Instigator / Pro
4
1890
rating
98
debates
93.37%
won
Topic
#3450

Which were worse, the BLM protests/riots or the January 6th capitol protests/riots? [@Oromagi]

Status
Finished

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

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

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

Resolution Which were worse the BLM protests/riots or the January 6th capital protests/riots?

PRO = BLM protests/riots were worse
CON = Jan 6 protests/riots were worse

BLM protests/riots: The George Floyd protests were a series of protests and civil unrest against police brutality and racism that began in Minneapolis, Minnesota on May 26, 2020, and largely took place during 2020.[7][8] The civil unrest and protests began as part of international reactions to the murder of George Floyd, a 46-year-old African American man who was murdered during an arrest after Derek Chauvin, a Minneapolis Police Department officer, knelt on Floyd's neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds[9] as three other officers looked on and prevented passers-by from intervening.

Jan 6th protests/riots: On January 6, 2021, a mob of 2,000–2,500 supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump attacked the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.[a][28][29] They sought to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election[30] by disrupting the joint session of Congress assembled to count electoral votes that would formalize President-elect Joe Biden's victory.[3][31]

BOP is shared.
Both sides must justify their respective positions of the resolution. The debate shall be judged on who is best able to show that one event was worse than another.

Additional rules:
Only Oromagi may accept.

Sorry. I don’t have time to vote on this one.

-->
@whiteflame

Thanks

-->
@PREZ-HILTON

I deleted it for you.

-->
@Barney

I actually intend to vote on this debate. For whatever reason once I place a holder vote it won't let me edit the vote. Can you delete my holder vote please. I swear the site changed as I could alter the vote before

I don't understand why someone voluntarily removed a vote they put a lot of thought and effort into.

One of the biographies from a cop that was there when the body was taken says the scene was much more intense than what the mainstream narrative says and they were close to a shootout with the secret service

The law was for them to technically keep the body in Dallas, so yes the secret service was corrupt which I define as not behaving ethically.

We also have decided as a country that freedom is more important than life even, so no the police had good reasoning to illegally question Holme's but it was unethical because it violated his rights.

As far as the Waco thing is concerned I think you can just Google footage of the initial ATF withdrawal and see a camera person's camera get shoved. Now it wasn't headlined anywhere because nobody but me thought it was a big deal, but it's pretty clear to see on footage.

Left wing politics is not about prioritizing human rights, if it was than humans would be better off when leftists like Kim Jung un and Hitler get into power not worse off. Even if we leave out the autocrats who are by definition leftists, we still have left wing politicians at local levels who have policies that harm human rights in their own cities. It's true the left hates property rights and wants oligarchs who control the government to be in charge of them, but to say they prioritize or even care about human rights is silly.

"No journalists reported unprovoked violence"

I think some journalists who went into Chaz were attacked and felt their life was under threat. Even left wing journalists we're in fear.

However I am pretty critical of government at all levels, so no I am not supporting a lot of the police response. It's just idiots at the left are looking at some justified police action as unacceptable while for some reason leftwing journalism ignores actual fucked up things the police did. We also see that some hostility was to be suspected. I saw a video of police trying to get a protestor medical aid while being bombarded with cement bricks and bottles thrown at them, so basically attempted murder by the crowds.

The police corruption that did occur during this situation include

1. Putting undercover agents in the crowd.

2. Allowing rioters to attack small businesses that were targeted because they were owned by Asians and Jews.

3. Using hit squad type tactics to put isolated protestors in unmarked vehicles and just drove away.

4. We have reports of BLM protestors being dropped off bricks on street corners where protests were planned and it was never investigated which liberal was funding those sorts of things.

As far as the misinformation spread. We know for a fact that George Floyd died of a drug overdose, the cop recognized a medical emergency and called an ambulance for Floyd. We know that George Floyd because of prior arrest videos always says "I can't breathe" and shouts out for his mother.

So the information basically got so severe that Derek Chauvin who by the way is a piece of shit, despite being completed innocent was railroaded by mob justice. Imagine if he was declared innocent that judge and members of that jury would have been murdered by the mob.

Police did so many corrupt things in response to the retarded group think that idiots in the public vowed down to because their low IQ brain dead sheep thinking was as follows

"Derp the TV portrayed things in a way that gets lots of views so obviously the TV is true and there is nothing else to think about"

Look, police behaved in a corrupt way. Never ever should undercovers be in the crowd. Never ever should the police actually enforce curfues. Never ever should American citizens be taken away in black vans by mysterious masked men grabbing them and not identifying themselves.

