Instigator / Pro
6
1737
rating
172
debates
73.26%
won
Topic
#2583
The term "All lives matter" is better than the term "Black lives matter" when it comes to battling racism
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
BearMan
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 6,900
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1615
rating
16
debates
93.75%
won
Description
You should know what “all lives matter” is.
BOP is shared. As a result, “pro did not prove what he is supposed to prove” is not to be counted as an actual argument. Con must be able to provide that BLM is the better term.
Round 1
Pro
#1
I thank fellow debater Bearman for this fascinating debate. It could be in one way my strongest topic. Despite this, I have never argued it here. Some arguments are based on this thread on DART[1].
ALM=All lives matter(the phrase)
BLM= Black lives matter(the phrase)
BoP=Burden of proof=Shared
Argument 1: More foolproof
Sources that are against my side could be used to my advantage.
By "All lives matter", we mean all. One could not possibly interpret "Black lives don't matter", or "Some lives matter" from the term ALM if one is being serious. ALM is a truism, since yes, all lives don't matter. This means the same thing as BLM, as Black lives are included in ALL lives, and instead of clearing only racism against Blacks, ALM theoretically claims racism against all sorts of people in this world.
Black lives matter, yes, but this is going absurd[2]. If ALM communicates to Black people that their lives apparently don't(which is clearly a sheer misinterpretation), then I could interpret BLM as "Only black lives matter"(which is more valid since BLM the slogan did not state that other lives matter as well. "Black lives matter too" is clearly a better slogan[3]).
And yes, if you are calling interpreting BLM as "Only black lives matter" a misinterpretation, then whatever the hell presented in source [2] should also be dismissed as a misinterpretation. We cannot twist words until they no longer carry their supposed meaning, the same way I can't just define a basketball "A non-basketball". The correct interpretations of ALM are all correct but one correct interpretation of BLM the phrase is not as it motivates Black supremacy, not equity.
Argument 2: Yes, All houses matter, but not like that
Most people I have debated this issue on has presented the "All houses matter" analogy. However, this is not representative of the issue at all. Let's look at the comic first[4]. There is a house on fire but the guy is pouring water on the house with no fire because apparently this is what "All houses matter" is. This is not.
Let's revert back to the Black-and-white issue here. If the government is putting funding on White people despite Black people need more help, then doesn't that mean that White people are recognized as mattering more than black people? If the house on fire needs help, getting no water whatsoever would mean that it apparently doesn't matter. Pouring a valued commodity on something that doesn't need it instead of on something that needs it would make that not all lives matter, considering the non-on-fire house that gets what the on-fire house needs would imply that the non-on-fire house matters more in this situation.
[5]This comic illustrates the example. On the left is what the left thinks ALM is, on the right is what it really is. If we want all lives mattering, we gotta pour water on the house on fire. On the left, the tall dude matters more than the short dude(as he can see the ball game better, which shows the flaw of this MISINTERPRETATION. If we are pouring water on the non-on-fire house, then it is not ALM. Yes, I am dismissing this as a misinterpretation. To achieve that All lives matter, we must do things like the picture on the right.
In other words, my opponent could be using a misinterpretation of my phrase. Saying that that is ALM doesn't logically make sense.
Argument 3: More inclusive
BLM is seeing this as a "Black-and-white" issue, and with the literal interpretation of the phrase BLM, it doesn't include that Native American lives matter, or Hispanic lives matter, or Asian lives matter, or LGBTQ lives matter, etc. ALM includes all of these because, well, it is ALL, not just black. I am not denying that Black people needs help, but dismissing that other minorities' lives do not matter with a phrase does not make sense. No, if you wanna imply that LGBTQ lives matter with the BLM phrase, change it. It doesn't show. Fine movement, terrible slogan.
Argument 4: Misuses
Of course we should not misuse ALM to respond to BLM and so downplaying the issue, but that does not undermine how true it is and how effective it is. Misuses exist, but just judging a phrase by its misuses alone is in itself fallacious. If your argument against going to school is "Hitler went to school too!", yet not acknowledging the practicality of school or anything else, and just giving an example of a failure from school, then it is a fallacy.
