Which were worse, the BLM protests/riots or the January 6th capitol protests/riots? [@Oromagi]
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Resolution Which were worse the BLM protests/riots or the January 6th capital protests/riots?
PRO = BLM protests/riots were worse
CON = Jan 6 protests/riots were worse
BLM protests/riots: The George Floyd protests were a series of protests and civil unrest against police brutality and racism that began in Minneapolis, Minnesota on May 26, 2020, and largely took place during 2020.[7][8] The civil unrest and protests began as part of international reactions to the murder of George Floyd, a 46-year-old African American man who was murdered during an arrest after Derek Chauvin, a Minneapolis Police Department officer, knelt on Floyd's neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds[9] as three other officers looked on and prevented passers-by from intervening.
Jan 6th protests/riots: On January 6, 2021, a mob of 2,000–2,500 supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump attacked the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.[a][28][29] They sought to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election[30] by disrupting the joint session of Congress assembled to count electoral votes that would formalize President-elect Joe Biden's victory.[3][31]
BOP is shared.
Both sides must justify their respective positions of the resolution. The debate shall be judged on who is best able to show that one event was worse than another.
Additional rules:
Only Oromagi may accept.
- Our framework has been set largely by the description of the debate. The BLM protests/riots as typically defined, were the large array of protests, turmoil, and civil unrest that took place mostly throughout 2020 in response to the killing of George Floyd by former police officer Derek Chauvin. The January 6th protests and riots were the events of January 6th, 2021, at the US capitol in response to the election of current US President Joe Biden. Both descriptions are fully stated in the debate's description.
- Worse
- Of poorer quality or lower standard; less good or desirable.
- A more serious or unpleasant event or situation.
- I want to challenge what appears to be a popular but unjustified belief. By essentially every relevant metric evaluating harms and damages, the black lives matter riots were significantly more destructive, deadly, and had overall worse impacts than the US capitol protests/riots.
- The case of pro is this: anyone should acknowledge that the capitol riots were terrible events, but the black lives matter protests/riots were much, much worse. Put simply, these events created some of the most tragic and devastating periods of violence in American history and my heart grieves for the lives taken, and communities ravaged by them.
- It must be emphasized the BLM riots were some of the most destructive if not the most destructive series of riots in American history.
- According to a September 2020 estimate, "arson, vandalism, and looting caused about $1–2 billion in insured damage between May 26 and June 8, making this initial phase of the George Floyd protests the civil disorder event with the highest recorded damage in United States history" [2].
- Examining this, this extreme mass destruction only occurred in the "initial phase" of the protests and riots, only between 13 days (between May 26 and June 8). The true amount and scale of the damage is undoubtedly significantly worse if this multi-billion dollar figure only accounts for a mere two week period indicating that in just under two weeks, the black lives matter protests and riots had done more damage than many hurricanes.
- "More than 1,000 buildings were burned or damaged in Minneapolis in the days after George Floyd's murder. Criminal charges have been filed in connection with 11 of them" [6]. These waves of mass destruction occurred in just one city alone (Minneapolis) in a period of mere days.
- As a result of these BLM protests and riots "thousands of businesses and properties, many minority-owned, were looted, torched, or otherwise vandalized." [1].
- Given that so many black communities, homes, and businesses were destroyed in the BLM riots, it seems like a paradox that the very movement that claims to uphold the doctrine that "black lives matter" would lead to the mass destruction of black homes, black churches, black schools, and thus, black communities.
- Livelihoods, most egregiously African American livelihoods were ruined by these protests.
- Consider the many American families that own small businesses.
- Now, consider the many American families that rely on their small businesses as their source of income. What would happen if it was burned to the ground?
- Imagine an innocent family that has a home, whether that be a house or an apartment. What would happen if they suddenly lost the home to barbaric rioters who decided to burn it down?
- This sadly was the reality for many American families. As a result of the BLM riots, they lost their homes and sources of income many of them burned to the ground, destroyed, and/or looted beyond recognition. This alone is significant enough for anyone to acknowledge how much worse these riots were in relation to the capital riots, but their implications are strong enough to affect generations of people.
- In Minneapolis, the heart of the BLM riots, an Apartment building was set ablaze during George Floyd's protest after a protester deliberately set it on fire on East Lake Street." [3]. The complex was under construction and would have provided homes to hundreds if not thousands of people.
- The key here was that the building was under construction. The black lives matter riots as established, have done considerable damage to infrastructure in communities. The consequences of this are all the more devastating and nuanced.
- Developers of this infrastructure leave these communities in reaction to the violence and the destruction of their projects.
- Businesses leave these communities which harms their local economy and contributes to their poverty. This was very common during the active months of the BLM protests [12].
- The rampant violence and damages reduce the property values of the community also contributing to its poverty and stagnation.
- Less people are willing to serve in public institutions in areas rampant with violence. This leads to fewer teachers, fewer doctors, etc. This directly harms the education of many innocent children and sets them up on a shaky foundation. Their crime? Living and breathing in areas decimated by "black lives matter."
- It is no secret how badly riots affect property value [10]. In 2020, destructive black lives matter riots raged across the country reducing the property values of homes and neighborhoods across countries and states.
- As a result of this, the BLM protests and riots contribute to and perpetuate a continual generational cycle of poverty and disadvantaged communities.
- The New York Times reports that "At least six people have been killed in violence connected to the protests that started after Mr. Floyd died in police custody" [13]. Other organizations identified the casualties to be up to 19 (in two weeks). Ultimately, even just one death is horrific and unjustified and in this section, I will show you how the BLM riots led to a widespread nationwide increase in homicides, killing many more innocent people.
- NBC reports that "Nearly 400 NYPD Cops Hurt During NYC's Two Weeks of Protest Over George Floyd's Death" [5]. These injuries are within the first two weeks of these protests and riots alone and are solely injuries from the New York Police Department.
- Looking Nationwide, "More than 2,000 law enforcement officers were injured in the first weeks of protests over the summer following the in-custody death of George Floyd" [7]. Once again, in just the first few weeks.
- We must agree that Police officers are necessary to maintain peace and protect communities across our country. The injury and abuse of these very police officers make these communities more unsafe, vulnerable, and susceptible to crime.
- Radical increases in crime arising during and as a result of the black lives matter protests and riots are very well documented, and we have undoubtedly seen the large-scale result of a mass injury and devastation to the police force.
- According to a serious 20-plus page report from the Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice (CCCJ), “homicides, aggravated assaults, and gun assaults rose significantly beginning in late May and June of 2020" [8].
- Ph.D. candidate at the University of Massachusetts, Travis Campbell, further found in his analytical research that "murder rates soar dramatically in cities after BLM protests with up to 6,000 extra deaths nationwide - massively outweighing the decline in police killings, researcher finds" [9].
- While police killings declined slightly (most likely a result of mass injuries leaving them understaffed) the murder rate intensified to tragic heights, all a result of the black lives matter unrest.
- Damages:
- The US department of justice states that the capitol riots cost $1.5 million worth of damage to the U.S. Capitol building [11]. As we have shown that BLM riots did up to 2 billion dollars in damage in just two weeks [2]. This means that the BLM riots were 1333 TIMES MORE DESTRUCTIVE than the capitol riots.
- In round 2, I shall move on to rebut my opponent's case and expand on this comparative analysis.
