Instigator / Pro
25
1495
rating
6
debates
33.33%
won
Topic
#955

Black Lives Matter brainwashes peoples' minds to make them hate whites.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
9
Better sources
8
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
1

After 4 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

DarthVader1
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
22
1476
rating
16
debates
40.63%
won
Description

No information

-->
@King_8

The Mods will definitely offer your feedback if asked about why they trashed your vote. It is super annoying to get zapped but be bolstered by the fact that everybody gets votes deleted, the more you do the more you get deleted. Even mods get their votes deleted sometimes. Many votes get super-scrutinized for imperfections merely in hope of some tactical improvement (which this debate's history demonstrates fairly ably). I'd encourage you to keep voting until your votes stick- the quality of debate oversight depends heavily on the quantity of voters and we clearly need a bunch more regular voters.

-->
@oromagi

Plagiarism by Pro? Unfortunate. I doubt the mods will do anything about Pro's R1. In any case, I enjoyed the debate. R1 and R2 were my strongest but I declined the rest of the debate because I tend to get heated when it comes to this particular topic. Me and Pro made a truce and we are cordial. Congratulations to Pro for the win. And congrats oromagi for your easy win in the BLM debate with Franklin. I would vote for you but every vote I put in this website, no matter how in line it is with the criteria and COC, it gets deleted by the mods which is extremely annoying especially coming from the fact of me putting thought into my vote and making things fair just for it to be deleted, even it being a short vote. Example: https://www.debateart.com/debates/917 - if you or anyone can explain what I did wrong, let me know. I only been on this site a little over a month. But anyways, Franklin clearly was sweating under pressure that was hilarious, I even had a BLM debate with him on debate.org.

-->
@oromagi

Certainly not. It only contained those parts of his speech which contained references to other sources,such as FBI statistics. You are on a revenge tour due to what happened to you.

-->
@David
@bsh1
@Ramshutu
@King_8
@DarthVader1

We should note that PRO's R1 argument was plagiarized from a public speech by Milo Yiannopoulos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksRB4faMU7o

-->
@Michael_Hastings

No problem, welcome to the site. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions.

-->
@Ramshutu

Thank you for explaining this. I'll try to get two debates in.

-->
@Michael_Hastings

I am an assistant moderator for votes: so my influence extends to assessing reported votes only; trying to help explain how vote moderation works.

You are correct, that this isn’t obvious (this is an oversight on our part), given that, we’ll work to correct it ; given that it’s a small community, it’s aometimes easy for us to forget that not every new person knows everything.

-->
@Ramshutu

Like I said earlier, this rule isn't written anywhere. Also, are you a moderator or something? (sorry I'm new to this site)

-->
@Michael_Hastings

The rule is not a judgement on you, or an assessment that your account is fake. I was explaining the backgrounds ima of the rule and why it exists exists - to prevent fake accounts voting on debates by enforcing a minimum standard of participation.

The rule is enforced across the board when a votes are reported, and will at some point be enforced automatically by software. It’s much easier to assess an individuals participation: we just look at their profile, than it is to assess whether a fake account is truly fake

While we definitely know this will prevent real humans who will go on to contribute to the site from voting initially; the barrier is fairly low, and is easy to reach: so is reasonable limitation compared to providing the ability to weed out these fake accounts.

-->
@Bazza97125

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Bazza97125 // Mod Action: Removed

Points awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources, s/g

RFD: Good debate

Reason for mod action: This voter meets none of the criteria set forth in the COC. In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts

The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4

*******************************************************************

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod Action: Not Removed

Reason for mod action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.


The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4

*******************************************************************

-->
@Ramshutu

What about my profile makes you think it's fake?

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
@Dr.Franklin

I hadn't heard this term, "tryhard" and when DrF used it the first time in R2 of our BLM debate https://www.debateart.com/debates/960, I honestly thought DrF was just exhorting me to try harder. It wasn't until repetition in R3 that I realized that this was an insult beyond my ken:

1. an underskilled or untalented participant attempting to compensate with sheer effort in order to succeed: We annihilated a whole team of tryhards in their first multiplayer match.

2. a person who participates in a game or other activity with too much enthusiasm, emotion, effort, or commitment: These tryhards need to take a moment, take a breath, and chill out.