Conclusion
ALM is more foolproof as it cannot be false.
ALM is more inclusive as the term itself contains more than Black people.
ALM should not be judged only for its misuses, and those misuses does not undermine the benefits of the term.
Sources
Con
#2
Key Definitions:
All Lives Matter: All Lives Matter (#AllLivesMatter) is a slogan that has come to be associated with criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Black Lives Matter: Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a decentralized political and social movement advocating for non-violent civil disobedience in protest against incidents of police brutality and all racially motivated violence against black people. The broader movement and its related organizations typically advocate against police violence towards black people as well as for various other policy changes considered to be related to black liberation.
Racism: Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity. Modern variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. These views can take the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems in which different races are ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities
All definitions have been taken from Wikipedia.
What is All Lives Matter?
All Lives Matter is a term associated by the public as a criticism of Black Lives Matter. It is used as a retort against those advocating for Black Lives Matter. An expert in critical race theory, David Goldberg says All Lives Matter has an agenda of “racial dismissal, ignoring and denial.” [1]Though All Lives Matter may be innocent, the way it is used by the public is not beneficial to battling racism at all.[2]
Notice: Black Lives Matter does not advocate for Only Black Lives Matter or Black Lives Matter More. "When one asserts 'Black Lives Matter', it is not suggesting that Black lives should be or are more important than all other lives, instead, it is simply pointing out that Black people’s lives are relatively undervalued in the U.S. This is not a belief; it is supportive by multiple centuries of racial bias, discrimination, and ill-regard for Black humanity. Black lives are more likely to be ended by the police and the country needs to recognize that inequity to bring an end to it." says Waldo Johnson Jr., Ph.D., an associate professor in the School of Social Service Administration and a faculty affiliate with the Center for the Study of Race, Politics, and Culture at the University of Chicago. [3]
Why is Saying All Lives Matter Detrimental to Battling Racism?
Usage of the term All Lives Matter is associated with criticism against Black Lives Matter, which regularly advocates against racism. How can All Lives Matter be beneficial to battling racism when it advocates against an organization that has been known to battle racism?
And does All Lives Matter truly mean “All Lives Matter” or does it mean “Black Lives Matter is not fair for other people”? Because, if All Lives Matter truly meant All Lives Matter, the supporters of the term should not have a problem with “Black Lives Matter” But again and again, All Lives Matter has criticized Black Lives Matter. Let’s look back at our definitions here: “All Lives Matter (#AllLivesMatter) is a slogan that has come to be associated with criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement.” The literal epitome of All Lives Matter is hate on Black Lives Matter. Which proves successfully that the meaning and usage of the term “All Lives Matter” is not to provide unification of all races, but to criticize and offend those supporting “Black Lives Matter.”
In this case, simply interpreting “All Lives Matter” as “All Lives Matter” is strangely wrong. Even though it might have started truly as a way to unify all races and ethnicities, modern usage of it has been with criticizing Black Lives Matter and dismissing the problem of racism.
As proven, the usage of the term All Lives Matter is criticizing “Black Lives Matter.” Now, the real question here is: how? Using All Lives Matter tries to hide the amount of trouble black people are going through. Recent demographics have shown that black people are three times as likely to be shot by police than white persons. [3] Put simply, black lives are more discriminated against than white lives. Merely brushing off this problem with a nice “All Lives Matter” is like one tweet put it :
“Imagine your child dying and you are giving a eulogy explaining what your own child meant to you and how special your child was, and then someone grabs the mic[rophone] and says ‘actually all children are special…’ That’s what all lives matter sounds like[...] Embarrassing.”
BLM has no doubt realized that all lives do matter. The big picture here is that black lives are being discriminated against daily. Black people are being killed by police for forging a check. Black people are being given the talk about how not to wear a hoodie, always put your hands where the police can see them, and on the other side of the country, people are blaring “All Lives Matter” barely having experienced any of these hardships. All lives do matter, but all lives cannot matter until Black Lives Matter.
