged ZERO articles, so unless the articles I am going to list agrees with that, it could be dismissed as a baseless claim), but the reason is not to blame the Black people, down the root.
The reason is that Black people are historically within poverty, and poor people are more likely to engage in whatever they are doing now[2]. So, why are the police killing Black people? Because they commit more crimes? Because they are less rich. Although we could not put blame on the White people alone, the historical systemic racism has caused this, due to that until the recent 160 years, Black people are slaves and are not granted proper human rights. Who caused this? White people. It is still White people to blame even though they don't carry all the blame for everything everywhere at all times sitting on the side of the Black people.
The police are supposed to do justice, not to be scums of society that everyone frowns upon. While the average Black killer could be insane and immoral to the roots, it is completely unacceptable for people the same kind to be in a team that is supposed protect the masses. My opponent did not refute my statistics about police killings, because it is the fact. It is less acceptable for a system of justice to kill Black people and walk away compared to Black people killing others as a criminal. It is easy: The former is trusted to do good deeds whereas the latter is not. It is BLM to monitor so that the people we trust with the community won't kill other people like the peopple we look and frown upon, especially racially, since Black people are killed more by the police.
We especially entrust the police to guard the community, yet there is about a thousand people killed by the said group per year. Sounds like the mafia of some sort, a very dominant one, judging from the bolded? Nope, it is the police. It is ironic that in 2019 only 22 people are killed on death penalty machines[3], the machines that are supposed to carry out deaths of criminals, a number far below the usage of firearms under an entrusted group, designated so, especially since some killed by the police have no crime severe enough for death penalty, merely prison, especially Black people. I don't get how non-aggravated assault, that is not considered even a felony in some states, the support of a drug group, the usage of a model gun by a kid, and a FABRICATED CHECK grants for death. I really don't. BLM is there to stop incidents like this. We do not want incidents like this, BLM is there.
Not only that but it is actually illegal to pay someone less because of their race. Like I mentioned in my last paragraph, if this were the case, then where is the law suit? There will be an extraordinarily large pay out to anyone who puts an end to this injustice. Of course, the reason this hasn't occurred is because it is false.
Supported by "Less likely to be hired" argument, Black people are given less opportunities. Notice how my opponent refutes every claim except for that one? Oh yeah, it is coming together. One problem has a cause, and responding to not that cause solves not that problem.
Also correct. However, you once again neglect a key factor by ignoring the critical data regarding disciplinary disparities: do black students in fact misbehave more than white students? You assume that black students and white students act identically in class and proceeds to document their different rates of discipline, a fatal flaw.
All the Australians have called us a nerd, therefore I will know you will call me a nerd and I will hate you, for no reason at all beforehand! If you are an Australian would you tolerate this? Just because some Black students may commit crimes, that does not mean all Blacks are troublemakers. I, a student who used to go to School in the United States, have seen graduation years upon graduation years where Black students get straight A's, and labeling these obedient, hardworking students as troublemakers would not be justified. Systemic racism continues.
3: A functional movement
#BLM does not care about black livesBack in May, when this whole situation arose, the #BLM folks did indeed protest against police brutality (doesn't exist). However, they quickly evolved into an organisation which debates over the validity of rioting, looting defunding the police and tearing down statues of Christopher Columbus. The following is an exert from a piece written by lawyer and chief editor of the Daily wire, Ben Shapiro.
I have solved it last round. I will recite it in the gray text block below.
Marxism-Leninism is real communism, National Socialism is not real communism. You cannot blame on Communism the examples that are not real communism(The mass crimes committed against Jews should not be counted under Communism, despite the name "National Socialism"), for that if Communism is necessary, these examples do not make it unnecessary.
Just because the BLM movement now did not work, it does not negate the need of such a movement. Wait, did it not work? Hold on a sec, it did, alright, mate?
Nah, it is working[4]. BLM is pushing towards its goal. A nonfunctional movement does not undermine the demand of such an movement, let alone one that works. Such a movement is not only necessary(considering racism exists in the US), but it is somewhat working. My opponent would need to deny the facts of racism against Blacks, which he did not.
