Black Lives Matter (movement)

Regarding: https://www.debateart.com/debates/2294-black-lives-matter-movement?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=3

This is outside the window in which votes may be taken down, but your vote was highly questionable due to the level of bias you immediately indicated. A first line like: "Con spread disinformation and commited libel regarding BLM, Pro put the right-wing bigot in his/her place and schooled him/her." is never a good sign when a real debate occurred.

At a glance, everyone agrees pro lost. However, in the spreadsheet I use to help handle debate reports, one of the common ways a vote gets removed has this ready line available for insert: "The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content."

In future, please try to fairly weight a side even if you fundamentally disagree with it.

Regarding #12...
It was reported, but your conduct toward the 3 other votes suggests you're not trying to engage in voter manipulation or in any way alter the outcome.
If it were to have been at everyone who voted against you, I would need to caution you, as is, I am unclear why your comment was reported (the CoC stopped having the insult rule awhile ago now).

They are dividing and conquering by making you oppose a movement that is against them while thinking you are against them.

That is real dividing and conquering, LOL.

There are ways to go about pushing for change without indulging racial tribalism and lies. Divisiveness results from both. There are real consequences to that. The ruling class uses racial identities to divide and conquer the american proletariat. At least, that's what I see. If it didn't have these problems, I probably would support it.

, while the problem may be significant, it's not as big of a problem as the movement makes it out to be. In other words, my sense is that the movement represents an undue focus on the issue, plausibly caused by widespread emotional responses to stories of alleged incidents of police brutality.

I think that is the crux of the debatable point, right there. The personal experience of a smallish minority is at odds with national statistics. I am a gay man who is old enough to have experienced a fair amount of police brutality back when brutalizing gays was considered normal law and order across America. I live an old black neighborhood and have witnessed corrupt police brutality against my black friends and neighbors on many occasions. I have witnessed police shooting an unarmed black man for being startled when they woke him in his car. They emptied their guns, reloaded, emptied their gun, reloaded, emptied their guns again. A 14 year old girl in my neighborhood was shot 10 times by police because she had stolen a car and mixed up the brakes and accelerator. Three or four unarmed black men have ben shot by police in my neighborhood in my time living here and the neighbors report that it is much, much better than it used to be. One time, a cop drew his gun on me because he was digging through my trash can and I shone a flashlight on him thinking he was a hobo. So when BLM says stop killing us, I know first hand that they speak from a place of genuine fear and personal grief. I know what is like to be afraid of the police and I know that BLM is brave- the student standing alone before the tanks at Tiananmen.

I have also lived in rural farmlands and ultra white suburbs and so I know that my experience is not shared by large portions of America, who mostly get to see the "protect and serve" side of policing. I have also seen incredible acts of police kindness generosity and courage- sometimes by the same officers I've seen doing corrupt and racist shit. I understand why that majority is skeptical, having little analog experience with violence and only seeing the kind and generous service of police.

Both experiences are real and justified. For huge parts of the US, George Floyd is a blip, a non-representative experience. But in my neighborhood, Floyd's death becomes, "see? that's what I'm talking about. Maybe finally, white people will understand what's being done to us." Both experiences are real and justified.

Not really

Death23 has just revealed that they are an Ancap posing as a Socialist. There is no surprise there, for me.

I do believe that socialism is generally superior if you want what's best for the nation as a whole, from a utilitarian standpoint. That's simply a dispassionate, dissociated and dryly academic perspective. When it comes to making personal sacrifices for the benefit of the community, no I will not. Nice guys finish last. You will not find this atheist in a foxhole. When the ship of state is sinking you'll see me grabbing whatever booty I can find, making off with it and a lifeboat, and giving the finger to my doomed countrymen as I paddle away laughing at their misfortune.

describe*

@Death23

You just let slip that you are not a socialist. You desribe the mentality of a diehard capitalist who adores the unfair and brutal competition of selfish interest and holding onto wealth:

"I'm a bit of a nihilist and really, my house would let the world burn and not care much except to the extent the interests of myself and family are adversely impacted."

As for why I called you a 'bigot', your entire attack on BLM was rooted in the idea that blacks only look out for blacks because that's how you feel about all human groups.

Yes your debate resolution was "net harm to America" - This is a generally accepted standard in American politics but this debate had no such standard in place. In any event, substantial evidence exists supporting the contention that significant racism exists within local police PD's which is detrimental to black Americans and others. Though, as I stated in this debate, while the problem may be significant, it's not as big of a problem as the movement makes it out to be. In other words, my sense is that the movement represents an undue focus on the issue, plausibly caused by widespread emotional responses to stories of alleged incidents of police brutality. Weighing any benefit of addressing the issue itself against the other problems of the movement (e.g. divisiveness and falsehoods), on balance it is a net negative. Even given that, what the heck does "this house would" mean? I'm a bit of a nihilist and really, my house would let the world burn and not care much except to the extent the interests of myself and family are adversely impacted.

'assumption'

If you'll note my debate with RM (which I won, by the way), it is simply a matter of dismantling the assumption of systematic corruption.

The case is harder to make than I initially thought because it is necessary to develop a standard for supporting particular movements and justify that standard. That is something that's very hard to do IMO. Like, why divisiveness or misinformation significant? As far as evidence goes, I understand the general skepticism people have when going in to debates. From a judging perspective you could look at whether or not particular factual assertions are denied by the opposing party, or you can generally deny all of them (other than ones of generalized knowledge). I have observed that the latter approach is common in the community here. I'm not sure which is superior.

https://blacklivesmatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Toolkit-WhitePpl-Trayvon.pdf

th, Death I did follow the case as it unfolded and generally accept state and federal judgements on the matter. In my vote, I was looking for evidence that BLM persisted in false narratives regarding that case. As I said, I thought you established BLM self-delusion re: Brown shooting pretty well but then you just said "same thing with Trayvon Martin" although that case preceded BLM's existence and I don't know what their narrative is (beyond listing young Trayvon among the ranks of unarmed black men shot dead). I wanted more evidence there.