All Lives Matter has been the slogan for various racists against blacks. Racists using the slogan “All Lives Matter” will be detrimental to the face of the term, resulting in society associating it with racism, instead of fighting racism.
Conclusion
It’s simple. “All Lives Matter” is not a good way to battle racism, and its variant “Black Lives Matter” is better. Associating a slogan with hate is never a good way to endorse love. “All Lives Matter” does not truly mean “All Lives Matter” anymore. It is a hate movement against “Black Lives Matter” that has no place in an arsenal fighting against racism.
- All Lives Matter is not seen as a term used for promoting the concept that “All Lives Matter.” It is seen as a term advocating against Black Lives Matter. Such terms like this will never promote love between races if its base is on hate.
- Using “All Lives Matter” is a form of racial gaslighting that tries to generalize all types of racism under one and dismiss racism against blacks, which arguably is the biggest inequality so far as unimportant and selfish.
- While Black Lives Matter does not support all types of racism, All Lives Matter is no longer considered a term condemning racism, therefore won’t help at all
Round 2
Pro
#3
Pre-Arg. 0. My opponent's entire argument
This entire argument could be dismissed in the "Misuses" category, as that using ALM to justify racism is indeed a misuse. ALM does not mean "Some lives matter less" intuitively and clearly, using it to justify racism is incorrect.
Argument 4: MisusesOf course we should not misuse ALM to respond to BLM and so downplaying the issue, but that does not undermine how true it is and how effective it is. Misuses exist, but just judging a phrase by its misuses alone is in itself fallacious. If your argument against going to school is "Hitler went to school too!", yet not acknowledging the practicality of school or anything else, and just giving an example of a failure from school, then it is a fallacy.
His entire argument is based on these few claims.
- ALM is no longer treated as an anti-racism slogan whereas BLM still is
- BLM indeed helps with other types of discriminations
I will respond to each of the two argument as everything else are just the variation and/or mutations built upon these two claims.
Rbtl. 1. ALM is no longer treated as an anti-racism slogan
That conflicts with the meaning. ALM, no matter how it is interpreted, always means equity. Con drops that argument. Notices Con criticizes nothing I said about the term itself, merely that how the term is used, and he furtherly brought up MISUSES of the terms as the actual arguments against the term itself, not the racist group that misuses it. If I invented Heroin as a medical agent, and later the people use it recreationally as an addictive drug, then it is those people to blame, not me.
There is nothing wrong with ALM the term, only that how it is used. Using ALM to shut up BLM is a misuse, and the "All kids are special" sentence is to be used like this:
All kids are special, thus my kid is special. [states why my kid is special].
Plus, these two agree with each other as "my kid" is included in "all kids" and it is a truism that all kids are special. The two agree with each other. I, as a rational person, supposedly supports BLM. If someone shouts ALM when I finished shouting BLM, my response would not be anger, instead it will be: "Yes! Black lives matter because Black lives are included in all lives! We shall work towards this goal to make all lives matter!"
There is a viable response for BLM while not hurting ALM the always-truism statement. I have stated that. Rhetorically, ALM agrees with BLM. Con has dropped the point that ALM is more inclusive as well as more foolproof.
Rbtl. 2. BLM helps with other types of discriminations
We live in a society where terms are defined. As that, All means all, lives means lives, etc. With terminology fixed in place, terms consisting of other terms will also have a meaning built upon those defined terms, with exceptions. The "definition" given by Con of ALM only specifies its common misuse, but did not define what it itself is. Anyone with common sense would know that, In this case, ALM literally cannot be defined as a racist term as it is as inclusive and non-racist and equal as a term could be. BLM, on the other hand could be inclusive as only Black lives mattering doesn't mean White lives also matters. The slogan could either be advocating for equality or black supremacy, when interpreting the terms.
Did I ever deny BLM helps with other issues? No. Did BLM do these things? Yes. Did BLM the slogan show these things? No. If the activity scope of BLM also helps with LGBTQ discrimination as well as Racism against other minorities, then the titular slogan falls short. LGBTQ people and other minories does not completely fall in the "Black lives" category but they all fall in the "All lives" category. Fine movement, Terrible slogan.