Considering BLM monopolised the racism-against-black-lives-movement column, we could easily adjust it so it could be more perfect. The demand is always there and there is a movement here. Let's just say if it works then keep it, and if it doesn't, revise it. It is as foolish of a thing to say that BLM is completely unnecessary as that anarchy need a government.
My opponent quotes Ben Shapiro and only him for an entire point. This is a problem. This guy is the definition of a conservative person and even denies racism in the system[5], which is incorrect. Quoting someone is fine, but facts don't care about his feelings: His "facts" are sometimes wrong.
4: Questions
I will answer my opponent's questions because so far, I have used only 1/2 of the total wordcount.
How are black people oppressed?
You press the center wheel of the mouse, hover on the top half of the screen for a little bit until you see a Max Stirner picture. Uses something else? Wait till you buy a mouse or just get one. Short answer: Look above.
What would you have done if a boy pointed what you thought was a gun at you? (Since you continued to mention Tamir Rice)
I disarm him. Again, the Chinese police force are trained to do such a feat. Police reform is a goal of BLM, and if we are just gonna let the police kill those boys who are playing, then they are the real mutted incompetence.
What would you have done if you came in contact a man whom you knew had a history of assaulting officers and he reached into his SUV? (Since you continued to mention Jacob Blake)
I arrest him. Shooting is unnecessary, especially fatally. Even if he truly deserved to die, let the death row machines do the job in the prison.
How did Barack Obama get elected in a supposedly racist country which only has a population of 12 percent black people?
People voted him. That is irrelevant, I ask you: How did Yang get elected as a potential democratic candidate in a nation where Asians are potentially being potentially discriminated against[6]? Same thing. It is unrelated. One man being elected president doesn't mean there are millions of other people suffering. Just because a proletariat get elected the chairman doesn't mean he won't stop giving the proletariat a hard time. Is it even related at all, for Obama and the other Black people?
I conclude. The police needs working and the Black people face systemic racism. BLM exists and attempts to solve these things. It is necessary, whether if it did its job correctly or not.
Round 3
Pro
#5
First off, I would like to thank my opponent for a civil andproductive conversation. I would also like to thank those who gave me a warmwelcome to debateart, as this is my first debate. Now, to my points.
Interesting overall however, I feel that some of my points weremisrepresented and sidestepped. But no matters, I shall clear everything up.
1: Individuals
I too will wrap up about the case on individual persons. However, Imust state that the two people you bought up do not impact the argument. GeorgeFloyd, an armed robber, cocaine user, who was high when apprehended and had fatallevel of fentanyl in his system, and Michael Brown, the drug dabblingindividual who reached for the officer’s gun after charging him, forcing thepolice to fire. Again, revisiting my trusty three criteria’s, Floyd and Brown bothcheck multiple boxes, therefore giving officers permission to use lethal force.
2:Systemic Racism rebuttal
The following are the claims which I made in my previous argument,followed by your response, followed now by my rebuttal.
Cons claim: Black people are killed in more proportions compared towhites.
Rebuttal: This is because black people of the United States commit a substantialamount of crime compared to white people. They constitute to 12% of thepopulation and commit over half the murders.
Cons rebuttal: The group "Black people of the United States" is toobroad, and it is not like any gang in the college. Just because Blacks commitmore crimes doesn't mean you have to be more suspicious on Black people
Response: Notice how the contention was “Black people are killed in moreproportions compared to whites” and was then twisted into “This does notjustify black teens being harshly punished, it’s not like gangs are at school”.First off, there are gangs at schools, but more importantly, my response wasnot directed at the punishment of black students, it was a rebuttal to yourstatement that black individuals are killed disproportionally.
Cons claim: They would also be more prone to get in the jail for similarcrimes, and that they may serve longer sentences
Rebuttal: The reason for black individuals having longer sentences isbecause the average black criminal has as more problematic record than theaverage white criminal, and since your past convictions are taken intoconsideration when the judge decides your sentencing, the average black maledoes indeed have a longer sentence. The US sentencing Commission federal board makessure of this.
Con’s rebuttal: To be confirmed.