Funny thing is. I oppose those gestapo tactics whether they are used on the left or right. You are evil though so you support them if used on the right and oppose them when they are used on the left

-->
@PREZ-HILTON

Let's note that Wylted found an anecdotal story about an ATF agent pushing a camera at Waco a compelling example of government corruption but failed to mention police violence against anti-police protests in the Summer of 2020. The Guardian documented 148 cases of unprovoked violence by US police officers on working journalists during the first five weeks after George Floyd- including 40 shootings and 34 physical assaults. By contrast, no journalists reported any cases of unprovoked violence by BLM protesters on working journalists during that same five weeks.

-->
@PREZ-HILTON

"I'd argue the BLM riots did nothing but spread misinformation and then get idiots riled up and angry acting on the misinformation. "

What misinformation, specifically, did Black Lives Matter spread?

"This was probably done because the left wants a federal police force instead of local police forces."

Left-Wing politics means "prioritize human rights over property rights." By definition, left-wingers tend to be skeptical about police, imprisonment, institutional force. Police forces almost universally tend to be right-wing institutions.

-->
@PREZ-HILTON

"The COVID protocols, many where illegal and exactly what government protections are set out to prevent."

pretty vague and most protocols were not Federal and most of the large Federal actions got struck down in Federal court.

-->
@PREZ-HILTON

9/11 had a lot of instances in the direct aftermath of NY city police over stepping....

NYPD is local govt., not Federal.

"Hell just after the Boston Bombing the government mandated...."

False. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick asked people to stay at home with doors locked on a voluntary basis and the commonwealth's willing participation was close to unanimous. No State or Federal mandates were issued and to say as much is to give lie to great respect for private lives the govt demonstrated that day.

"Just after the Aurora Colorado shooting. The police lied to the shooter's lawyer and held him up from getting to his client and advising him."

Her client. Holmes' first lawyer was a woman.
Aurora Police are local, not Federal.
Police did ask for her permission to question Holmes about the bombs and booby-traps he had laid out for police in his apartment. When she denied them permission, Aurora Police proceeded with questioning anyway since they felt that preventing a large explosion in a residential area seemed like the priority. Holmes did not keep her as his lawyer and was assigned a public defender (also a woman) 3 days later.

-->
@PREZ-HILTON

"For example the shootout in Waco. A member of the press was filming the ATF in retreat and one of the ATF agents was annoyed and shoved their camera. "

I can find no evidence supporting this account.

"It's understandable why the agent did it. He probably just had a couple of friends die in that shootout and felt the camera was disrespectful, but the laws are set up to definitively determine the rights of people in those stressful times."

In fact, a loud-mouthed cameraman had unintentionally tipped off the Branch-Davidians that the ATF was coming. 4 ATF agents were killed and 16 injured in the resulting ambush. The Waco TV station WXTX settled out of court with the Feds for $15 million and neither that cameraman or the TV reporter with him ever worked in journalism again. The only "retreat" that took place at Waco on either side was the initial cease-fire 45 minutes after the ambush, when both sides collected their dead and wounded. The WXTX cameraman and reporter were the only journalists on site at the time and considering that it was already known that WXTX had made the ambush possible it seems at least possible that a camera got punched.

-->
@PREZ-HILTON

"The JFK assassination kinda exposed a lot of corruption in government. They did stuff like illegally remove JFK'S body from Dallas and almost got in a shootout with the local police because of it." A lot of people will excuse the behavior of the feds and secret service because in the initial moments after this occured there was a lot of uncertainty about just what was going on. It's a bullshit excuse though. Laws, particularly laws that outline roles and responsibilities of different bodies of government are created mostly for our of the ordinary circumstances like in the after effects of unusually catastrophic events.

Coroner Earl Rose was correct to insist on a local autopsy and he did stand in the doorway of Parkland with one officer hoping to blockade the Secret Service but stepped aside after some loud argument. "Almost got into a shootout" is silly bullshit.

Corruption seems like an unjust conclusion considering that there is zero evidence of fraud, deception, or self-gain in the Secret Service's action. They were under direct orders to deliver the body and Jacqueline Kennedy to Air Force One so that the new President could be sworn in. The Dallas Police were famously corrupt and the city famously disliked Kennedy so there were some legitimate security concerns in the first hours after the assassination.