Associating a term with racism and hate only shows how irrational these people are, not its original meaning. Just because the term is perceived with hate subjectively, it does not make the term any less true.
Even my opponent states that his argument is based on a society which has "ALM" not meaning "ALM" anymore. Guys, I did not specify the time period. If ALM means ALM, which is true, then Con's argument falls flat. In a state which racism exists and people acknowledges it and ALM is used for anti-racism, it is obviously a better slogan than BLM, considering it acknowledges other types of racism as well.
ALM is not dismissing Black racism. ALM is just seeing all kinds of discriminations with equity. Why does Black discrimination gets more spotlight than other discriminations? Why does calling for spotlight with amounts representing equity is suddenly labeled "Dismissing an issue"? We want other kinds of discriminations on the spotlight just like BLM does racism against Blacks. ALM is more inclusive after all.
Conclusions
- BLM, the term, only cares about racism about Black people.
- ALM, as a result, is more inclusive.
- With the terms defined objectively within this society, ALM is the better term.
- Misuses shouldn't be the main reason one criticizes the term itself
- If a term criticizes more kinds of racism with the same amount of words effectively when used properly, it is better.
- ALM does that better than BLM.
- ALM is the better term.
Con
#4
Rebuttal:
- Pro attacks my case, saying that I have not attacked his in the first round. With a 6900 character limit, this isn’t plausible. PRO also says that I have dropped most if not all of his points, which is false. If he wanted rebuttals in the first round he should’ve increased the limit.
Opponent’s Claim One: Basing one’s cases off of misuse is inherently fallacious in nature.
Agreed. But humans and the public media can stress these things making All Lives Matter seem terrible. The resolution is “The Term All Lives Matter is Better than the Term Black Lives Matter When it Comes to Battling Racism.” How are you supposed to battle racism with something the public sees as racist?
One can just look at the thousands of articles detailing All Lives Matter as racist, ignorant, and hateful [1]. Are we supposed to just take a 180 and start calling All Lives Matter respectful and anti-racist? The short answer is no. It won’t be effective judging by how many people already have seen the hate against All Lives Matter. All Lives Matter has been stained with misuses that have increased its already negative reputation. It has even been painted as racist, as USA Today concludes in association with a Columbia University sociology professor: “ "'All Lives Matter' can actually be interpreted as racist".
Looking purely from a literal perspective, yes ALM is more inclusive than BLM. The fact of the matter is, ALM’s reputation is absolutely terrible. It is not seen as a term by the public that promotes love or anti-racism. On the other hand, BLM has a good, even great reputation. When it comes to reputations and biases of the public, BLM clearly has the upper hand. When it comes to a literal perspective, ALM has the upper hand. But which one is better? Let me ask you a question, voters. Do people hire people based on their name or based on their reputation?
Opponent’s Claim Two: All Lives Matter includes every type of racism, so it is more inclusive and therefore better.
A class with one person versus a class with 30. Clearly, the class with one person will get more work done, and get better educated. A class with 30 will approach things more slowly, and the success rate of it will not be as high as the class with one person. We can apply this to All Lives Matter and Black Lives Matter. It just isn’t practical and good for battling racism if you generalize a big problem under one term.
Even though people are being more racially discriminated against and suffer more than others, ALM generalizes it under one problem. The problem with this is that it's ineffective and illogical to solve all problems by trying to generalize it under one problem. The individual approach of Black Lives Matter has and will spark other terms and movements, each battling their own types of racism[3]. Battling each and every problem with different teams is far better than battling all problems at once.
Opponent’s Quotes:
“Even my opponent states that his argument is based on a society which has "ALM" not meaning "ALM" anymore. Guys, I did not specify the time period. If ALM means ALM, which is true, then Con's argument falls flat. In a state which racism exists and people acknowledges it and ALM is used for anti-racism, it is obviously a better slogan than BLM, considering it acknowledges other types of racism as well.”