I consider you as a very good debater and I think you could craft a winning argument around your position here with a tighter set up (and no forfeit, naturally). Which is not to say I agree with that analysis of BLM's overall contribution.

Regarding #14:
The debate voting period has ended, but you are always welcome to expand your RFD within the comment section.

Trusting the witness is lying to defend Martin rather than Zimmerman is confirmation bias. It's also entirely viable to see clothes but not specific movements in the dark with one guy on top of another.

If you're at all interested in the Trayvon Martin case, there was only one witness (other than Zimmerman) to the fight. The witness's testimony suggested that Zimmerman was on his back, on the ground, screaming for help, and being punched by Martin before Zimmerman fired. See for yourself https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=196691611 Why in God's name the prosecution even bothered with the case is beyond me. See what the juror said about it: "JUROR: Well, because of the witnesses of John Good, saw Trayvon on top of George, not necessarily hitting him, because it was so dark, he couldn't see. But he saw blows down towards George. And he could tell that it was George Zimmerman on the bottom. He didn't know who it was, but he knew what they were wearing." https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-2013-07-15-sfl-zimmerman-juror-cnn-transcript-0716-story.html

I never said it wasn't valid, I simply state that, in my opinion: votes shouldn't as opinionated as yours was, due to the inherent bias it produces and conveys.

Not my problem.

My vote is valid.

I would say the false narratives argument is strongest. At the rallies I attended this summer, "hands up, don't shoot" was by far the most popular slogan even though the majority of witnesses and gun residue establish pretty definitively that Brown was reaching into the car when WIlson fired the first two rounds and the witness who reported Brown's hands up was shown to be unreliable. "hands up, don't shoot" was also the most popular response of the vandals and looters when police approached, although I am quite clear that I witnessed little overlap between those rioters and BLM. Nevertheless, BLM can't really back down on the narrative that made them famous or the slogan around which folks rallied this summer. Such false narratives are often at the heart of many a movement (Boston Massacre, for example) and doesn't have much impact on the net positive impact BLM has had on improving govt accountability and standards when it comes to shooting citizens.

Um... so, I kinda lean towards RationalMadman's opinion, though to a much lesser degree, but I also think you're opinions and political leanings should not inform your voting. Hopefully my vote was fine? My point is, I do agree that RationalMadman's vote is too opinionated.

I don't think you're getting it. Even if you do cite PRO, you are literally only doing so to prove your own agenda that, lo and behold, the debate is a falsism.

go ahead and list the contentions, I will explain one by one why they're false and how Pro addressed them.

"Con literally has 0 contentions that are true, literally. Just a series of disinformation and lies"

uh-huh, sure

I did not treat it as a falsism, My RFD was more in-depth than yours.

Sure, you may think it is an objective fact, in your OPINION. That is your prerogative. But clearly others do not share that belief. So, then, you can not treat the debate as if it were a falsism and be justified.

That illusion is what every single voter gives in every single debate. It is an objective fact that BLM is brilliant and has helped many poor and sidelined individuals, since what they pushed for in society was beneficial to the poor and the segregated.

They have done many good things and the only 'bad things' they can be associated with are rogues saying that they are part of a protest which they have in fact hijacked.

In addition to not being right-wing, I don't think Death23 is a bigot either. Opposing BLM doesn't make him a bigot or mean that he thinks black lives don't matter. The organization and the idea are not the same thing.

It's entirely your prerogative to feel that way, I just think you should try and give an illusion of objectivity when voting

That is how I felt while reading your debate, which was a series of defamation to BLM.

RM's RFD is loaded with bullshit and insults, and is clearly biased. Take that garbage down m8

One second, I have explained something wrong about what I quoted from Con vs Pro. I will like to also quote Pro's reply to what Con said. Please let me repost my RFD.

thanks for the compliment, as it came from you.

@RM

You're a fucking idiot.

"Pro put the right-wing bigot"
Death23 has Socialism listed as his political ideology. I'm pretty sure he isn't right-wing.

Something tells me you were a little too biased to be voting on this debate to begin with

A few side notes not relevant to judging.

CON argued that the Black community via BLM was insular, only interested in black problems. I note that BLM was founded by a lesbian, an immigrant, and a jew- two are married to trans spouses. I'd argue that BLM's core membership is much further outside of the Christian core of the Black community than say, a straight white Christian. The old NAACP and SPLC set was less pleased with BLM's influence than your average police officer until George Floyd changed BLM from a group to a slogan with national resonance this summer.

PRO's breast cancer awareness argument is interesting in light of revelations ten years ago about Susan G Komen's leverage of Bush Admin influence to eclipse AIDS fundraising and channel large sums to GOP and anti-abortion causes. The argument is true generally but false in the largest and most specific real world example of breast cancer fundraising.

1.5 days remain for voting.

BLM wants racial reparations. This would drag us deeper into debt and keep black people dependent on the government. They also hate the nuclear family because it's western prescribed even though it lifts people out of poverty. I don't support BLM.

5000 character limit is harder than I thought it'd be (lots of editing), but I look forward to your round 3.

I will likely be voting when all is said and done

Disillusioned isn't the right word. More like skeptical.

I'm growing increasingly disillusioned with the movement itself

Thanks, I'll check it out.

I fully agree. Feel free to look at my debate with RM for some extra evidence/arguments on this topic