Cons claim: Black people also earn less than their white counterparts, onaverage
Rebuttal: Essentially, it is nothing to do with race and everything todo with choice. In short, it is illegal to pay a black individual less than awhite man who has the same qualifications, just like how it is illegal to pay awomen less than a man.
Cons rebuttal: My claim is supported by "Less likely to be hired"argument, Black people are given less opportunities.
Response: There is an unneglectable difference between being payed less forthe same job as a white man, and not being hired. For example, if you calculatethe average income of each race without taking into consideration theirpersonal choice or ratio in population, you will find that Asian Americans earnthe most. Does this mean Asian Americans earn more for the same job? No, theyjust choose higher paying jobs.
Cons Claim: Teachers are also more likely to label black students astroublemakers
Rebuttal: You have neglected a key factor by ignoring the critical dataregarding disciplinary disparities: do black students in fact misbehavemore than white students? According to federal data black male teenagersbetween the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicide at nearly 10 times the rate ofwhite male teenagers of the same age (the category “white” in this homicidedata includes most Hispanics; if Hispanics were removed from the whitecategory, the homicide disparity between blacks and whites would be muchhigher).
Cons rebuttal: If you are an Australian would you tolerate this? Just becausesome Black students may commit crimes, that does not mean all Blacks aretroublemakers. I, a student who used to go to School in the United States, haveseen graduation years upon graduation years where Black students get straightA's, and labelling these obedient, hardworking students as troublemakers wouldnot be justified. Systemic racism continues.
Response: I am Australian, and I do tolerate punishing individuals whocommit 10 times more murder than a white man. I’m not too sure how this refutesthat fact that black teens, commit 10 times more murder than white and Hispanicindividuals combined. Revisiting the main contention that “Teachers are alsomore likely to label black students as troublemakers”, this would in fact be truebecause of the conscious actions of black teenagers, not their skin colour. Addressingyour second point regarding your fellow black student, that would be an anecdotalfallacy.
Cons claim: Job employers are less likely to hire someone with a nameoriginated from the Black culture
Rebuttal: I completely missed this point you made in your first argument,but no matters, I will provide my response. I’ve read through the study thatyou mentioned. One weakness of the study is that it simply measures callbacksfor interviews, not whether an applicant gets the job and what the wage for asuccessful applicant would be. So the results cannot be translated into hiringrates or earnings. Another problem of the study is that newspaper ads representonly one channel for job search. The study also used different states andsuburbs, which impacts employment rate, as poorer suburbs were less likely tobe hired.
3: A functional movement
You start by stating that it doesn’tmatter if #BLM is working and then proceed to shut down my quote from Mr. Shapiro.Then you mention that it is in fact working. Firstly, if you believe it does workthen you have to respond to Mr. Shapiros quote. Why does #BLM not care about McNeal? Why does #BLM not care about the 17 dead in Chicago? Why does #BLM not care about the 250% increase in murder in prior weeks?
You claim that;
Such a movement is not onlynecessary (considering racism exists in the US), but it is somewhat working. Myopponent would need to deny the facts of racism against Blacks, which he didnot.
Let me remind you, I, nor no other sane human being am not denying racism. I am denying systemic racism. Let me once again remind you that BLM's mission is to "work for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise". The movement is not fighting against individual racism, it is fighting against systemic racism.
On top of this, their is also the controversy of whether #BLM is actually working. The website that you linked included achievements such as;
Local leaders have backed efforts to remove statues in some cities and states.
Outstanding achievement
Such moves have not been limited to the U.S.: In Bristol in the United Kingdom, protesters tore down the stature of a slave trader and then rolled it into a river.
Outstanding achievement
Redirected at least $100 million to $150 million from the LAPD budget to disadvantaged communities and communities of colour. The mayor expressed support and pledged additional funds to support the Black community.
It seems rather racist for the mayor to support the black community. Imagine if the mayor had said instead "I pledge to help white children". Think about the back lash they would receive. Also, it seems rather counter intuitive for the left to suggest that police are bad and racist men and then proceeds to snag 150 million dollars away from them. If anything, the police should receive more money as they are so "incompetent".
