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.

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

Reposting to award only for arguments.

PRO began their argument with the ridiculous claim that the BLM protests "created some of the most tragic and devastating periods of violence in American history" - but went on to nevertheless provide some quite convincing numbers. CON responded by pointing out that much of the violence cited by PRO was due to "opportunistic acts of violence and vandalism by people with no particular political motive." We could infer, however, that the intensity and chaos of the BLM protests were what created the opening for such opportunists. However, CON also later points out the role of right wing extremists and opportunists in escalating and contributing to the violence.

CON attempted to put the entire burden of proof on PRO, even though the description stipulated shared BOP, stating that "As the instigator of this debate, PRO bears the entire burden of proof for this debate." I don't think this makes sense, since both sides of this debate involve a positive claim (that one side was worse than the other).

CON pointed out that the claims motivating Stop the Steal were blatantly false, while the motivations of BLM are admirable and true. This is a convincing point, since a mere accounting of dollars in damage, or people harmed, does not give the sense of the historical role of a movement. CON also pointed out that the BLM protests were the "single greatest political protest in US history" - which presumably accounts at least partially for the different scale of violence and destruction.

Both sides deployed certain "fixed ideas" in the course of their arguments. PRO had a clear pro-police and anti-crime stance, while CON made reference to the constitution and democracy.

Then there was PRO's attempt to take away conduct points from CON for providing sources in the comments. This came across as quite petty, especially since the links seem to be just reposting the same sources that were hyperlinked in the text of the argument.

The discussion around much of the violence and death seems to come down to the chaotic nature and massive energy and scale of the BLM protests. I do not totally buy CON's attempt to separate the good from the bad actors, since to an extent the scale and furious atmosphere of the protests led to a level of disorder in which violence may have been inevitable. The CON case would need to be that the inflammatory climate created by the protests was a necessary collateral damage in the greater cause being advocated for. In this respect, CON was quite convincing in making the comparison to the Iraq War and World War II.

CON points out that PRO used a "questionable and far-Right" source, which in my view takes further points from PRO's conduct and sources. PRO attempts to call this the "genetic fallacy" which I view as an absurd misuse of that fallacy.

This was a very difficult debate to judge impartially. CON argued largely in terms of the intentions of the protesters, but did not do much to show that the actual outcomes of such a large scale protest justified the amount of unrest it caused. PRO made a convincing case about the violence and destruction that occurred in the course of the protests, but ignored the differences in scale, as well as failing entirely to address the intentions or worldview behind the protests. Therefore, one's opinion about which perspective was more convincing probably largely depends on their view of the intentions of BLM, as well as their opinion about the overall efficacy of such large-scale protests. I would suggest that the resolution should have been more specific, since I think this one is so broad that anyone's decision about "who won" will largely come down to their preexisting opinions.

It was a good debate in which each side put in an admirable amount of effort. However, Pro took an altogether empirical approach which ignored the importance of history and philosophy, while Con's approach was much more philosophical and relied at times upon the abstractions of liberalism while neglecting concrete outcomes. In the end, my personal feeling was that Con's opinion was more convincing.