- https://fee.org/articles/george-floyd-riots-caused-record-setting-2-billion-in-damage-new-report-says-here-s-why-the-true-cost-is-even-higher/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932022_United_States_racial_unrest
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp88QaUm92Q
- https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-fire-building-mn/fact-check-minneapolis-building-on-fire-is-apartment-complex-not-police-precinct-idUSKBN23537D
- https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/nearly-400-nypd-officers-hurt-during-nycs-two-weeks-of-protest-over-george-floyds-death/2455285/
- https://minnesotareformer.com/2021/05/27/one-year-later-few-charges-for-the-arson-and-destruction/
- https://www.policemag.com/585160/more-than-2-000-officers-injured-in-summers-protests-and-riots
- https://quillette.com/2021/01/27/did-the-blm-protests-against-the-police-lead-to-the-2020-spike-in-homicides/
- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9500789/Murder-rates-dramatically-cities-BLM-protests-researcher-finds.html
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/investopedia/2010/12/22/how-riots-can-influence-an-economy/?sh=73ddd61c6335
- https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/one-year-jan-6-attack-capitol
- https://www.florida-edc.org/blog/june-2020/businesses-leaving-riot-torn-cities-is-a-man-made
- https://www.nytimes.com/article/george-floyd-protests-timeline.html
- acts of violence by police, some justified, some less so,
- acts of violence in opposition to BLM, and
- opportunistic acts of violence and vandalism by people with no particular political motive
- (which represents the majority of the claims PRO lists here).
- Stop the Steal falsely claimed that Donald Trump was denied victory by widespread election fraud. The falsity of this claim was well established and well publicized long before January 6th.
- BLM honestly claimed that George Floyd was unjustifiably murdered by police and demanded a national accounting of systemic racism and police policy.
- If VOTERS agree that promoting a lie is WORSE than promoting the truth, then PRO's case stands disproved.
- Stop the Steal sought to illegally overturn Trump's defeat by disrupting the Constitutionally mandated joint session of Congress assembled to count electoral votes that would formalize President-elect Joe Biden's victory.
- BLM demanded equal protection under that law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
- If VOTERS agree that Americans undermining the US Constitution is WORSE than Americans upholding the Constitution, then PRO's case stands disproved.
- Stop the Steal sought to violently impose the falsified and unpopular political will of a minority in power over the properly expressed majority intent.
- "More than 1,000 Americans in positions of public trust acted as accomplices in Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election result, participating in the violent insurrection at the US Capitol on 6 January or spreading the “big lie” that the vote count had been rigged."
- By contrast, the BLM protests were single greatest political protest in US history.
- "By the end of June, more than 4,700 demonstrations had occurred in the United States—a daily average of 140—with an estimate of 15 million and 26 million total participants. Protests had occurred in over 40% of the counties in the United States. Protests in the aftermath of Floyd's murder were then considered the largest in United States history."
- If we can agree that 26 million Americans,(across the political spectrum but many disenfranchised minorities) seeking to reform the existing political structure is more democratic than a few thousand seeking to pervert existing political structures and impose their poltical will, then VOTERS should agree that anti-democratic protests are worse than democratic protests and so PRO's case stands disproved.
- Pro's claims critically depend on a conflation of protests organized by BLM with the general civil unrest of 2020.
- PRO has neglected separate our subject BLM "protests and civil unrest against police brutality and racism" from damages inflicted by people who were clearly not participating in BLM protests against racism, including the actions of police and counterprotesters as well as mere anarchists, radical opportunists and right-wing extremists exploiting the overextension of police protection.
- For example, according to Minneapolis police arson investigators, George Floyd protests had been relatively peaceful until instigated by the "Umbrella Man," who was recorded smashing out windows with a sledgehammer and spray painting "free shit for everyone zone" near the 3rd Police Precinct. " who police link to a local white supremacist group,
- According to one police affidavit: "This was the first fire that set off a string of fires and looting throughout the precinct and the rest of the city, until the actions of the person your affiant has been calling 'Umbrella Man,' the protests had been relatively peaceful."
- For example, White supremacist Ivan Harrison Hunter, conceded that on May 28 he drove to Minneapolis from San Antonio, TX to incite violence and at least fired 13 rounds from an assault rifle into an evacuated Minneapolis police precinct station as other rioters looted it and lit it on fire.
- For example, PRO attributes 19 deaths to BLM protests during the first two weeks but none of those deaths were really part of "protests and civil unrest against police brutality and racism."
- We can eliminate the four police shootings as protests against police brutality and racism
- We can eliminate the five people shot by store owners as protests against police brutality and racism
- We can eliminate the cop murdered by White supremacists
- We can eliminate the two people run over by cars
- We can eliminate the guy who killed himself trying to bomb an ATM
- We can eliminate the guy who died unnoticed in a pawn shop fire
- We can eliminate the two cases police later said were unrelated to protests
- One case a white guy shot a black kid after being shoved. He was exonerated in court as self-defense. Neither party had attended any BLM protests but were touring the riot scene late at night.
- We're left with one black retired police who responded to a break-in at a pawn shop far from any BLM protest site where he worked security. Neither assailant had attended any BLM protests. Both were black.
- Only a handful of these deaths attended any BLM event
- Not one death was attributed to protests against police violence or racism
- And yet all 19 are tagged as BLM protest deaths, why?
- A Washington Post/Harvard study reviewed 7,305 protests associated with BLM during the summer of 2020 and found:
- The overall levels of violence and property destruction were low, and most of the violence that did take place was, in fact, directed against the BLM protesters.
- Protesters or bystanders were reported injured in 1.6 percent of the protests. In total, at least three Black Lives Matter protesters and one other person were killed while protesting in Omaha, Austin and Kenosha, Wis. One anti-fascist protester killed a far-right group member during a confrontation in Portland, Ore.; law enforcement killed the alleged assailant several days later.
- Police were reported injured in 1 percent of the protests. A law enforcement officer killed in California was allegedly shot by supporters of the far-right “boogaloo” movement, not anti-racism protesters. The killings in the line of duty of other law enforcement officers during this period were not related to the protests.
- We've established that PRO has credited 19 homicides to BLM protestors by lumping in violence by police, violence by right wing extremists, violence by non-political opportunists, when in fact zero homicides were committed by BLM protestors during those two weeks. PRO's data is shown to be corrupt: he is attributing casualty numbers and damage estimates to BLM when in fact a very diverse array of groups and motivations must be factored into any honest assessment. Until PRO separates out all the irrelevant and false casualty and damage claims, we have no realistic sense of what BLM is actually responsible for and what is merely lazy journalism.
- So, for example, How many of those 400 NYPD Cops injured during protests were injured by BLM protestors at BLM protests? How many by rioters? How many by White supremacists? Does anybody really know?
- When PRO credits all increased crime and economic impacts to BLM protests is he likewise forgetting the diversity of groups contributing to disruptions and the impacts and of the COVID-19 pandemic on police enforcement, school attendance, increased stress at home, etc? PRO mentions hurricanes but gives little consideration to the scale or impact of natural disasters in his economic assessments, in spite of the record $95 billion in damages Americans suffered in 2020.
- VOTERS should discard PRO's whole argument as lazy attribution and Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
- Con has stated his sources in the comments outside of the debate, and an obvious tactic to save character space. Nowhere in the rules did I say this is allowed, and nowhere was this previously agreed upon. As con has extended his round 1 by posting additional content outside of it, I ask the voters to deduct conduct points from my opponent as this should warrant such.
- Con's accusation of moving the goalposts is false. The debate is over the BLM protests/riots vs the January 6th capitol protests/riots. This means we are debating both protests and riots (both have shown differing levels of devastation) pertaining to both events.
- Con misguidedly theorizes that I secretly have the full burden of proof.
- The debate description clearly states: "BOP is shared. Both sides must justify their respective positions of the resolution. The debate shall be judged on who is best able to show that one event was worse than another."
- Not only is the burden of proof shared, but this is also has been established and agreed upon by con's acceptance.
- My opponent has broken the rules of the debate by attempting to shift the burden of proof. I ask the voters to consider conduct points for this.
- Con makes his first contention based on this argument that:
- Supporting the truth is better than supporting a lie
- The black lives matter riots and protests were primarily based on truth (being the death of George Floyd).
- Therefore the black lives matter riots were better than the capitol riots.