I have spent half of my argument beforehand discussing why ALM’s goals are not on par with ALM’s literal name. PRO says he did not specify a time period, therefore we should interpret it literally. This is a cheap trick with the resolution. Obviously, we should take into account the reputation of each term when it is used. PRO attempts to lessen his burden of proof by saying that I have to prove that BLM is better in all time periods, not just one. The problem with this kritik is that it still falls flat. Like I said in a refute: “A class with one person versus a class with 30. Clearly, the class with one person will get more work done, and get better educated. A class with 30 will approach things more slowly, and the success rate of it will not be as high as the class with one person.” Black people have been historically the most discriminated against. This quote, found in my introduction proves this very fact “Black people’s lives are relatively undervalued in the U.S. This is not a belief; it is supportive by multiple centuries of racial bias, discrimination, and ill-regard for Black humanity”
“ALM is not dismissing Black racism. ALM is just seeing all kinds of discriminations with equity. Why does Black discrimination gets more spotlight than other discriminations? Why does calling for spotlight with amounts representing equity is suddenly labeled "Dismissing an issue"? We want other kinds of discriminations on the spotlight just like BLM does racism against Blacks. ALM is more inclusive after all.”
Black people are historically the most discriminated against. If it was truly equity, ALM would be an advocate for BLM because they are being most discriminated against. Yet, we can cite my definition again: “All Lives Matter (#AllLivesMatter) is a slogan that has come to be associated with criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement.”
It is more clear that All Lives Matter is about equality. The users of the term do not recognize that Black Lives are currently in danger. They take the opposite stance, saying that all lives matter, trying to de-stress the point that black discrimination is a bigger problem than other types of discrimination. They attack the BLM organization, and if they were truly about equity, they wouldn’t.
CON’s Contentions
- ALM has a terrible reputation, even painted as racist. It just isn’t logical to use a racist statement to battle racism. ALM is not seen as a term promoting “All Lives Matter.”
- The detriments of including all types of racism under one have outweighed its benefits. Using a simple analogy of classes, it is made clear that BLM’s single focus nature will be more beneficial to battling racism.
- ALM was created to be a retort against Black Lives Matter. No term based on hate will ever perform well in a problem about love.
- BLM’s individualistic approach will ultimately be better than ALM trying to solve all racism at once. This approach has and will continue to spark other movements each solving their own problems.
Bad reputation, and trying to tackle all types of racism at once is a recipe for social disaster. Sources in comments, if you want to see my full case:
Notice that in the conclusion, it doesn't make sense for any of us to provide new arguments. Thus, I strongly advise PRO not to do so. Good luck, and make sure to vote con.
Round 3
Pro
#5
I shall interpret the "new argument" thing loosely because otherwise, not introducing anything new is impossible considering my old argument, as a whole, is being pounded successfully by Con. That combination, or combinations within those materials given by my R2 argument but with nothing new otherwise would not work. Just like adding a new limb is not equivalent to adding a new organism, I will rebuttal with extensions with my old arguments, with nothing "new".
Agreed points
It seems like my opponent actually agrees with some of my points.
- ALM the phrase is more correct rhetorically(At this point it is almost a concession)
- ALM acknowledges a wider range of problems
- Basing a claim of its misuse is fallacious
Rb.1: ALM has a negative reputation
If my opponent agrees that the negative reputation of ALM is due to its misuses(and judging one term by its misuse is fallacious), so I don't see the problem. If we filter the essentially meaningless subjectivity you will see that ALM is actually a more inclusive term, which he also agrees. ALM is rhetorically more correct and is more inclusive, and ALM, in its nature in question, agrees with BLM since Black lives are included in All lives.
BLM can be interpreted as racist due to the phrase itself. ALM is only interpreted as racist because people misuse it. To say the least, if the movement is called "Black lives matter too", then ALM would not be misused in that way. The "Hiring people by their name" analogy is less accurate, as in this case we are arguing the phrases, not the movements. The terms exist as independent beings. Practical English education would render this topic in Simple present tense instead of Present continuous tense, as my opponent's actual argument is to a topic more like "BLM is currently a better term against racism than ALM". If Heroin is invented by me as a medical agent and people use it to slack off recreationally as an addictive drug, then it is their fault, not mine. When people use ALM incorrectly with racist intents, it is their fault, not the term's.