Federal law has since been updated to give the Secret Service full authority regarding any presidential assassination post-mortem.

The JFK assassination kinda exposed a lot of corruption in government.

They did stuff like illegally remove JFK'S body from Dallas and almost got in a shootout with the local police because of it.

A lot of people will excuse the behavior of the feds and secret service because in the initial moments after this occured there was a lot of uncertainty about just what was going on.

It's a bullshit excuse though. Laws, particularly laws that outline roles and responsibilities of different bodies of government are created mostly for our of the ordinary circumstances like in the after effects of unusually catastrophic events.
.
The same thing happened with the feds over stepping their authority directly after other events. For example the shootout in Waco. A member of the press was filming the ATF in retreat and one of the ATF agents was annoyed and shoved their camera. The press have the legal right to film though and that legal right is supposed to protect them from ATF agents doing that sort of thing

It's understandable why the agent did it. He probably just had a couple of friends die in that shootout and felt the camera was disrespectful, but the laws are set up to definitively determine the rights of people in those stressful times.

9/11 had a lot of instances in the direct aftermath of NY city police over stepping their authority because they felt extraordinary circumstances Gave them more rights.

Hell just after the Boston Bombing the government mandated an illegal lockdown. To show just how stupid the feds are, they actually risked losing the bombers because of the lockdown. The brothers were not found until the lockdown was lifted so private citizens could help in the efforts.

Once again, not surprising the feds are stupid, it's not surprising they stomp on people's rights either, it's insane though. Our rights are outlined not for times where it is convenient for the government to allow us to have them, but for times when it is inconvenient.

Another thing. Just after the Aurora Colorado shooting. The police lied to the shooter's lawyer and held him up from getting to his client and advising him.

The COVID protocols, many where illegal and exactly what government protections are set out to prevent. We accept that the greater good must often times be sacrificed for individual freedoms. The government is often judged by the results of events and how they effect the collective, so it makes sense why they would do things that are unethical like make "emergency protocols" that displace current and normally operating policies, but it's unethical.

Once you study history and see things like autocrats taking power because of laws created for special circumstances, you start realizing how dangerous it is.

For example Julius Caesar and Hitler both used emergency powers to take complete control of their nations.

So yes the JFK assassination perhaps brought even more light to government overstepping it's boundaries.

I'd argue the BLM riots did nothing but spread misinformation and then get idiots riled up and angry acting on the misinformation. This was probably done because the left wants a federal police force instead of local police forces

Which was worse, the BLM protests/riots or the assassination of John F Kennedy?

-->
@Undefeatable

Why did you ask for your vote to be removed

Further Analysis

I re-read the 95% statistic and realized there were multiple mentions of it in different contexts, which gave quite a bit of confusion. I recommend the debaters try to clarify this better next time, as I thought Pro contradicted himself.

Looking through the thread of the most relevant arguments, pro begins with fee.org article stating about the thousands of homes being burned, to which con argues the White supremacists were the true cause. Plus the violence being directed against BLM most of the time. Pro repeats that the 2,000 officers caused by the riots, with the 6,000 murder rate raise. He also supports with dw.com that the BLM ironically burned down black peoples' families, quite ironic overall.

Con also uses the statistic to draw away using the idea that the 93% overall were not violent, and that the counter-protests were seemingly more likely to be violent overall. Pro's stat was then saying the 95% were *involved in the riots* (thus causing the burning to occur). He further says that the white supremacists only caused a handful of the riots. Con's counter is that the Minneapolis example is weak since Wikipedia notes the disorganized crowds, which weakens that particular argument. While Pro proved that the BLM violent riots composed of 95% of riots, he had to find another way to prove it was the BLM protestors who caused the issues.

The issue is Pro has two separate arguments, one stating that there were violent riots (with unknown damage), since the original source was linked specifically to the Minnesota idea. However, he pulls an overall statistic and tries to cover up Con's nit picking by stating the overall number. This debate is difficult to decide since the ACLEU number is only loosely related to the Minnesota incident. The lack of cause-and relation makes it hard to decide who is correct and who is incorrect. While Con had a strong number with 3.7% of events only causing violence, the proportion is not really done well, as Pro still has the financial numbers. Con focuses on irrelevant numbers. So in the end I think it's harder to decide who wins. (to be updated)

-->
@oromagi
@Undefeatable
@Novice_II

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed by voter request
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: Voter request
**************************************************

RFD 3

Final round time! I don't really care about Conduct; that's just both debaters doing their classic arguments and getting into the groove of being lazy. I don't really want to award that way since neither really "violated rules" too heavily.