- While only one of the premises needs to be disproved to refute this, the argument is a non sequitur. Fighting can be fundamentally based on truth (such as specifically the killing of George Floyd) and still ultimately deal more destruction, harm more innocent people, and have more devastating results. All this was true for the black lives matter unrest.
- Was the Us invasion of Afghanistan based on truth? Most definitely.
- "On October 7, 2001, the US invaded Afghanistan to avenge the al-Qaida-orchestrated September 11 terrorist attacks" [1b].
- The 9/11 terror attacks and the rise of terrorist activity were a real phenomenon in the middle east and America. However, the Afghanistan war led to millions of more deaths, caused horrific levels of destruction, and extrapolated harm that is not justified by the truth of its origin.
- Con's argument would have you believe that the January 6th riots were somehow worse than the Afghanistan war. This is of course, unreasonable.
- CON argues that BLM protestors were simply demanding enforcement of the constitution and therefore the capitol riots are worse. However, rioting, looting, and burning down houses is not demanding the enforcement of the constitution. There is no section of the constitution that allows such rabid violence and I appeal to con to show one that does. The BLM riots inherently circumvent the constitutional principles of peaceful protest outlined in the first amendment [6b].
- Con argues that the black lives matter protests and riots were the "greatest political protest in American history." Frankly speaking, this is irrelevant regardless of whether it is true or not. We are debating which was worse the black lives matter protests and riots or the capital ones.
- The fact we must consider is just as I cited in round one: "arson, vandalism, and looting caused about $1–2 billion in insured damage between May 26 and June 8, making this initial phase of the George Floyd protests the civil disorder event with the highest recorded damage in United States history."
- As we can surely all agree, arson is not democratic. Rioting is not democratic. Burning down the homes and businesses of marginalized communities, and facilitating the radical increase in crime within them is anti-democratic because it places affected communities at a disadvantage.
- Violence is not democratic. Peaceful protesting is democratic. In the capitol riots, most people were doing just that. Only 800 out of a projected up to 80,000 people stormed the capitol [4b] [5b]. This means up to 99.99% of capitol protestors were simply peaceful protestors.
- We are ultimately comparing two protests that made use of undemocratic means. Naturally, the one that led to greater harm, destruction, and harm to innocent people was the worst of the two. As we have shown the BLM protests were 1333 times more destructive so by any metric they were worse.
- CON argues that black lives matter violence was secretly caused by white supremacist groups and argues that we don't actually know how much they are responsible for. We can EASILY disprove this claim.
- Research by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) shows that 88% of black lives matter riots were involved BLM activists [3b] and "BLM activists were involved in 95 percent of the riots for which there is information about the perpetrators’ affiliation."
- We have therefore established that BLM is responsible for the overwhelming amount of damage, burning of homes, and violence that caused harm to communities most egregiously minority communities.
- As I previously stated in round one, deaths and casualties from the black lives matter protests and riots are estimated from different sources to be from 6 to 19 (and likely more due to the figures coming from 2 weeks of activity).
- Con says "we can eliminate the four police shootings as protests against police brutality and racism," However, this statement makes the assumption that these shootings were not justified by the police in response to black lives matter violence. If BLM violence forced police officers into a situation in which they had no choice but to kill rogue protestors or rioters, this is a casualty of the black lives matter protests.
- Con also says We can eliminate the five people shot by store owners. However, store owners were defending themselves against BLM protestors and rioters. These are again unfortunate casualties of the BLM riots because they are protest encounters that forced these innocent store owners to defend themselves. These are again, casualties attributed to the BLM protests and riots
- Con says we can eliminate the two people run over by cars. The question is, why were these people run over by cars? Well, one man was "struck by a vehicle while marching between California Avenue and Oak Street." An unfortunate death from the fact that BLM protests occupied roads and were often conducted in unsafe ways, again, these are protest casualties.
- Con's source also introduces many new deaths but based on this interplay we have established and confirmed between 6 and 19 deaths just as stated in round one.
- My argument is explicit and remains evident. Remember that over 2000 police officers were injured by BLM riots [7].
- Harm to police officers leads to an increase in crime. We have seen the radical soaring in crime that came as a result of BLM riots and protests. As shown in round one:
- Ph.D. candidate at the University of Massachusetts, Travis Campbell, further found in his analytical research that "murder rates soar dramatically in cities after BLM protests with up to 6,000 extra deaths nationwide - massively outweighing the decline in police killings, researcher finds" [9].
- BLM violence directly causes radical increases in chaos and crime
- Violent protests and riots lead to property damage, which leads to lower property values. This makes communities poorer and more largely affects minority communities and it is a fact of socioeconomics that "if crime levels rise, there will be less money for other services such as education and healthcare" [7b].
- Violence in communities leads to the mass departure of businesses from these communities. As shown in round one this was very common during the active months of the BLM protests [12]. This makes communities poorer and harms their local economies.
- Violence in areas leads to fewer people being willing to work in these areas. This leads to fewer teachers and fewer doctors etc. This harms the development of these communities and reduces their quality of education as well as any service.
- Violence and destruction of property devastates infrastructure. This is seen for example when a protestor deliberately set fire to a large apartment complex that would have given homes to thousands [3]. This makes developers unwilling to start projects in these communities leading to their stagnation.
- During the BLM protests, it was very common for BLM rioters to burn down homes and businesses and as shown in round one many of these buildings burned down are the homes and businesses of BLACK PEOPLE and other minorities [1]. For millions of families, homes and businesses are their livelihoods. Imagine having to go temporarily homeless because your home was destroyed. Imagine being unable to provide for your family because your business was looted and destroyed. Black lives matter riots cause lasting and permanent harm to families.
- My argument is that the BLM riots perpetuate a generational cycle of misfortune, disadvantaged communities, and disadvantaged families.
- CON has shown no evidence that even suggests that the capitol riots were worse in any capacity.
- I have fully proven the opposite.
- b. https://www.dw.com/en/
- b https://www.usatoday.com/story/
- b https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/16/
- b https://www.pennlive.com/nation-world/2021/02/
- b https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/
- b https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
- b https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zbhpgwx/revision/2
- Any source without a letter (ex. [5]) indicates the same source used from round one.
Con's accusation of moving the goalposts is false. The debate is over the BLM protests/riots vs the January 6th capitol protests/riots. This means we are debating both protests and riots (both have shown differing levels of devastation) pertaining to both events.
Fighting can be fundamentally based on truth (such as specifically the killing of George Floyd) and still ultimately deal more destruction, harm more innocent people, and have more devastating results.
- But we aren't arguing which event harmed more people and property. We are arguing which even was WORSE by any standard.
Con's argument would have you believe that the January 6th riots were somehow worse than the Afghanistan war. This is of course, unreasonable.
- Rather than compare apples to oranges, I would have VOTERS agree that the Iraq War was WORSE for America than World War II, even though more American soldiers died in the latter because the Iraq War was based on government manufactured lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction and Iraqi terrorism.
- PRO seems to concede that BLM intentions were honest.
- PRO conceded Trump's defeat in DEFINITIONS: "They sought to overturn his defeat"
- PRO makes no defense of the Jan 6th attacks as an honest enterprise.
- By the excellent standard of truth-telling, the Jan 6th attacks were WORSE for America than the BLM protests.
rioting, looting, and burning down houses is not demanding the enforcement of the constitution.
- PRO has not documented any of these activities at BLM protests against police brutality and racism.
- PRO seems to concede that the Jan 6th Insurrection was unconstitutional.
- By the excellent standard of constitutionality, the Jan 6th attacks were WORSE for America than the BLM protests.
Violence is not democratic.
- Tell that to the Founding Fathers
- "what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants." -Thomas Jefferson
- Even disproved, let's note that PRO's math is off by two orders of magnitude.
he one that led to greater harm, destruction, and harm to innocent people was the worst of the two. As we have shown the BLM protests were 1333 times more destructive so by any metric they were worse.