Since my opponent agrees on that ALM is the "more correct statement", then this is completely solved as it questions nothing about the movements they inflicted, with people "misusing" it occasionally. Once again, we are arguing the terms, not the movements. If we disconnect the term from the movements and use it independently, it is really more
Rb.2: Solving problems separately
Terrible analogy again. With Con's logic, a smaller team is always better, and then if that logic is correct we would have multi-billion companies ran by only one person with no one else in the company. That is not true, is it? A company that tackles several issues would also be more helpful overall than another company that tackles only one problem, consider the latter has helped in less issues. ALM effectively battles all kinds of racism whereas BLM only battles racism against Black people.
It should be common sense also that if a unified crew is to solve problems, it will probably do better than a group of unaffiliated individuals who are strangers to one another. With having all different slogans being separate, ALM solves it with unity, because it agrees with all the slogans and essentially covers the battle with all racisms in the world, in fact, it will probably end race itself. While these other slogans still keeps the structure of race in mind, ALM would tackle the issue itself and making the concept of race disappear, thus rendering racism impossible. ALM, literally interpreted properly, would mean, "No matter who you are, we respect you." This completely regards not race. A slogan that doesn't recognize race(thus no racism) is obviously better than several who acknowledges race still and does less per slogan(The whole > Sum of its parts, so ALM would probably do more than those slogans), the same way as keeping a world with all these countries with different belief is harder than keeping a world with one nation of the globe. ALM does the latter whereas BLM does not even the whole of the former aforementioned.
ALM the term obviously argues for BLM and its likes, and perhaps a goal beyond that: Not seeing race, just humans as a whole.
I conclude and end this argument.
- ALM solves the race problem with complete unity, and it doesn't see race, thus ends racism. With race different racism is much easier, and BLM and its likes are all keeping the concept of race going, resulting in a world in which racism is much more difficult to deal with.
- We are arguing the terms, not the movements.
- Rhetorically ALM is the more correct and more inclusive statement.
- Minus ALM's misuses which doesn't matter it is a better statement.
- ALM is the better phrase.
- Vote Pro.
Con
#6
Conclusion:
- Much to my surprise, PRO has provided rebuttals in his conclusion. If I choose to respond, he should not take off conduct points, as he also provided rebuttals.
PRO drops my point about how supporting the BLM movement by stating BLM will eventually cause and spark other movements, each doing a more effective job than ALM. He also ignores the fact that the media and humans have a strong availability bias, looking at small examples of ALM doing racist or negative things. Such an example is when All Lives Matter protesters re-enacted the George Floyd death in front of BLM protesters. This shocking example along with many others stain the ALM reputation. The fact that there are also so many news sources opposed to ALM, a full 180, and calling ALM respectful isn’t plausible or better for battling racism. PRO also says it is “meaningless subjectivity” to have a bad reputation, which is false.
In nature, as my opponent suggests, it includes BLM. But does it really? Again, let’s look at our definitions. “All Lives Matter (#AllLivesMatter) is a slogan that has come to be associated with criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement.” It criticizes BLM, it doesn’t include it at all.
My opponent also states “We are arguing the terms, not the movements.” Saying BLM will widely refer to the BLM movement. Saying ALM will widely refer to the ALM movement. This is common sense. Saying BLM will often show support to the BLM movement, and saying ALM showing support to the ALM movement. Therefore, we must also look to the movements to describe the term’s effectiveness at battling racism.
PRO states that when people use the term incorrectly or misuse it, it is their fault, not the terms. The problem with this is that misuses are often the thing people focus on, thus even if it’s not the term’s fault, the term still takes a hit in its reputation, lessening its effectiveness for battling racism.
