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

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:

I have grouped Pros arguments

1.Black Lives Matter doesn’t address main black issues

I have grouped Cons arguments

1.BLM’s true purpose is as he explains:”it's a pro black movement. We aren't saying that black lives are more meaningful than everyone else's, we are saying black lives are just as meaningful as everyone else's. The BLM movement isn't about separation, segregation or disengagement. The BLM movement is about a positive resolution.”

Both sides made strong claims with facts and evidence. The deciding factor will be the rebuttals.

Case 1: Black issues in communities-King claims-”"dropping out of high school" and "growing up without a father" are stereotypes and simply irrelevant. Has nothing to do with BLM..”

Where Pro responds-”Black Lives Matter only cares BLACK LIVES LOST BY COP ACTION,NOT OTHER BLACK LIVES.” Pro is able to back it up with facts and sources like-”The issue of white fathers leaving their parents is unaddressed because it happens the least out of Blacks,Hispanics and whites. As of today,the rate of black fathers leaving their kids is 48.5%,those of Hispanics 26.3% and those of whites 18.3%. (US Census Bureau, “Living Arrangements of Children Under 18”: Tables –CH-2, CH-3, CH-4. 1960 – Present. U.S. Census Bureau July 1, 2012.)”and “The above link show studies conducted by Harvard University and Urban Institute which shows nearly half of the Latino and African American students who should have graduated from California high schools in 2002 failed to complete their education. Just 57% of African Americans and 60% of Latinos graduated in 2002, compared with 78% of whites and 84% of Asians. Now,this is just for only one state. One can only imagine about the rest of the country. People don't talk about whites on this issue,because of "white privilege". They don't because whites don't drop out of schools at the abysmal rate as blacks.”

Next round rebuttals were the same shit.Con responds-”Can't be helped. Parental issues has nothing to do with BLM. I think your white privilege card declined.”

Doesn’t address the facts nor backs up claims of white privilege. Another problem with Con is that he tries to paint Pro as using his “white privilege” but only uses on incident to back up his claim.

Pro responds:”I posted a study conducted by Harvard University and Urban Institute that showed nearly half of the black students drop out whereas only 7 to 8% of whites do so. Is that personal choice or white privilege? If it is white privilege,explain how. Oh,sorry,sorry,as you said in the comments,it's because the sky is blue. I get it. My bad.” Facts and Logic

Con also cherry-picked situations, such as the two cases and what-if situations.

Arguments-Pro

Sources-Tie

S&P-Tie

Conduct-Pro wins, Con used poor conduct

" Have fun continuing to suck Trump's dick. "
""you're a racist cunt"
" Stop acting like you've never ever cussed in your life, bitch"
"fuck you bitch"

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:

Con said a number of things that had poor conduct. Arguments are tied because both sides made good points, I was leaning towards pro, but decided his points were not enough to give him the arugements, as both sides in this debate were sort of a mess.
"bitch"
"fuck you bitch"
"classic case of white supremacy"
"classic case of white privilege"----pro's not even white lmao
"The police are the trigger happy people"
"Have fun continuing to suck Trump's dick. "
"you're a racist cunt"---which doesn't even make sense since Pro is not even white lmao
"MLK is racist"

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:

So, the resolution here seems pretty clear; pro needs to show that BLM is systemically dishonest, and promotes a narrative of white hating.

Pros ENTIRE case here, is to throw an unending list of statistics, then assert that as a result of these; that BLM is brainwashing people to hate whites.

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.

Even were I to lower the bar pro sets for himself, to be whether BLM is justified or not, in terms of whether the issues of police brutality exist or are justified.

Con throws out multiple examples of clearly outrageous police killings of unarmed black people. That there are multiple explained police murders; and pros stats also show black individuals are killed disproportionally to their population: this puts me firmly down on cons side on this one.

The remaining issue I have with pros case is touched upon by con.

Pros entire case is implying correlation is causation. He argues that there is a lack of male role models due to single parenthood, that blacks commit more murders.

Why?

I have two options.

First that there is some systemic racism that drove these trends which may or may not now be self fulfilling, which con hints at on a couple of occasions reviewing the historical trends after Jim Crow.

Second , that it’s all solely black peoples fault, that they’re more likely to be murders, criminals and delinquent fathers because they’re black. Pro doesn’t come right out and say this, he blames “black culture”. But the insinuation appears there throughout the whole debate. Not only is there a clear value judgement being made, but the implication being made appears to be as con states “villainizing black people.”

The default position here is CLEARLY not to pressupose that black people are now criminal solely down to themselves given some of the history and issues. On points out, so even in this case pro doesn’t meet his burden, and quite frankly, renders his entire case particularly odious.

In terms of cons case: the main aspect that won it was very much on his demonstration that unarmed blacks are killed frequently. For me, in combination with pros lack of overall warrant wins this. His points 7,8 and 9 were particularly well reasoned.

The remaining points surrounding issues that blacks have to deal with but whites are not are particularly reasonable, and lends themselves well to calls of systemic racism. Pro doesn’t appear to address any of them.

From this position, the debate rapidly degenerated, with tropes and insults from both sides.

In general, pro loses on overall resolution and warrant as covered above: there was much more focus on rhetoric and odious insinuation from statistics than there was a legitimate attempt to engage in the points. The information con added in relation to specific cases was enough to show the basic premises of BLM are valid, and the issues he raised does imply systemic Racism.

I feel con could very much have obliterated pros case from round 1, had taken a step back and dealt head on with the points raised: but given the above, he does enough to win the resolution.

Arguments to con.

Conduct: I’m tying this, as there was clearly instigation and insults being hurled from both sides.

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:

I would like to thank both opponents for this debate

POOR CONDUCT:

Con had the worst debate conduct I've ever seen on this website in a long time. Throughout the entire debate, Con insulted and had a condescending attitude with pro, CUE THE MONTAGE.

" You just want to pull out your white privilege card. "

" No, MLK was not a racist, but you are. "

" Again with the "what-if" scenarios. Nobody has time for that crap."

" Stop acting like you've never ever cussed in your life, bitch"

" Oh shut up you are the one with loose morals and loss of character "

And my personal FAVORITE!

" Have fun continuing to suck Trump's dick. "

This obnoxious behavior has cost Con their conduct point.

I ask for other voters to consider this as well when voting

Neither convinced me of their side as neither exactly had good sources nor analysis to back up their claims. And both had good spelling and grammar.