This achievement does not coincide with their goal of "working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise". Conservatives are not denying that their are starving African children. Conservatives are not denying that their are black communities which could use some additional funds. We are denying systemic racism, not poverty. Poverty impacts people of all races. Have you seen the villages in rural China, where 8 year old children's live by themselves eating potatoes and dead rats while their parents work in factories for 20 hours a day? No on disagrees with giving money to the disadvantaged black community (although some would have a problem with where the money came from), but the action did not get BLM any closer to their goal of "working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise", it was simply an act of kindness.
The Miami Police department banned officers from using a “carotid restraint,” known as a chokehold.
Again, how does this rid the world of systemic racism? A carotid restraint can be used on people of all colour. This is just an organisation banning a dangerous choke hold, I fail to see how rids the system of racism.
The Louisville City Council unanimously passed Breonna's Law banning no-knock search warrants after the killing of emergency room technician Breonna Taylor March.
I could agree with banning the choke hold, but this is too far. The only reason the Breonna Taylor case turned into a firing ground was because the police did not stay silent and knocked. Banning no-knock warrants is extraordinarily dangerous, as it essentially allows criminals to grab their firearm and prepare themselves for a fire fight. Once again, I fail to see how this rids the system of racism. Remember, their goal is "working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise". How is a no-knock warrant systemically target a black individual?
Why are black people killed disproportionally?
You claim that
Because they commit more crimes? Because they are less rich.
This makes no logistical sense. So the officer who killed Floyd was aware of his financial status? The officer who shot Taylor knew she was poor? Nevertheless, there is another flaw in this argument. Could you provide one case where a black man was killed because he was black/poor? You have thrown out big accusations and yet cannot provide a case to support it. It is extremely vague to say that police shoot black people because they are black. Where is the case? When is it a "normal practice within society or an organization" for police to shoot black people?
The FBI statistics shows that black people commit 52 percent of the murders. Why is it incomprehensible to you that this may the reason blacks are killed so frequently? Has it every occurred to you that the police shot Blake because he was reaching into his car? Have you considered the possibility that Brown was shot because he was charging aggressively at the police? However, you seem to go for the improbable and unstable case of "they were shot because they were black". Just think, what is more plausible. I shoot you because you are an alleged sexual offender reaching into your SUV, or I shoot you because you are black?
There is about a thousand people killed bythe said group per year.
Why is this surprising? There are 9,468 homicides committed each year, and since police are involved in crime, they are constantly firing at criminals in the hopes of eliminating the threat and lowering the yearly homicide.
It is ironic that in 2019 only 22 people arekilled on death penalty machines
The number would be a lot higher if people were not A) Suspected of a severe crime B) Posing an immediate threat to officers, and C) Actively resisting arrest. The reason the number is so low is because the criminals resist arrest, therefore giving them an early death.
the usageof a model gun by a kid, and a FABRICATED CHECK grants for death. I reallydon't. BLM is there to stop incidents like this.
Again, the police thought Rice was wielding gun. And come on, we both know Floyd wasn't killed for the cheque, he was killed for actively resisting arrest, which is one of the three criteria's which allows police to fire.
Conclusion
I feel that you have somewhat strayed from the initial contention. You have proved that poverty stricken black children exist, and you have claimed that black people are shot more than whites. To clarify, your job is to prove that systemic racism exists. So far, you have only proved to me that tragedies happen and racism exists. The definition of systemic racism is as follows;
Institutional racism, is a form of racism that is embedded as normal practice within society or an organization.
So tell me, what part of the police force is systemically racist? Remember, pointing to individual cases won't help, because that would only prove individual racism exists, which you haven't even done. I'm certain their are racist police out there, just like how there are racist doctors, clerks and layers. But to suggest that the system is racist is a much larger claim. It is to suggest that all police are taught to treat black men in a particular way, thus the name system. What part of police training targets black men because of their skin? When are police told they can shoot black men? What law targets black men? What institution targets black men?
When pointing to achievements, you have only listed good things #BLM have done for society, but you have not shown that they have rid the world of any systemic racism. Again, this is where I need to ask, what part of the system is racist.
Con
#6
I am still unconvinced by my opponent, despite some of his points making some sense. First note: My opponent spelled many words with their successor, without a proper space in between. If this is enough to warrant the S&G point please give it to Con, unless other errors are noticed on behalf of my own side.