PRO also states that the existence and success of multi-billion dollar corporations prove the analogy that generalizing everything under one problem is terrible. This is not true. Multi-billion dollar corporations divide things up into groups, marketing, sales, and whatever they choose. They don’t try to solve every single problem at once with one group. In fact, the success of multi-billion dollar corporations actually proves that dividing things up into groups is better than taking tons of problems at once. The individual “lives matter” movements consider the fact that divide and conquer is more effective than taking everything at once.
- PRO claims ALM supports BLM and its likes, which is proven false, as its definition is hate against BLM.
- PRO claims that by saying All Lives Matter, it erases the concept of race, and unifies everyone together. First, ALM is not considered an anti-racism movement, and probably never will considering its terrible reputation. Second, an ALM movement considers solving the problem out of equality, not equity (proven in before rebuttal). Not everything regarding race can be solved using one term. Different races are experiencing different racism, thus racism will still exist regardless if we are unified or not.
- PRO claims that because the literal definition of ALM means “All Lives Matter.” ALM is the better term. Again, this is completely ignoring the reputation which all normal people would consider.
- PRO continues to claim that misuses are meaningless which is false. Misuses can pant ALM’s reputation in a bad light, which makes it meaningful instead of meaningless.
- PRO claims that erasing race will erase racism which is true. But this has an awkward similarity to the dystopian book “The Giver” in which everyone is of the same race. The ultimate goal is not to erase people’s sense of culture, but to keep that and eliminate racism. An analogy to this is that while the immune system seeks out to kill bacteria, they do not want to harm the body in the process. Sure, killing the body might kill the bacteria fully, but that defeats the entire purpose.
Summed up:
- Removing race in society is not always a good thing. Though it may remove racism, removing someone’s sense of culture defeats the purpose of removing racism.
- ALM’s misuses stain its reputation, thus aren’t meaningless.
- ALM has an already terrible reputation, judging by how news sources and other articles are approaching this topic.
- Bad reputation, terrible effectiveness, and attempting to erase society’s sense of culture are the perfect recipe for a dystopian society.
Vote Con.
View the full case here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fccWpDItsqPPa7BvCHk8V9VLLz7iA3nxVerwHx8Y5sk/edit?usp=sharing
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:
Arguments:
Essentially the debate boiled down to this:
Pro: The literal definition of ALM is something which is more inclusive than BLM and is therefore better at battling racism
Con: Regardless of the literal definition the way it is most commonly used it racist, therefore the nonracist slogan works better at battling racism
Pro does not actually really attack the fact that ALM's reputation is more racist, simply dismissing the case as it is a misinterpretation of the term. However, in a debate such as this, "Which would be more effective at battling racism" one should weigh the impacts heavily.
It is simply not true that BLM carries a more racist reputation than ALM, and would therefore be better at battling racism, as Con's list of sources proves.
Sources:
As I have previously mentioned - impacts are important here, and the fact that Con consistently provides sources to back up their impacts is very effective at earning the point. Combine this with the fact that pro stopped providing sources to reinforce their point after round 1, and the source point easily goes to con.
BS&G: Both debaters are adequate in this regard, tie.
Conduct: Both debaters are adequate in this regard, tie.
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:
If this was I can I BB, Pro would definitely have won (with Chinese people unaware of what the terms truly mean). However Con displayed that ALM at its current situation stains the very nature of BLM which asserts that minorities are discriminated against and matter at the end. Pro showed that ALM is more inclusive, but did not connect the ideas together for full impact (i.e., what is formed from ALM? Because Bearman says BLM fights for the problems shown in society, while ALM is a generic coverage that doesn't point out where the problem is; you have to look for it). If it were me, I would have stressed how the unity of humanity as a whole is far more powerful than the unity of a minority, regardless of staining BLM.
Also pro, I don’t buy your context. If you could’ve proved the future being better (ex. my time travel debate context, where you could also prevent Indians Spanish and Chinese from being discriminated against) then I would’ve tossed you the vote. Sadly your argument falls apart because you didn’t notice that ALM supporters criticize BLM
lol no
This term is awfully broad. Everyone has the right to say "All Lives Matter".
bruh
Interested? I mean, if you are, then this turns into r3 of gauntlet.