- Using PRO's original definition, 842 arrests equals 33-42% of protestors charged with crimes of violence and property damage.
- Using PRO's new definition 842 arrests out of 800 equal 105% of protestors charged with such crimes.
- Let's compare either level of criminality to the Washington Post/Harvard study of 7,305 BLM protests which only found any property damage at 3.7% of events and any violence at only 2.3% of events. That's strong evidence that the Jan 6th riot was far more intense/severe in terms of harms, and therefore 10 to 50 times WORSE than the BLM protests when taken as a whole.
We are ultimately comparing two protests that made use of undemocratic means.
- PRO concedes Jan 6th protest undemocratic here. Since the overwhelming majority of BLM protests were peaceful free speech, undemocratic does not apply to BLM.
- In June 2020, 67% of Americans polled supported BLM protests
- By contrast, 72% of Americans condemned Jan 6th as "an attack on Democracy."
- By the excellent standard of Democracy, the Jan 6th attacks were WORSE for America than the BLM protests.
Research by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) shows that 88% of black lives matter riots were involved BLM activists and "BLM activists were involved in 95 percent of the riots for which there is information about the perpetrators’ affiliation."
- The Federalist is an unreliable source of propaganda. Media Bias / Fact Check ranks the site as untrustworthy:
- "Overall, we rate The Federalist Questionable and far-Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that always favor the right and promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and numerous failed fact checks."
- If PRO had consulted the actual ACLED data, PRO would have discovered that the source he cites strongly refutes PRO's case.
- "The vast majority of demonstration events associated with the BLM movement are non-violent. In more than 93% of all demonstrations connected to the movement, demonstrators have not engaged in violence or destructive activity. "
- "Despite the media focus on looting and vandalism, however, there is little evidence to suggest that demonstrators have engaged in widespread violence. In some cases where demonstrations did turn violent, there are reports of agents provocateurs — or infiltrators — instigating the violence. "
- Despite the fact that demonstrations associated with the BLM movement have been overwhelmingly peaceful, more than 9% — or nearly one in 10 — have been met with government intervention, compared to 3% of all other demonstrations
- "heavy-handed police response appears to have inflamed tensions and increased the risk of violent escalation"
- Government forces are the primary perpetrators of [journalist] attacks, from beatings and assaults to violent arrests. Since May, ACLED records over 100 separate incidents of government violence against journalists in at least 31 states and Washington, DC during demonstrations associated with the BLM movement.
- Why is PRO crediting police assault on journalists as BLM?
- "Since 24 May, over 1,000 pandemic-related demonstrations have been reported in 47 states...... In early August, demonstrations connected to the pandemic surpassed demonstrations associated with the BLM movement ."
- Why is PRO crediting BLM with thousands of pandemic demonstrations?
- "Between 24 May and 22 August, over 360 counter-protests were recorded around the country, accounting for nearly 5% of all demonstrations. Of these, 43 — nearly 12% — turned violent, with clashes between pro-police demonstrators and demonstrators associated with the BLM movement."
- That is, protests against BLM were about four times as likely to be violent as BLM protests. Why is PRO crediting BLM with violence by people protesting BLM?
If BLM violence forced police officers into a situation in which they had no choice but to kill rogue protestors or rioters, this is a casualty of the black lives matter protests
- Unless PRO can show how a police shooting qualifies as "protests and civil unrest against police brutality and racism," PRO may not credit that violence to BLM protests.
- The same dynamic must apply to all of PRO's claims of harm. PRO's own sources say that police, white supremacists, non-political opportunists, protestors against the pandemic and many other causes all contributed substantially to the violence. To call all of it "BLM Protest/Riots" is to promote a popular, racist overgeneralization without respect for the truth.
- Con stated his sources outside of the debate, an obvious tactic to save character space. Nowhere in the rules is this allowed or previously agreed upon.
- Con has extended his round 1 & 2 by posting additional content outside of it. I ask voters to deduct conduct points as this should warrant such.
- In response, con claims I am making new rules. Weirdly, this is not a new rule at all. As a default, all content must be within the debate otherwise, why not simply continue your argument in the comments? We can say either
- All con's claims are effectively unsourced as references do not count outside of the debate.
- Voters must deduct conduct points from con for extending his round.
- I remind the voters that the description of the debate, clearly states: "BOP is shared. Both sides must justify their respective positions of the resolution. The debate shall be judged on who is best able to show that one event was worse an another," and that con agreed to the rules of the debate by accepting it.
- Shifting the burden of proof in this manner should be documented as a conduct violation.
- As I am the only one that has currently upheld my burden of proof I will restate that I have proven "the black lives matter riots were significantly more destructive, deadly, and had overall worse impacts than the US capitol protests/riots."
- For con to uphold his burden he must prove that the capitol riots were worse than the BLM riots. Con has failed to do so.
- I remind the voters that the resolution is "which were worse the BLM protests/riots or the January 6th capital protests/riots?" In both movements, there were peaceful protestors and rioters and we are debating the combination of protests and riots for each respectively. No goalposts have been moved in any way.
- I agree that we should not attribute white supremacist violence to BLM but irrespective of that, 95% of violent riots during the period of BLM protests were violent BLM demonstrations [3b].
- This is a major point that needs to be emphasized. Con continues to insist that BLM riots were not caused by BLM protesters and activists. Put simply, the overwhelming majority of violence and riots of the period (up to 95%) were violent demonstrations of BLM. Yes, BLM caused these riots. Con will try to lie about/deny this in a few ways and I will show you how his attempts are invalid.
- The claim in question is this:
- "BLM activists were involved in 95 percent of the riots for which there is information about the perpetrators’ affiliation."
- Con makes two claims:
- We cannot trust the direct reporting of research because it is on a right-wing source, but this is simply the genetic fallacy. The origin of the source does not invalidate the scientific and empirical data it cites.
- The Federalist did not use actual ACLED data. This is false. I will illustrate how the ACLED data fully backs up the FACT that 95% of riots over the period were violent demonstrations of BLM.
- Con argues that BLM protests were mostly peaceful. This is true in the same way that 99.7% of capitol protestors were peaceful protestors, however, it is irrelevant to the extreme amount of damage the riots and violence caused while still being the minority of BLM demonstrations.
- According to the ACLED definition: "riots are a violent demonstration, often involving a spontaneous action by unorganized, unaffiliated members of society."
- ACLED data documents up to 570 violent BLM demonstrations from just May 24th to August 22, 200 [1c]. Applying the same window of time to the ACLED US crisis monitor that reports on riots caused by all groups including the white supremacist groups my opponent refers to, only 603 riots occurred nationwide between that time frame. Calculating a rate of 570/603, we find that BLM violent demonstrations made up 94.5% of riots (approximately 95%).
- This is EXACTLY what the Federalist reports: "up To 95 Percent Of 2020 U.S. Riots Are Linked To Black Lives Matter" [3b]. This shows that they claim 100% correct. Con does not even respond to it by assessing his data otherwise he would have seen likewise.
- The rest of what con posts include other cherrypicked quotes and irrelevant statistics. Voters let me put this into perspective. It does not matter if most of the BLM protests were peaceful. If the percentage of their protests that were violent did 1-2 billion dollars in damage [2].
- Con says "but we aren't arguing which event harmed more people and property." This is incorrect. The description states this debate is to be evaluated by "who is best able to show that one event was worse than another.
- How do we best show if an event of destruction was worse than another event of destruction? What makes an event worse? Most reasonably, it is the event that did more damage, took more lives, and caused more harm to poor people, families, communities, and innocent people. The event that ravaged poor and minority communities, the event that burned down homes and businesses. These are the BLM protests and riots.
- I refuted con's argument by showing that it that the Afghanistan war was worse than the capitol riots. Con does not dispute this false and responds by making an irrelevant comparison to the war.