3. someone creating a false image to appear more attractive or appealing; a phony; a poser: He’s just a tryhard who thought buying a convertible would help him pick up girls.

I'll plead guilty to all 3 senses of the word so pardon my spaz & thx for the new word & the debate.

-->
@RationalMadman

Yeah,well if you paid as much attention in completing your debates as you do in reporting others' votes,you might have completed an argument about the gun control debate which you accepted.

-->
@DarthVader1

A little background - we have had problems in the past of particular users creating fake accounts and placing otherwise valid votes on their own debates.

Given this, we restrict the possibility of this happening by placing more restrictive limits on how much one needs to contribute to be allowed to vote: this is to dissuade individuals from simply creating a new account with a proxy and voting on their own debate. This will eventually be implemented in code, but right now is enforced manually.

You would, for example, find it suspicious if multiple accounts voted on a debate against you, when the account made little effort to engage in the side other than to post the vote against you. This rule is to try and prevent that from happening and limit to voters to those who have a minimum level of engagement.

-->
@Michael_Hastings

Now,he had a perfectly logical and acceptable vote covering all grounds. But,his vote was removed because he hadn't posted 100 forum comments. What does that matter in voting? Does someone become a better voter by posting 100 forum comments? His vote was entirely sufficient. I have seen so many other votes in other debates which are vote bombs or put up by people without any valid reasons,including people who haven't completed all the given criteria. The vote he gave was perfectly valid and yet it was removed. And the reason? Not posting 100 forum comments.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Everybody here is tryhards

-->
@RationalMadman

shut up u tryhard ur trash

-->
@Ramshutu

I am not interested in your opinion. I'll contact bsh1 and virt directly about it.

As far as I am aware, that relates to tied votes only.

“The first policy change is that voters must offer an explanation (which is related to the content of the debate) of why they chose to award >>no points<<”

-->
@Ramshutu

Wrong. All votes need to justify why they are tying arguments points, following the change that happened due to my votes that Bsh1 made recently.

A voter only needs to explain arguments if they award conduct points based on a forfeited round (but less than half the rounds):

“In the case of awarding conduct points >>>>solely on the basis of forfeits<<<<, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).”

-->
@RationalMadman

lol if it is tied, that literally just means they tied. Why would you explain why they tied? That's a waste of time.

-->
@David
@Ramshutu

https://www.debateart.com/debates/955/vote_links/2250

This and our-boat's current vote award conduct without explaining why they tied arguments.

-->
@David

Listen, I really don't want to start fight, but why would you enforce a rule before it's written? Also, when did you start enforcing this rule?

-->
@Michael_Hastings

Hi there - I’m going to send you a DM after work. Those votes were cast prior to the rule being enforced. The site owner and I are working on coding the rule into the site.

-->
@David

Also, I just found our that your friend ScoutMaster25 has four votes but has never participated in a debate though he is currently participating in a troll debate.

-->
@David

Sorry, I'm new to this site. I checked the rules and I did not see the policy that said I needed to complete two non-troll debates anywhere so could you specify where that is? Also, I looked into your profile and noticed a number of things you support that I would like to debate you at some point on. Some of your ideals included legalization of prostitution, legalization of all drugs, and replacing capitalism with socialism in America. In fact, if you would like to debate on any of your ideals on your profile page please let me know. Maybe than I can get my right to vote.

Thank you for your time,
Michael Hastings

-->
@Michael_Hastings

Pro provides many reasons BLM is not accurate in its' information and many reasons it does not actually focus on helping black people but they don't really stick to the original statement "Black Lives Matter brainwashes peoples' minds to make them hate whites." If this was the only issue with either side I would have to say Con had a more convincing argument. However, Con made a lot of statements that they did not back up with facts such as " White people don't have to worry about the texture of their hair, the color of their skin color or their cultural accessories as the reason why they didn't get a job.". Also, Con loses some credibility when they say, " White people don't have to worry about having a talk with their children about obeying police officers and following their every command or their life could be gone." Commands such as what? Drop your weapon? Back away from the children? It doesn't matter what race you are. If you're perceived as threatening bodily harm toward a police officer or anyone else and you are not following the officer's commands you will be either shot or subdued.
Sources:
Con:
. CNN (wildly known as having liberal bias)
. ABC (wildly known as having liberal bias)
. Wikipedia (notoriously inaccurate)
. NASA (used to back up statement "the sky is blue")
. USA Today (wildly known as having liberal bias)
. Washington Post (wildly known as having liberal bias)
.
Pro:
. You Gov
. TFC (The Filipeano Channel)
. FBI (Federal Biro of Investigation)
. Harvard
. Los Angeles Times (slight bias towards the left)
. Waco Tribune
Because of the reliability of Pro's sources vs Con's sources pro wins the point for sources.
I didn't see any issues with grammer so I tied it.
I have the same issue with Con's swearing and insults as stated in most of the other votes. Overall, while pro did use a few insults con used many more.