1. Systemic Racism
My opponent agrees that Black people get killed more often by the police. He states it is because they commit more crimes. However, Why is that? It is because they are poorer, and my article clearly states that because Black people are poorer, treated historically, and systematically negatively, they would have the need of committing more crimes. Zero objections brought upon that article. Moving on.
My opponent's whole point is about "Black people deserve whatever they have now", and that argument would be the same as saying "Poor people do what poor people do" while ignoring WHY they are being poor. R2 sources suggest that racism made them poor in the USA, first brought up as slaves bearing the names of [REDACTED], not even treated like people in the first place. Pro thinks Black people, if poor, deserve to be poor and problematic. In this logic, I question that in what world that kids with Autism are not aided at all because "His gene defines him. His gene is poor therefore we should not help someone whose definition undermines his ability". Isn't this the same as "The crimes statistics define the Black people. If the statistics favor not him then we should not help someone who commit more crimes", right? Black people aren't less of a people just because they commit more crimes. Just because more Black people are guilty doesn't make those that are not guilty more guilty than they are, really.
Why are black people negatively influenced on the baddies of their group, especially if they did nothing wrong? That is a problem. Imagine if one person in the entire class pranked the teacher and everone else also get a spank in the butt. Is that OK? I don't think so. Punishing someone for a crime they didn't do is irrational, and while this case it it is not full-on punishment, Blacks still get frowned upon even if they do no crime, and they sit more time in jail for similar crimes. If I commit more crime than the next guy here, then I should get more jail time. But, if I sit more jail time when I commit the same crime as the next guy due to the history of my previous guys, is this right? No.
As a result, to fundamentally solve the problem, BLM is there to solve systemic racism so the loop of "Black people commit more crimes --> They are poorer --> Black people commit more crimes... ... ..." doesn't continue being a burden on society and foremost, the people bearing Black skin.
Notice how my opponent did not refute my statement of "Black people are generally poorer", and instead falsely refutes by "The police officers are not aware of Floyd's financial status", which is not the proper interpretation within my statement. It is an indirect influence of that the reason Blacks commit more crimes is because they are poorer, which is directly influenced by systemic racism, in which Blacks aren't given enough opportunities yet. It is not a direct influence such as "The police killed Black people because they are poor".
Just before moving on, Pro failed to give information of why merely resisting arrest warrants for death. I have no idea why doing drugs + fabricating a check, supporting a drug ring, as well as holding a gun that can't properly fire warrants for death. And foremost, WHY is someone they'd thought had no crime and merely resisted would guarantee death? They don't. The police needs a Reform, and BLM goals that. "Defund" Alright, it isn't even defunding that solves the problem. It is just they need improvement, and BLM solves that.
I agree with my opponent as BLM is at least trying to make systemic racism disappear or have as little influence as possible on the overall aspects of Society. They are at least aiming for an existing goal, as systemic racism, unlike my opponent's beliefs, exist, and still do to this day. Wanna me to give more information?
Black people are poorer, because they are historically from slaves which aren't even people, and they are only granted rights about a hundred years ago.
They are killed in more proportions and they sit more jail time for the same crime they'd commit
They are less likely to be hired(It, although indirect, shows the nature of the employers. If they are less likely to respond the phone by a "black" person, they are obviously less likely to be hired)
Black students attend worse schools
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/02/concentration-poverty-american-schools/471414/
Black neighborhoods receive less funds on hurricanes, etc.
Finally, what is systemic racism?
Institutional racism (also known as systemic racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions. It is reflected in disparities regarding wealth, income, criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power and education, among other factors.
Black people receive less money in general and are more likely to be poor because they aren't ever elevated. In Wealth, Income, Criminal Justice, Emplyment, and more, I have given enough examples to show you that systemic racism indeed exist.
In fact, the US is even racism in the Politics. If the organization that runs our nation is racist, what to say other than Systemic racism is real?
Debaters Bronskibeat and RationalMadman agrees with my proposal(or not, because they created the proposal first).