- Con admits that his argument (based on truth) shows that the 20-year Afghanistan war that killed 168,000 was somehow better than the capital riots and this makes his standard unreasonable.
- Con complains this is comparing apples to oranges, admitting that his own argument leads to an unreasonable comparison.
- Con agrees that rioting, looting, and arson are not demanding the enforcement of the constitution but says I have not shown this was done by BLM protests and riots. This is patently false, but also an admission that this would refute his argument.
- We have established above that up to 95% of riots were just violent BLM demonstrations [1c + 2c].
- We have established that in these BLM riots "Dozens of people were killed or injured in the violent unrest, and thousands of businesses and properties, many minority-owned, were looted, torched, or otherwise vandalized" [1]. In addition, we pointed to a specific example of a BLM protestor who specifically burned down a large apartment building in round one [3].
- By the extent of con's own standard constitutionality, it is the BLM riots that are worse.
- Ultimately there was constitutionality in both movements (peaceful protesting) and unconstitutional elements of both protests (violent destructive riots that caused harm to people). So the movement that led to more deaths, more violence, more destruction, and more harm to innocent people is the worst movement. This is the BLM protests/riots as we have now established as a fact.
- Con says "pro concedes Jan 6th protest undemocratic here." Nowhere have I done this.
- Both the capitol protests and the BLM protests made use of anti-democratic means, (violent riots) but that does not mean the capitol protests in themselves were anti-democratic in the same way an election having incidents of voter fraud but that does not make the election anti-democratic.
- We have already established that 99.7% of capital protestors are simply peaceful protestors. We must all agree that peaceful protest is democratic. By this standard, the anti-democratic BLM riots were 1333 times more destructive than the capitol riots were worse
- Con argues that more than 800 people have been arrested for capital-related offenses. That doesn't prove that they are ALL guilty, but to save further obfuscation we can go by the definition I cited from Wikipedia although evidence shows that the number was in reality much less, around 800.
- Con concedes that a projected up to 80,000 people were protesting at the capitol [5b]. Even with the slight adjustment in the number of people who stormed the building for the sake of highlighting its irrelevance, if we assume that 2500 out of a projected 80,000 people stormed the capitol that shows that 99.7% of capitol protestors were simply peaceful protestors, less than half of a percent difference from 99.99%.
- 6-19 deaths were caused by the BLM riots [10, 13]
- Con drops all other killings except for the police shootings [10, 13]. These are deaths as a result of BLM rioting because they forced the police to kill. Regardless, with all the new deaths con's own link introduced we are still well within the range of 6-19. This claim remains proven.
- Con says "[the capitol riots were] 10 to 50 times WORSE than the BLM protests when taken as a whole."
- This claim is false. If we take up to 2 billion dollars [1] done by BLM riots and make a rate with respect to the 1.5 million [11] done by the capitol riots, the BLM riots were up to 1333 times more destructive.
- As a whole, surely we must evaluate all the damages done totally, no?
- Con does not challenge the majority of my constructive argument. I have shown irrefutably that BLM riots have done harm to people.
- Remember that as per the rules,"[this] debate shall be judged on who is best able to show that one event was worse than another."
- My argument is that the BLM protests and riots did much more damage, caused much more harm, lead to the deaths of more people, and ruined the lives of families by destroying their homes and livelihoods. They aid a generational cycle of poor and disadvantaged communities. They have led to drastic increases in homicide rates [8], causing mass injury to police officers [5], which led to even more unsafe communities.
- Previous sources reused
No goalposts have been moved in any way.
- PRO redefined BLM PROTESTS from "BLM protests and civil unrest against police brutality and racism" to "the large array of protests, turmoil, and civil unrest that took place mostly throughout 2020." That is, including non-BLM protests, street rioting, etc. All of PRO's impacts depend one big lie that mixes together the civil unrest by many diverse interests, (most far away from BLM protests sites, and/or most after curfews when BLM protesters had gone home for the night) with BLM protests. Relying on the same Wikipedia article PRO used to define BLM PROTESTS, we have this description:
"An analysis of state and federal criminal charges of demonstrators in the Minneapolis area found that disorganized crowds had no single goal or affiliation, many opportunist crowds amassed spontaneously during periods of lawlessness, and that people causing destruction had contradictory motives for their actions. Other analysis found that persons involved in visible crimes such as arson or property damage were not ideologically organized"
- If we trust PRO's source, then we can't correctly or fairly attribute much of that $1-2 billion in damage to any ideology, including BLM. PRO's whole case hinges on labeling all of that harm BLM harm but PRO's own sources tell us that's a lie. VOTERS must find that PRO failed to stick to his original definition and relied on a far more expansive, non-ideological definition of BLM protests to establish all of his claims of harm.
- PRO also redefined Jan 6th protests from a mob of 2,000–2,500 supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump to 800 supporters.
I have proven "the black lives matter riots were significantly more destructive, deadly, and had overall worse impacts than the US capitol protests/riots."
- Let's note that PRO now claims his burden was to show BLM protests more destructive, deadly, and worse. In fact, we are just debating which was worse by any standard. Destructive and deadly are not standards we need apply and given PRO's lack of BLM specific statistics, PRO never even established the degree of harm according to those standards.
- Extend arguments from R2.
- VOTERS will note PRO made no effort to defend the Jan 6th attack as ideologically honest. Every leader and most followers knew Trump's claim was bullshit but attempted to force a lie on to Americans at the expense of Democracy.
- By comparison, the simple, honest assertion that Black Lives are created equal "precipitated a worldwide debate on policing and racial injustice that has led to numerous legislative proposals on federal, state, and municipal levels in the U.S. intended to combat police misconduct, systemic racism, qualified immunity and police brutality. The protests led to a wave of monument removals and name changes throughout the world and occurred during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and amid the 2020 U.S. presidential election season."
- Arguably, Biden's choice of a black woman for Vice President was a direct response to BLM protests.
- Using truth as one standard, Jan 6th was much WORSE than BLM protests.
Con agrees that rioting, looting, and arson are not demanding the enforcement of the constitution
- That's false. VOTERS will find that I agreed to no such statement.
We have established above that up to 95% of riots were just violent BLM demonstrations [1c + 2c].
- PRO deliberately falsifies ACLED data. ACLED says nothing of the kind
- In more than 93% of all demonstrations connected to the movement, demonstrators have not engaged in violence or destructive activity.
- Despite the media focus on looting and vandalism, however, there is little evidence to suggest that demonstrators have engaged in widespread violence.
- despite data indicating that demonstrations associated with the BLM movement are overwhelmingly peaceful, one recent poll suggested that 42% of respondents believe “most protesters [associated with the BLM movement] are trying to incite violence or destroy property”
- Research from the University of Washington indicates that this disparity stems from political orientation and biased media framing
In addition, we pointed to a specific example of a BLM protestor who specifically burned down a large apartment building in round one
- PRO's one specific claim is just a YouTube video of a building burning. Nothing about the video suggests blame for any political ideology.
- PRO has still not documented even one specific act of rioting, looting, or arson at any BLM protest.
- PRO conceded Jan 6th was unconstitutional in R2.
- CON extends R1 14th Amendment argument which PRO has not addressed.
- In terms of respect for the US Constitution, Jan 6th was much WORSE than BLM protests.
Con says "pro concedes Jan 6th protest undemocratic here." Nowhere have I done this.
We have already established that 99.7% of capital protestors are simply peaceful protestors. Con concedes that a projected up to 80,000 people were protesting at the capitol
- FALSE.
- PRO defined the Capitol attack as a "a mob of 2,000–2,500."
- CON defined BLM protests as having 15-26 million participants.
- Of these, 300 Federal cases have yielded 120 guilty pleas or convictions. Hundreds more have been acquitted.
- That is, AT LEAST 12.1% of Jan 6th rioters admit to Federal crimes vs. AT LEAST .0005% of BLM protestors (5 ten-thousandths of one percent) admit to Federal crimes.