-->
@Michael_Hastings

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Michael_Hastings // Mod Action: Removed

Points awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources, and conduct.

RFD: See above

Reason for mod action: This account is ineligible to vote. In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts

The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4

*******************************************************************

-->
@Ramshutu

Good day to you,sir. Good day.

-->
@DarthVader1

At this point I can only refer you back to the original vote, and my responses here.

I don’t think that focusing on the wrong thing proves they are brain washing people to hate white people even if I take that resolution broadly. It’s a non sequitor. The issues con raised indicates there is some legitimate grievance which renders your argument that they brainwash people because they focus on one legitimate grievance over more important issues (of which you mentioned several).

While the argument “they should be protesting xxx” or “its not the biggest problem” may be valid points - theyre not the resolution and proving one doesn’t prove the other.

I can really do more than I already have to explain why that’s the case, the example I gave in the vote, and below with charities are key examples that illustrate the logical error. If that still doesn’t make it clear why you didn’t show the resolution, I don’t think there’s much more I can say.

-->
@Ramshutu

It's not a "seemingly" higher priority problem. It is the ONLY problem.

-->
@DarthVader1

The logic is the same, for the same reasons. In both cases you can’t attribute malefeasance to the fact that one group doesn’t prioritize seemingly higher priority problems.

-->
@Ramshutu

Animal charities and human starvation? You are comparing apples and oranges.

-->
@DarthVader1

“Even if I buy” is voter speak - in this case it means that if I accept your arguments as true on its face - it doesn’t prove the resolution.

Specifically, the reason I said this was covered in my decision: if there are other more urgent or pressing issues faced by Blacks - this would show BLM is at best misguided, and focusing on the wrong issue: it doesn’t become an issue of “brain washing”, or teaching bias against whites unless you show malicious and deliberate intent.

It’s a bit like animal charities. A charity for taking in stray dogs and raising awareness of animal cruelty may not be the most pressing issue faced by humanity: but listing statistics about human starvation and the effects of war would not prove that the charity was brainwashing and biased against humans. The logic in these two cases are much the same.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Where did you get that idea that I was questioning his bias? The word bias or biased never even appeared in one of my comments. I just asked for explanation of the votes. Fine,I won't ask for that from now on.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

While I very much appreciate the defence on a personal level: I think it’s important that everyone is free to ask questions and feel comfortable challenging decisions they feel are unfair - after all if I am not willing to defend decisions, I shouldnt be making them.

As a moderator I am expected and deserve an extra level of scrutiny; and I am happy to explain all my decisions in detail if necessary.

-->
@Ramshutu

Even if you buy? What does that mean? Are you saying the statistics are flawed? I don't know.....those are of the FBI........is the FBI racist too?

How is black-on-black crime irrelevant when it is responsible for 90% of blacks being killed? The only reason it can be irrelevant is it does not fit the agenda of BLM,which is why it refuses to make people aware of those facts. Why would someone do that if he is genuinely concerned about black lives? Someone will only do that if he hates the other side,which are whites.

Where is the "white supremacy"? Where are the racist cops? I posted a source from the liberal Chicago Tribune which shows black cops kill blacks the same as white cops. And moreover,61% whites are klled to 32% blacks. Where's the white supremacy in any of this?

I could understand if BLM protested against both whites and other problems like black-on-black crime,single motherhood,high school dropouts,etc. But the problem is,they don't,even going so far as to say that "we won't protest against black-on-black crime,it's not a major issue."

What is that if not hatred of whites?

-->
@DarthVader1

As I outlined in the decision the only thing wrong with Dr.Franklins vote is that he appears refers to another voters RfD in Leiu of justifying the conduct point he awarded. This is expressly prohibited by the CoC.