2. BLM
My opponent's proposal is that BLM isn't doing its job correctly, therefore it is unnecessary. However, it is a fallacious proposal. BLM can work properly, on top that it is doing something good. We aren't looking at its bads to deny the goods it has done. If it solves systemic racism, period. It is working. To proposing that something working and is doing something good for the world is unnecessary based on its bads, would mean that the problem, that exists, endures and does not stop. On a problem that should stop existing.
BLM, although not the perfect organization, had us focused on the racism that exists in the US. It is certainly doing stuff good, as my opponent even acknowledges that BLM is doing good things. The Muslim-torturing of China does not undermine its stance on the global economy as the bads does not deny its goods.
BLM is at least aiming to solve the systemic racism. If it didn't exist, our racism would be even more harsh. Do you like that, mister nine?
BLM is already a big base. We can simply shift it to suit the goal even better. What y'all gonna do, have another competing movement? It would be harder to start such a base than have a base we can work with. BLM is working towards the correct directions and it is doing good things although it is not perfect. Saying BLM needs change does not mean it should disappear. Nothing is perfect. Pro is requesting on perfection, an unrealistic expectation, on BLM, which is bad.
BLM did good things. It is trying to solve a problem that exists. We can use it as a base and make it even better. Thank you, the voter, for reading this and don't forget to vote Con if you think my arguments are more compelling.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Intelligence_06
10/22/20
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Disclaimer: I have been warned that I am very biased on the topic. This is why I am grateful that this debate is done as 'winner selection' so that I am not accuse of over-the-top point allocation or bias like the last BLM debate I voted on. I support BLM to the full degree of legal and moral support that one can have for their cause. The only aspect of BLM I am not entirely behind is the payment of reparations to each and every person of black ethnicity, I think more has to be arranged on this so that only the impoverished blacks are given the reparations.
I will begin by pointing out flaws in Con's case, to eliminate the idea that I have blindly voted in favour of them because I support BLM:
1. Con's defence against comparing BLM to Marxism was one of the worst I have ever seen. He says that Marxist-Leninism is the 'real communism'... Not only does he use the word Communism, rather than Socialism, but Marxist-Leninism was the branch of Marxist ideology that Stalin invented... Yes, Stalin.
2. Con keeps being too defensive on points where he should be offensive, time and time again I saw mitigation and 'yes but' where he actually could have built huge constructive branches for what he was having as a solid contention (as opposed to a mere rebuttal).
The problem for Pro is that he didn't truly exploit these flaws of Con, the 'Marxist' point was barely readdressed later on (which was the hugest flaw in Con's case) and Pro had plenty of flaws of his own that Con did indeed exploit:
1. Pro vehemently denies there being systemic racism, when Con cites sources and articles explaining how even teachers in school have displayed it, as well as law enforcement, Pro simply sidesteps by asking 'what part specifically has systemic racism?' to which Con again explains a few examples of. Con could have done much more but Pro did far too little to demand that.
2. Pro's defence against there being police-based system racism against blacks quite literally backfires from the very first Round of debate to the end. One sentence after clarifying that there's a 1:8 ratio of blacks:caucasians, Pro then admits that the proportion of killed criminal suspects by cops is 1:2. Then he realises he made this flaw and says 'but you can't just say the proportion is worse' except that is exactly what Con does and is one of the biggest examples of systemic racism that annihilates Pro's case against there being any (and by extension against BLM being necessary).
3. Pro fails to establish why BLM is unnecessary, only that the way they are going about their mission is wrong. Con keeps reiterating the need for them and the problems they are combatting, Pro agrees that black lives matter and that if there is a problem in society towards people of the black race(s) then it must be handled. This means that Pro has made life much easier for Con as all Con has to do is justify why BLM's cause is correct, not establish why the organisation itself is a problem. Even though Pro alludes to the debate being about the organisation itself, his concession that if their issues are real then they are necessary enabled Con to win the debate along a path of far less resistance than otherwise.
I will explain more in the comments if my vote is reported but I have established precisely the core lines along which Con achieved victory over Pro.
welcome to the site
You brave user, battling intelligence I can I BB style
You aren't proving the right thing. You have to prove BLM is an unnecessary movement, meaning that the things it is fighting for are essentially non-existent.