- In terms of crime relative to numbers, the Jan 6th were far more criminal, proportionally.
- To the extent that a hyper-criminal mob of a couple of thousand trying to overturn the presidential election is manifestly less democratic than 26 million protestors demanding reforms to the existing institution, CON has shown that the BLM protests were more democratic.
- In terms of respect for Democracy, Jan 6th was much WORSE than BLM protests.
[CON claims] We cannot trust the direct reporting of research because it is on a right-wing source....
- False. We cannot trust The Federalist because it reports that ACLED said the opposite what ACLED actually reported.
ACLED data documents up to 570 violent BLM demonstrations from just May 24th to August 22, 200
- FALSE again. ACLED documents "fewer than 570 involve demonstrators engaging in violence."
- Not BLM demonstrations.
- ACLED never assigns a numeric value to violence by BLM but does specifically lay much of the blame for violence on non-BLM demonstrators-
- " It is not meant to suggest all associated events are directly affiliated with the national BLM organization."
- "demonstrations have erupted en masse around the country, andthey are increasingly met with violence by state actors, non-state actors, andcounter-demonstrators alike"
- Overall, ACLED data indicate that government forces soon took a heavy-handed approach to thegrowing protest movement. In demonstrations where authorities are present, they use forcemore often than not. Data show that they have disproportionately used force whileintervening in demonstrations associated with the BLM movement
These are deaths as a result of BLM rioting because they forced the police to kill.
- PRO has failed to justify this remark. In fact, Jorge Gomez had committed no crimes and was running away from the police when they shot him in the back. Sean Monterrosa was kneeling in an empty parking lot with his hands on his waist when police shot him in the back of the head. His shooting was ruled "not objectively reasonable" even after police conspired to destroy the evidence. Why does PRO blame BLM for these deaths?
- PRO credits all of the death, violence, police injuries to BLM when no responsible journalism backs this claim.
- When we look at PRO's "19 deaths in 2 weeks" claim, we discover that not one BLM protester stands accused of any of these deaths, much less convicted. To what extent are other acts of violence similarly miscredited? PRO makes no effort to ascertain the facts.
Reposting to award only for arguments.
PRO began their argument with the ridiculous claim that the BLM protests "created some of the most tragic and devastating periods of violence in American history" - but went on to nevertheless provide some quite convincing numbers. CON responded by pointing out that much of the violence cited by PRO was due to "opportunistic acts of violence and vandalism by people with no particular political motive." We could infer, however, that the intensity and chaos of the BLM protests were what created the opening for such opportunists. However, CON also later points out the role of right wing extremists and opportunists in escalating and contributing to the violence.
CON attempted to put the entire burden of proof on PRO, even though the description stipulated shared BOP, stating that "As the instigator of this debate, PRO bears the entire burden of proof for this debate." I don't think this makes sense, since both sides of this debate involve a positive claim (that one side was worse than the other).
CON pointed out that the claims motivating Stop the Steal were blatantly false, while the motivations of BLM are admirable and true. This is a convincing point, since a mere accounting of dollars in damage, or people harmed, does not give the sense of the historical role of a movement. CON also pointed out that the BLM protests were the "single greatest political protest in US history" - which presumably accounts at least partially for the different scale of violence and destruction.
Both sides deployed certain "fixed ideas" in the course of their arguments. PRO had a clear pro-police and anti-crime stance, while CON made reference to the constitution and democracy.
Then there was PRO's attempt to take away conduct points from CON for providing sources in the comments. This came across as quite petty, especially since the links seem to be just reposting the same sources that were hyperlinked in the text of the argument.
The discussion around much of the violence and death seems to come down to the chaotic nature and massive energy and scale of the BLM protests. I do not totally buy CON's attempt to separate the good from the bad actors, since to an extent the scale and furious atmosphere of the protests led to a level of disorder in which violence may have been inevitable. The CON case would need to be that the inflammatory climate created by the protests was a necessary collateral damage in the greater cause being advocated for. In this respect, CON was quite convincing in making the comparison to the Iraq War and World War II.
CON points out that PRO used a "questionable and far-Right" source, which in my view takes further points from PRO's conduct and sources. PRO attempts to call this the "genetic fallacy" which I view as an absurd misuse of that fallacy.
This was a very difficult debate to judge impartially. CON argued largely in terms of the intentions of the protesters, but did not do much to show that the actual outcomes of such a large scale protest justified the amount of unrest it caused. PRO made a convincing case about the violence and destruction that occurred in the course of the protests, but ignored the differences in scale, as well as failing entirely to address the intentions or worldview behind the protests. Therefore, one's opinion about which perspective was more convincing probably largely depends on their view of the intentions of BLM, as well as their opinion about the overall efficacy of such large-scale protests. I would suggest that the resolution should have been more specific, since I think this one is so broad that anyone's decision about "who won" will largely come down to their preexisting opinions.
It was a good debate in which each side put in an admirable amount of effort. However, Pro took an altogether empirical approach which ignored the importance of history and philosophy, while Con's approach was much more philosophical and relied at times upon the abstractions of liberalism while neglecting concrete outcomes. In the end, my personal feeling was that Con's opinion was more convincing.
Sorry. I don’t have time to vote on this one.
Thanks
I deleted it for you.
I actually intend to vote on this debate. For whatever reason once I place a holder vote it won't let me edit the vote. Can you delete my holder vote please. I swear the site changed as I could alter the vote before
I don't understand why someone voluntarily removed a vote they put a lot of thought and effort into.
One of the biographies from a cop that was there when the body was taken says the scene was much more intense than what the mainstream narrative says and they were close to a shootout with the secret service
The law was for them to technically keep the body in Dallas, so yes the secret service was corrupt which I define as not behaving ethically.
We also have decided as a country that freedom is more important than life even, so no the police had good reasoning to illegally question Holme's but it was unethical because it violated his rights.
As far as the Waco thing is concerned I think you can just Google footage of the initial ATF withdrawal and see a camera person's camera get shoved. Now it wasn't headlined anywhere because nobody but me thought it was a big deal, but it's pretty clear to see on footage.
Left wing politics is not about prioritizing human rights, if it was than humans would be better off when leftists like Kim Jung un and Hitler get into power not worse off. Even if we leave out the autocrats who are by definition leftists, we still have left wing politicians at local levels who have policies that harm human rights in their own cities. It's true the left hates property rights and wants oligarchs who control the government to be in charge of them, but to say they prioritize or even care about human rights is silly.
"No journalists reported unprovoked violence"
I think some journalists who went into Chaz were attacked and felt their life was under threat. Even left wing journalists we're in fear.
However I am pretty critical of government at all levels, so no I am not supporting a lot of the police response. It's just idiots at the left are looking at some justified police action as unacceptable while for some reason leftwing journalism ignores actual fucked up things the police did. We also see that some hostility was to be suspected. I saw a video of police trying to get a protestor medical aid while being bombarded with cement bricks and bottles thrown at them, so basically attempted murder by the crowds.
The police corruption that did occur during this situation include
1. Putting undercover agents in the crowd.
2. Allowing rioters to attack small businesses that were targeted because they were owned by Asians and Jews.
3. Using hit squad type tactics to put isolated protestors in unmarked vehicles and just drove away.
4. We have reports of BLM protestors being dropped off bricks on street corners where protests were planned and it was never investigated which liberal was funding those sorts of things.
As far as the misinformation spread. We know for a fact that George Floyd died of a drug overdose, the cop recognized a medical emergency and called an ambulance for Floyd. We know that George Floyd because of prior arrest videos always says "I can't breathe" and shouts out for his mother.
So the information basically got so severe that Derek Chauvin who by the way is a piece of shit, despite being completed innocent was railroaded by mob justice. Imagine if he was declared innocent that judge and members of that jury would have been murdered by the mob.