Pro continues saying:
- the 95% of violence was due to BLM Activists (ignoring the ACLED fact from Con.... he quoted directly from the site, so I don't know what pro is doing here). The fact is that the website itself says 95% involve peaceful protestors, so pro is just warping the statistics here...
- Pro then repeats the 1~2 billion dollars of damage, which Con admittedly didn't address too properly.
- Pro continues saying that the only way to judge worse event would be taking more lives and harming more people.
- Pro points back to the thousands of businesses looted, torched or vandalized.
- Pro continues that 99.7% of protestors were peaceful, which perhaps is a superior number compared to the 95% peaceful from BLM, though he could have just compared it this way instead...
- Pro repeats that con dropped the 6~19 deaths, and says that the financial damage was still much worse overall.

-Con goes back to the truth standard, but it's really hard to see *how* important this point is. Still, pro has agreement with constitutionality, so I suppose the shared point makes it somewhat relevant here.
- Con addresses the youtube video of the burning building, though ignores the larger number of thousands of business. He does however address it by saying the opportunist crowd caused destruction, with contradictory motives. So while the news article attributed to BLM direct caused, Con argues (although slightly late) that the demonstrators couldn't be linked to BLM itself.
- Con repeats that the 850 being arrested, while the BLM only had a very very few percent getting federal crime, which is quite impressive. A little late, but still good point.
- Con unnecessarily spends a bit too long talking about Jorge committing no crimes and Sean surrendering, though it helps a little bit... I suppose.
- Con makes more comparisons with rhetorical questions trying to demonstrate pure amount of deaths isn't really the measurement. While Pro has little to go on for support, Con also has very little to say why the constitutionality idea would result in something "worse" overall.

Conclusion

Honestly I have not a lot to go on. Con tries to blanket statement rely on "the truth" fighting which makes me wonder why he said it in this manner. If he mentioned a word or two about how the constitution is the basic trust of America, that the president has to enforce it, and perhaps linked it to the lie by the president himself, which inevitably caused impeachment (even if it was not executed), there could be some logic in there. But there is too much to jump the logic so I am not sure why something "atrocious in nature" alone could be proved to be "worse of", since Con has not proved why supporting the constitution along with Truth is so important. On the other hand, while Pro also has little bit, the general impacts debate structure is what I'm more used to, and calculates the basic destruction by the BLM community.

So who wins in the end? Pro had misread his source and repeatedly attributed the 95% to the BLM, despite it telling the opposite. He had the 2$ billion dollars of damage, but Con made it ambiguous enough whether the rioters caused it or the anti-rioters did it -- especially with his support. Con had about 800+ people arrested, which seemed to be a better number than whatever vagueness Pro had. Due to Pro misrepresenting numbers and being somewhat weak in his support, I believe Con holds a slight edge, though more detail on the Constitutionality would have been more impactful than arguing over burden of proof. I don't think giving BoP to Pro would've given Con the win more compared to Current situation.

-->
@Wylted

Yeah, fair enough. Thank you for being willing to vote here.

-->
@Novice_II

I assure you I don't give a shit about arguments in the comments, when and if I allocate points on this debate, it won't factor in. I think most people on the site are like that. I mean most of the site allows confirmation bias into their voting, but at least they don't factor in the comment section

-->
@Novice_II

Obviously, I was replying to the comments you deleted.

-->
@oromagi

Don't know exactly what you are mentioning me for...but given your willingness to extend your argument in respect to the debates conclusion, it appears self evident that this comment holds far from any imperative to you.

-->
@Novice_II

You're right. We should refrain from correcting misapprehensions in comments. Let the debate speak for itself.

-->
@Undefeatable

"If you defeated Pro's impacts, there's no need to talk about principles either, though I guess you could add it as a cherry on top."

If I defeated PRO's impacts without offering positive impacts of BLM then both values would be zero and so, neither much WORSE. According to PRO's own sources:
BLM protests "precipitated a worldwide debate on policing and racial injustice that has led to numerous legislative proposals on federal, state, and municipal levels in the U.S. intended to combat police misconduct, systemic racism, qualified immunity and police brutality." I maintain that in America, upholding the Constitution and Democracy are manifestly positive impacts. Collectively, these goods far outweigh the zero harms PRO has documented.