As a vote moderator, decisions are made not on the content or validity of the vote in question - but whether the voters adhere to a specific set of criteria spelled out in the CoC voting rules.

As a voter, I review the arguments made as they pertain to the resolution. In the case here I disagree with the validity of your logic as I think even if I accepted most of what you said as true - it wouldn’t prove the resolution, and so you didn’t uphold your side.

-->
@DarthVader1

It sounds like your questioning potential bias in Ram. Just refrain from doing so.

-->
@DarthVader1

I believe your objection is explained by the following part of my vote:

“Even if I buy every specific thing pro says, he presents no evidence BLM brainwashes people to hate whites. At the very best, pros case is that BLM protesting police brutality and systemic racism is misguided, which falls way short of the rhetorical bar he set for himself.

Con correctly points out that the majority of these statistics raised are irrelevant; I side with him, though I think he could have elaborated on why better than he did.

It seems illogical to object to the validity of BLM protesting one particular type of injustice simply because there are more substantial matters at stake - this is prima facia absurd: For example, if I was punched in the face, and lost my job: it would be valid for me to be angry about both: as just because I object in public about one doesn’t mean I am disinterested about the other. Without pro doing more here, I cannot accept these branches of arguments.”

The last paragraph is most specifically addressing your concern - with an example.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Let me say it again: I never said he is biased,and if anyone thinks that I said that,you are wrong. I only asked him on what basis he made his vote and on what basis he removed someone else's vote. Is questioning something equal to accusing someone of bias? Or am I not allowed to question certain things because I haven't posted 100 forum comments?

-->
@DarthVader1

Ram is the probably the least bias on this site. He gives reasons of what you didn't do to comply with the rules. If you want an appeal, you can go to Virt, or the highest bsh1.

-->
@DarthVader1

How is I wanting clarification " putting words in [your] mouth?"

-->
@Pinkfreud08

Wait a minute,don't put words in my mouth. I never said something like that. I just questioned on what basis he made HIS votes and on what basis he removed Dr.Franklin's and Our Boat is Right's votes. Questioning something is not accusing someone of being biased.

-->
@DarthVader1

Are you implying ramshutu is being " bias " and is purposely removing Dr. Franklins vote?

-->
@Ramshutu

So,if next day,God forbid,you get cancer,and then you go to the hospital. There they tell you that it's nothing,just go home and take an aspirin. Would that work?

You ignored a lot of points that I made,when you cast your vote. If BLM doesn't protest the main problems and goes after something which has no impact on them,then obviously they are promoting a kind of hatred. Con actually said that BLM hates whites in one of his arguments.

You wrote in your vote that Con provided multiple examples of shootings by whites. Really? He provided 6 examples. I provided a source from the FBI,a whole year's worth of data that showed blacks are killed by more blacks,police kill more whites and blacks commit most of the crimes. You ignored this when voting. You are free to do that,of course,but it makes me wonder,why? The BLM ignores this and protests against white people. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out this is hatred.

There is also a considerable difference between anti-malaria charities and BLM,because anti-malaria charities don't go out,throw stones and start riots like BLM does.

Also,if you had read the arguments,you would know that under the Jim Crow laws,the single motherhood rate in the black community was 22% compared to the 55% now. Doesn't this have an impact on them? The real problems in the black community is black-on-black crime,dropping out of schools and black fathers leaving their children and blacks committing most of the crime. But which issue does the BLM go after? "White supremacy".
If that's not hatred,I don't know what is.

The only thing I can conclude is that you ignored most of my points and voted on the basis of your beliefs.

You are of course,free to vote the way you want based on your beliefs,but removing someone's vote which says the contrary? What does that achieve?

-->
@Pinkfreud08

What other insults do I have to use?

-->
@Christen

I can only vote on the arguments, and resolution.

BLM “brainwashing people into hating whites” is an extreme resolution.

If BLM is misguided and is protesting the wrong aspects - it does not automatically mean that they are brain washing people into hating whites. One can be true without the other - and this is the key issue that PRO missed in the debate - effectively arguing around the resolution.

In the same way, arguing that Anti Malaria charities should focus efforts on improving sanitation and access to water doesn’t mean those charities are inherently dishonest or “brainwashing”, and it’s thay distinction pro missed; and was required to affirm.