Police did so many corrupt things in response to the retarded group think that idiots in the public vowed down to because their low IQ brain dead sheep thinking was as follows
"Derp the TV portrayed things in a way that gets lots of views so obviously the TV is true and there is nothing else to think about"
Look, police behaved in a corrupt way. Never ever should undercovers be in the crowd. Never ever should the police actually enforce curfues. Never ever should American citizens be taken away in black vans by mysterious masked men grabbing them and not identifying themselves.
Funny thing is. I oppose those gestapo tactics whether they are used on the left or right. You are evil though so you support them if used on the right and oppose them when they are used on the left
Let's note that Wylted found an anecdotal story about an ATF agent pushing a camera at Waco a compelling example of government corruption but failed to mention police violence against anti-police protests in the Summer of 2020. The Guardian documented 148 cases of unprovoked violence by US police officers on working journalists during the first five weeks after George Floyd- including 40 shootings and 34 physical assaults. By contrast, no journalists reported any cases of unprovoked violence by BLM protesters on working journalists during that same five weeks.
"I'd argue the BLM riots did nothing but spread misinformation and then get idiots riled up and angry acting on the misinformation. "
What misinformation, specifically, did Black Lives Matter spread?
"This was probably done because the left wants a federal police force instead of local police forces."
Left-Wing politics means "prioritize human rights over property rights." By definition, left-wingers tend to be skeptical about police, imprisonment, institutional force. Police forces almost universally tend to be right-wing institutions.
"The COVID protocols, many where illegal and exactly what government protections are set out to prevent."
pretty vague and most protocols were not Federal and most of the large Federal actions got struck down in Federal court.
9/11 had a lot of instances in the direct aftermath of NY city police over stepping....
NYPD is local govt., not Federal.
"Hell just after the Boston Bombing the government mandated...."
False. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick asked people to stay at home with doors locked on a voluntary basis and the commonwealth's willing participation was close to unanimous. No State or Federal mandates were issued and to say as much is to give lie to great respect for private lives the govt demonstrated that day.
"Just after the Aurora Colorado shooting. The police lied to the shooter's lawyer and held him up from getting to his client and advising him."
Her client. Holmes' first lawyer was a woman.
Aurora Police are local, not Federal.
Police did ask for her permission to question Holmes about the bombs and booby-traps he had laid out for police in his apartment. When she denied them permission, Aurora Police proceeded with questioning anyway since they felt that preventing a large explosion in a residential area seemed like the priority. Holmes did not keep her as his lawyer and was assigned a public defender (also a woman) 3 days later.
"For example the shootout in Waco. A member of the press was filming the ATF in retreat and one of the ATF agents was annoyed and shoved their camera. "
I can find no evidence supporting this account.
"It's understandable why the agent did it. He probably just had a couple of friends die in that shootout and felt the camera was disrespectful, but the laws are set up to definitively determine the rights of people in those stressful times."
In fact, a loud-mouthed cameraman had unintentionally tipped off the Branch-Davidians that the ATF was coming. 4 ATF agents were killed and 16 injured in the resulting ambush. The Waco TV station WXTX settled out of court with the Feds for $15 million and neither that cameraman or the TV reporter with him ever worked in journalism again. The only "retreat" that took place at Waco on either side was the initial cease-fire 45 minutes after the ambush, when both sides collected their dead and wounded. The WXTX cameraman and reporter were the only journalists on site at the time and considering that it was already known that WXTX had made the ambush possible it seems at least possible that a camera got punched.
"The JFK assassination kinda exposed a lot of corruption in government. They did stuff like illegally remove JFK'S body from Dallas and almost got in a shootout with the local police because of it." A lot of people will excuse the behavior of the feds and secret service because in the initial moments after this occured there was a lot of uncertainty about just what was going on. It's a bullshit excuse though. Laws, particularly laws that outline roles and responsibilities of different bodies of government are created mostly for our of the ordinary circumstances like in the after effects of unusually catastrophic events.
Coroner Earl Rose was correct to insist on a local autopsy and he did stand in the doorway of Parkland with one officer hoping to blockade the Secret Service but stepped aside after some loud argument. "Almost got into a shootout" is silly bullshit.
Corruption seems like an unjust conclusion considering that there is zero evidence of fraud, deception, or self-gain in the Secret Service's action. They were under direct orders to deliver the body and Jacqueline Kennedy to Air Force One so that the new President could be sworn in. The Dallas Police were famously corrupt and the city famously disliked Kennedy so there were some legitimate security concerns in the first hours after the assassination.
Federal law has since been updated to give the Secret Service full authority regarding any presidential assassination post-mortem.
The JFK assassination kinda exposed a lot of corruption in government.
They did stuff like illegally remove JFK'S body from Dallas and almost got in a shootout with the local police because of it.
A lot of people will excuse the behavior of the feds and secret service because in the initial moments after this occured there was a lot of uncertainty about just what was going on.
It's a bullshit excuse though. Laws, particularly laws that outline roles and responsibilities of different bodies of government are created mostly for our of the ordinary circumstances like in the after effects of unusually catastrophic events.
.
The same thing happened with the feds over stepping their authority directly after other events. For example the shootout in Waco. A member of the press was filming the ATF in retreat and one of the ATF agents was annoyed and shoved their camera. The press have the legal right to film though and that legal right is supposed to protect them from ATF agents doing that sort of thing
It's understandable why the agent did it. He probably just had a couple of friends die in that shootout and felt the camera was disrespectful, but the laws are set up to definitively determine the rights of people in those stressful times.
9/11 had a lot of instances in the direct aftermath of NY city police over stepping their authority because they felt extraordinary circumstances Gave them more rights.
Hell just after the Boston Bombing the government mandated an illegal lockdown. To show just how stupid the feds are, they actually risked losing the bombers because of the lockdown. The brothers were not found until the lockdown was lifted so private citizens could help in the efforts.
Once again, not surprising the feds are stupid, it's not surprising they stomp on people's rights either, it's insane though. Our rights are outlined not for times where it is convenient for the government to allow us to have them, but for times when it is inconvenient.
Another thing. Just after the Aurora Colorado shooting. The police lied to the shooter's lawyer and held him up from getting to his client and advising him.
The COVID protocols, many where illegal and exactly what government protections are set out to prevent. We accept that the greater good must often times be sacrificed for individual freedoms. The government is often judged by the results of events and how they effect the collective, so it makes sense why they would do things that are unethical like make "emergency protocols" that displace current and normally operating policies, but it's unethical.
Once you study history and see things like autocrats taking power because of laws created for special circumstances, you start realizing how dangerous it is.
For example Julius Caesar and Hitler both used emergency powers to take complete control of their nations.
So yes the JFK assassination perhaps brought even more light to government overstepping it's boundaries.
I'd argue the BLM riots did nothing but spread misinformation and then get idiots riled up and angry acting on the misinformation. This was probably done because the left wants a federal police force instead of local police forces
Which was worse, the BLM protests/riots or the assassination of John F Kennedy?
Why did you ask for your vote to be removed
Further Analysis
I re-read the 95% statistic and realized there were multiple mentions of it in different contexts, which gave quite a bit of confusion. I recommend the debaters try to clarify this better next time, as I thought Pro contradicted himself.
Looking through the thread of the most relevant arguments, pro begins with fee.org article stating about the thousands of homes being burned, to which con argues the White supremacists were the true cause. Plus the violence being directed against BLM most of the time. Pro repeats that the 2,000 officers caused by the riots, with the 6,000 murder rate raise. He also supports with dw.com that the BLM ironically burned down black peoples' families, quite ironic overall.