Nvm, I forgor. Maybe next day off

-->
@oromagi

I had the impression your round 1 was supposed to mean Truth was more important to uphold than results, due to ambiguity in your statement. It's hard to parse since there is no support for why supporting the constitution alone could outweigh the Pro impacts (if Pro impacts held). If you defeated Pro's impacts, there's no need to talk about principles either, though I guess you could add it as a cherry on top.

RFD Pt. 2

I... am not sure doing the source embedding is not allowed, as shortening links would have also saved space. Non factor for me.

Also yeah, Oromagi constantly tries to shift BoP even when debate rules state otherwise... I don't see how pro would have sole or main bop, so that doesn't work in Con's favor.

Anyways...

- Pro continues that Fighting can still result in more devastating results, which is the prime point of his idea.
- He trails onto Afghanistan's war being unreasonable despite having good origin, due to millions of deaths and horrid destruction. Alright, I can buy that.
- Pro states the BLM riots were far too violent, though avoids con's point that most of them were not that violent.
- Pro repeats the insured damage and how the arson was damaging, and the 800 people storming the capitol was an insignificant proportion compared to the BLM numbers.
- Pro continues by saying the 88% BLM activists perpetrated/caused the damage, which means his impacts still stand.
- Pro tries to clarify the deaths by saying the BLM would still attribute to the deaths, thus cannot be negated.
- Pro repeats 2,000 officers injured and increase in crime.
-Pro follows by saying difficulty to develop infrastructure.
- Pro says it is very common to rioters to burn down minorities' homes

Con continues saying that the BLM results should be separated from the White supremacism (since they were against BLM, and thus shouldn't be grouped together). I think I can buy this too, though it's ambiguous whether we should count the protestors potentially being harmed here.

Anyways. Con goes off a bit tangent by saying Iraq War was based off of lies and even worse with more american soldiers dying. Well, this honestly doesn't help his principle based case, since he is going off of how many people dying, so... I still don't see a framework why to accept principles over results. Which is unfortunate.

Con refutes the 800 number by saying more than 2,000 had attacked the capitol building, and continues repeating the Harvard study by saying property damage only occurred at 3% of events and violence even less. Con also says that American supported BLM, while condemned Jan 6th, which is a nice find.

Con also refutes the ACLED source by saying the 93% of demonstrations show no violence or destruction. The evidence stated in there refutes Pro's own cases, which is no good. Con also points out the people *against* BLM were the primary exploration of Pro's case, which is not really caused by BLM protests (rather they were against protests).

-->
@Undefeatable

"Con hasn't said why principle is more important than results"

That's quite false. I have demonstrated that all of PRO's impacts are illegitimate because they credit total impacts to BLM- which is a wild exaggeration of the truth according to PRO's own sources. PRO has failed to list even a single honest impact limited to BLM conduct and therefore PRO has failed to present any impact whatsoever.

RFD

Funny realization, Oromagi hasn't actually had to conduct many impact based ideas versus principle so this one is ... interesting to say the least.

Pro lists:
- 1~2$ billion insured damage, only occurred in two weeks, making the time-scale pretty tough to beat
- thousands of buildings burned or damage, or vandalized businesses
- American families lost their sources of income
- Under construction house were set ablaze, perpetuating the poverty (hard to differentiate from previous point)
- At least six people killed, 400 cops from NYPD hurt, 2,000 officers nationwide
- Homicides rose significantly, with 6,000 extra deaths nationwide
And finally ending with capitol riot only costing 1.5$ million to the US Capitol Building. So far looking good.

- Con starts by saying the riots were based off of Trump's false claim, thus being worse purely off of the basic idea of the riot.
- followed by trying to overcome the US Constitution
- Con says 1,000+ tried to overturn the election result, while turning pro's points against him by saying the Floyd murder was protesting in a justified manner.
- Con says only the Umbrella Man and Ivan Hunter with specific cherry picks caused the problems.
- Con's further 19 death picks seem inconsequential in the big picture, so let's move onto the 7,000 protest study. Con states the violence were low, and most were against protestors.
- Con argues Pro's ideas were vague since there was no way to prove the deaths directly related/caused by protesters themselves, making it difficult to due so
- Con also says Impact of COVID may have inflated numbers with economic assessment (this doesn't unset the insured damage point, however)

Con hasn't said why principle is more important than results; if someone claims to lawfully do something but ends up killing 100 innocents, while someone merely sets off to unlawfully do something, yet achieves nothing, I am not convinced Con's ideas are to be taken at face value. Let's see what pro says... (TBU)

-->
@oromagi
@Conservallectual
@Novice_II

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: "The reasons are far better. Pro states why damage was much worse in clearer and easier to read language."
>Reason for Mod Action:

In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.

