RESOLVED: BLM is a net harm to America
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
I, PRO, believe that Black Lives Matter is a net harm to America. You, CON, believe that Black Lives Matter is either net positive or net neutral.
ROUNDS:
1. Constructive (Make a case)
2. Rebuttal (Refute my case)
3. Defense (Answer my rebuttal)
RULES:
1. No Kritiks
2. No New arguments made in final round
3. No trolling
4. You must follow the Debate Structure
5. No Plagiarism
6. Must follow debate definitions.
**ANY violation of these warrants loss of debate.**
DEFINITIONS:
"Black Lives Matter/BLM" - The racial justice movement to eradicate white supremacy that has been operating from 2013 onwards, currently organized by the Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc. BLM accounts for the vast bulk of the racial justice movement from 2013 onwards.
"Net HARM" - When all positive and negative impacts have been weighed, the negative outweighs the positive.
"America" - The United States.
"SYSTEMIC racism" - racism tolerated within or perpetuated by the government.
BoP: I, PRO, have the BoP to prove that BLM is a net HARM. You, CON, only have the burden to disprove my arguments.
First off, con had 6 of the 7 days to post his argument before he was banned (and was given notice it was coming and extensions). This leaves forfeiting the third round an active choice.
Note: The definition of "SYSTEMIC racism" is a little flawed, as leadership and/or systems within any institution can commit it. However, it should still function just fine for this debate.
PRO's CONSTRUCTIVE:
1 Contention: BLM’s Misguided Agenda
Pro does a detailed if fairly standard opening. As was "BLM has had no agenda to reduce black-on-black violence, meaning no solvency."
A highlight was property damage committed against blacks by BLM protests, which con challenges citing that a white guy looted a mall and blamed BLM. Pro calls back to the amount of damages, leaving the white looter inflating the numbers unchallenged (I actually got curious enough to read the whole article, and it would have been very easy to flip as he did not loot or vandalise anything).
2. Contention: BLM’s Ideology
A highlight was the way people of any heritage may raise themselves from poor to middle class.
Con wisely accepts the Marxism angle, and talks about how it better represents them than some people, and they stand up for the poor. Pro defends that capitalism has decreased worldwide poverty by a massive amount in in just a few decades, and asks con to demonstrate how Marxism has improved poor black communities.
Con challenges the claim that they attack Christian values (not sure why that was in there anyway). Marxism ties in, the value of the family unit, the harm of unwed mothers... While I see that both debaters want to explore this, it's honestly it's not holding my attention the way the destroyed infrastructure did.
CON'S CONSTRUCTIVE:
Con opens with a complaint that pro did not list the good BLM does... That is kinda not how a debate like this usually goes, as con's constructive should be providing the benefits to be weighed by voters against pro's harms. Con seems to be attempting a discourse Kritik, that pro was wrong to say unkind things about BLM in this comparative debate.
Con asserts without evidence that it has uplifted the poor, and says they were responsible for #MeToo via the butterfly effect.
Sources:
This leans pretty far in pro's favor. We end up with sources like Fortune describing the protests (tied to BLM) trying to destroy wealth in Chicago with millions of damages in that one city, vs someone unlikeable being caught wandering a mall during a riot. Even taking the mall source as it was presented, that's one out of a few thousand, without showing a general trend of the looting actually being white youtubers. Con's R2 broken links, sealed the deal, reducing many of his important claims there to just assertions.
Conduct: Forfeiture and structure violations.
S&G: Con's lack of headings hurt the organization of his case, but not by enough to cost this.
Yeah that really screwed you on sources, and I couldn't trace down some of them
NEVER EVER USE SHORTURL FUCK THAT WEBSITE!!!!
It removed my links?!!!!!! I just relaised it now when reading Ragnar's RFD more in depth.
None of us are immune to the pitfalls of virtue ethics, as much as the world would be a better place if we were.
Plus, you are correct. I really just let that infrastructure point float in the air and snatched it up again at the last second of R3. I needed to hit that home more.
Thanks for the vote! Admittedly, if I were to redo the constructive, I would not include the"Christian values" thing or the Marxism point. I would likely just really hammer my evidence about the "3 smart decisions anyone can do."
URL shorteners majorly backfired in con's R2 (all broken).
If anyone is curious, I tracked down the couple which were quoted:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice/race-and-criminal-justice/how-black-lives-matter-changed-way-americans-fight
https://www.akerman.com/en/perspectives/hrdef-the-black-lives-matter-movement-and-the-workplace.html
That is an astute observation, I had completely forgotten about that section. And considering a reparations act would more than likely be challenged at the Supreme Court, unless the judges are delusional, that should strike it down (unfortunately, considering the way rulings have been recently, delusion is more likely than it should be).
Chris, just a note to you as I review the arguments. You mention reparations in r1. Did you know that the proposal does not pass constitutional muster?Article I, section 9: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. Ex post facto is retro-active law. reparations would be retro-active. Can't be done.
It is very appreciated
I will vote on it before the deadline
Any votes on this would be appreciated, despite the forfeit from RM
BLM wants reparations for African Americans. This would require much higher taxes and is bound to drag our country more into debt.
Fair enough.
Maybe it could use more, but any more than 10k characters and it becomes an arduous slog for me. I still like to semi-enjoy my debates, even if they are on serious topics
Serious and relevent topic... I'd say given the size of it that it deserves a little more than 10k characters.
suit yourself.
You are 100% wrong but similar to how I avoided Wylted/Singularity's more extreme debates, there are some debates where I just don't want to be involved as it's too controversial what will come up in it.
Understood. If it helps, I could increase the time for arguments
Good objection. The BLM we know was founded in 2013, so I suppose I can amend the definition to include most instances of the "racial justice" movement in the US from 2013 onward.
I might disagree, but I am too scared to take this lol.
One of the difficulties in a debate like this is the impossibility of determining where Black Lives Matter begins and ends. There might be a Foundation with a legal address and all that, but it's a movement, as you say. When should the action(s) of an individual be attributed to BLM, and to what degree? Pinning down attribution with a high degree of precision is impossible, as far as I can tell.
Of course, this difficulty may not necessarily prevent a fruitful debate from occurring. But I wouldn't be surprised if Pro and Con tussle over what the 'real' BLM is, just like people debate what 'real' Christianity or 'real' Islam is.