To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes

Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
**************************************************

Skimmed a bit, it looks like it will be a way closer outcome than expected.

-->
@Wylted

Thanks for voting!

Bruh, imagine Novice_II winning the #1 debater the first time tried.

Not only are hyperlinks available but pro seems to be aware of how to use them

Some ody just told me hyperlinks are available for debates, so I think I will award argument points later

-->
@oromagi

"As the instigator of this debate, PRO bears the entire burden of proof for this debate. PRO must show that the BLM protests (and only the BLM protests) were WORSE by any applicable standard than the attack on our US Capitol. If CON can show that Jan. 6th was worse by some standards, PRO's argument must fail."

This is why I don't even like voting on your debates. This isn't even remotely true. This is definitely a shared burden debate. I don't know how the debate precedes after this and Don't know if I'll have to accept your framing of BOP yet, but it's incorrect. This isn't a policy debate, it is merely a debate to assess the damage caused by the BLM protests vs the damage caused by the capital protest by the standards you guys define worse as

This site is absolute shit, and the I ability to get a single competent voter on these debates is proof. It is why I have a hard time even trying to win debates. I know the voters usually just go with the less ridiculous opinion and then deal in a lot of confirmation biases, instead of doing an actual impact analysis.

Despite the ambiguity of the term "worse" it should be easy to come up with a clear winner.

First you judge who wins the debate on how to apply the term worse and do an impact analysis based on that. I have not read the debate but perhaps pro argued "worse" means more damage to tangible items like physical property, while con thought worst meant "more damage to American institutions".

I know if no moral framework is argued in the debate, the judging is still easy. You would base worst on weighing the damages on each side against each other, preferably using money as a tool. How much money is oligarchs feeling safe worth vs how much money are protecting the economic interests of minorities whose businesses were looted by antifa/black blok lead riots across America .

-->
@Novice_II

Yeah, I am considering reading and judging. I am probably the slowest voter here though. So it is a huge commitment. I take a bunch of notes and usually read the debate several times.

Currently I am trying to build a poker bankroll again, so I am playing like 16 hours a day, it's hard to get time for anything else in.

Yeah next day I get off work I'm voting on this

-->
@oromagi
@FLRW
@Novice_II

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to Con
>Reason for Decision:

Pro is advocating the overthrow of the Federal Government.

>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must address specific points made by both sides in the debate and consider how they function with the resolution. The voter instead presents their views on the general argument made by one side, does not consider any specific points made by either side, and casts a vote for arguments, sources and conduct on that basis. That is not sufficient for any of these.

-->
@oromagi
@Conservallectual
@Novice_II

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:

Better reasons

>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must address specific points made by both sides in the debate and consider how they function with the resolution. The voter does not consider any points made by either debater and simply asserts that Pro had "Better reasons". That is not sufficient to award arguments.

Both of these votes are honestly vote bombs. Might vote on this myself just so this debate gets at least one good vote.

-->
@RationalMadman

What's with whiteflame's profile picture? I was confused for a minute

I may vote on this debate but I am concerned of revenge from the one I vote against, tbh.

It ultimately comes down to what we define 'worse' as.

-->
@Novice_II

Report both.

Is this guy a troll?

From the FBI Website: Election Crimes and Security
Fair elections are the foundation of our democracy, and the FBI is committed to protecting the rights of all Americans to vote.

The U.S. government only works when legal votes are counted and when campaigns follow the law. When the legitimacy of elections is corrupted, our democracy is threatened.

While individual states run elections, the FBI plays an important role in protecting federal interests and preventing violations of your constitutional rights.

-->
@Conservallectual

Thanks for voting, but I would expand on you reasons. Other people like to see why people cast the votes they do

-->
@Conservallectual

As an active user I hope you will consider voting, believing you are the most likely to be available.