Con also uses the statistic to draw away using the idea that the 93% overall were not violent, and that the counter-protests were seemingly more likely to be violent overall. Pro's stat was then saying the 95% were *involved in the riots* (thus causing the burning to occur). He further says that the white supremacists only caused a handful of the riots. Con's counter is that the Minneapolis example is weak since Wikipedia notes the disorganized crowds, which weakens that particular argument. While Pro proved that the BLM violent riots composed of 95% of riots, he had to find another way to prove it was the BLM protestors who caused the issues.
The issue is Pro has two separate arguments, one stating that there were violent riots (with unknown damage), since the original source was linked specifically to the Minnesota idea. However, he pulls an overall statistic and tries to cover up Con's nit picking by stating the overall number. This debate is difficult to decide since the ACLEU number is only loosely related to the Minnesota incident. The lack of cause-and relation makes it hard to decide who is correct and who is incorrect. While Con had a strong number with 3.7% of events only causing violence, the proportion is not really done well, as Pro still has the financial numbers. Con focuses on irrelevant numbers. So in the end I think it's harder to decide who wins. (to be updated)
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed by voter request
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: Voter request
**************************************************
RFD 3
Final round time! I don't really care about Conduct; that's just both debaters doing their classic arguments and getting into the groove of being lazy. I don't really want to award that way since neither really "violated rules" too heavily.
Pro continues saying:
- the 95% of violence was due to BLM Activists (ignoring the ACLED fact from Con.... he quoted directly from the site, so I don't know what pro is doing here). The fact is that the website itself says 95% involve peaceful protestors, so pro is just warping the statistics here...
- Pro then repeats the 1~2 billion dollars of damage, which Con admittedly didn't address too properly.
- Pro continues saying that the only way to judge worse event would be taking more lives and harming more people.
- Pro points back to the thousands of businesses looted, torched or vandalized.
- Pro continues that 99.7% of protestors were peaceful, which perhaps is a superior number compared to the 95% peaceful from BLM, though he could have just compared it this way instead...
- Pro repeats that con dropped the 6~19 deaths, and says that the financial damage was still much worse overall.
-Con goes back to the truth standard, but it's really hard to see *how* important this point is. Still, pro has agreement with constitutionality, so I suppose the shared point makes it somewhat relevant here.
- Con addresses the youtube video of the burning building, though ignores the larger number of thousands of business. He does however address it by saying the opportunist crowd caused destruction, with contradictory motives. So while the news article attributed to BLM direct caused, Con argues (although slightly late) that the demonstrators couldn't be linked to BLM itself.
- Con repeats that the 850 being arrested, while the BLM only had a very very few percent getting federal crime, which is quite impressive. A little late, but still good point.
- Con unnecessarily spends a bit too long talking about Jorge committing no crimes and Sean surrendering, though it helps a little bit... I suppose.
- Con makes more comparisons with rhetorical questions trying to demonstrate pure amount of deaths isn't really the measurement. While Pro has little to go on for support, Con also has very little to say why the constitutionality idea would result in something "worse" overall.
Conclusion
Honestly I have not a lot to go on. Con tries to blanket statement rely on "the truth" fighting which makes me wonder why he said it in this manner. If he mentioned a word or two about how the constitution is the basic trust of America, that the president has to enforce it, and perhaps linked it to the lie by the president himself, which inevitably caused impeachment (even if it was not executed), there could be some logic in there. But there is too much to jump the logic so I am not sure why something "atrocious in nature" alone could be proved to be "worse of", since Con has not proved why supporting the constitution along with Truth is so important. On the other hand, while Pro also has little bit, the general impacts debate structure is what I'm more used to, and calculates the basic destruction by the BLM community.
So who wins in the end? Pro had misread his source and repeatedly attributed the 95% to the BLM, despite it telling the opposite. He had the 2$ billion dollars of damage, but Con made it ambiguous enough whether the rioters caused it or the anti-rioters did it -- especially with his support. Con had about 800+ people arrested, which seemed to be a better number than whatever vagueness Pro had. Due to Pro misrepresenting numbers and being somewhat weak in his support, I believe Con holds a slight edge, though more detail on the Constitutionality would have been more impactful than arguing over burden of proof. I don't think giving BoP to Pro would've given Con the win more compared to Current situation.
Yeah, fair enough. Thank you for being willing to vote here.
I assure you I don't give a shit about arguments in the comments, when and if I allocate points on this debate, it won't factor in. I think most people on the site are like that. I mean most of the site allows confirmation bias into their voting, but at least they don't factor in the comment section
Obviously, I was replying to the comments you deleted.
Don't know exactly what you are mentioning me for...but given your willingness to extend your argument in respect to the debates conclusion, it appears self evident that this comment holds far from any imperative to you.
You're right. We should refrain from correcting misapprehensions in comments. Let the debate speak for itself.
"If you defeated Pro's impacts, there's no need to talk about principles either, though I guess you could add it as a cherry on top."
If I defeated PRO's impacts without offering positive impacts of BLM then both values would be zero and so, neither much WORSE. According to PRO's own sources:
BLM protests "precipitated a worldwide debate on policing and racial injustice that has led to numerous legislative proposals on federal, state, and municipal levels in the U.S. intended to combat police misconduct, systemic racism, qualified immunity and police brutality." I maintain that in America, upholding the Constitution and Democracy are manifestly positive impacts. Collectively, these goods far outweigh the zero harms PRO has documented.
Nvm, I forgor. Maybe next day off
I had the impression your round 1 was supposed to mean Truth was more important to uphold than results, due to ambiguity in your statement. It's hard to parse since there is no support for why supporting the constitution alone could outweigh the Pro impacts (if Pro impacts held). If you defeated Pro's impacts, there's no need to talk about principles either, though I guess you could add it as a cherry on top.
RFD Pt. 2
I... am not sure doing the source embedding is not allowed, as shortening links would have also saved space. Non factor for me.
Also yeah, Oromagi constantly tries to shift BoP even when debate rules state otherwise... I don't see how pro would have sole or main bop, so that doesn't work in Con's favor.
Anyways...
- Pro continues that Fighting can still result in more devastating results, which is the prime point of his idea.
- He trails onto Afghanistan's war being unreasonable despite having good origin, due to millions of deaths and horrid destruction. Alright, I can buy that.
- Pro states the BLM riots were far too violent, though avoids con's point that most of them were not that violent.
- Pro repeats the insured damage and how the arson was damaging, and the 800 people storming the capitol was an insignificant proportion compared to the BLM numbers.
- Pro continues by saying the 88% BLM activists perpetrated/caused the damage, which means his impacts still stand.
- Pro tries to clarify the deaths by saying the BLM would still attribute to the deaths, thus cannot be negated.
- Pro repeats 2,000 officers injured and increase in crime.
-Pro follows by saying difficulty to develop infrastructure.
- Pro says it is very common to rioters to burn down minorities' homes
Con continues saying that the BLM results should be separated from the White supremacism (since they were against BLM, and thus shouldn't be grouped together). I think I can buy this too, though it's ambiguous whether we should count the protestors potentially being harmed here.
Anyways. Con goes off a bit tangent by saying Iraq War was based off of lies and even worse with more american soldiers dying. Well, this honestly doesn't help his principle based case, since he is going off of how many people dying, so... I still don't see a framework why to accept principles over results. Which is unfortunate.
Con refutes the 800 number by saying more than 2,000 had attacked the capitol building, and continues repeating the Harvard study by saying property damage only occurred at 3% of events and violence even less. Con also says that American supported BLM, while condemned Jan 6th, which is a nice find.
Con also refutes the ACLED source by saying the 93% of demonstrations show no violence or destruction. The evidence stated in there refutes Pro's own cases, which is no good. Con also points out the people *against* BLM were the primary exploration of Pro's case, which is not really caused by BLM protests (rather they were against protests).
"Con hasn't said why principle is more important than results"
That's quite false. I have demonstrated that all of PRO's impacts are illegitimate because they credit total impacts to BLM- which is a wild exaggeration of the truth according to PRO's own sources. PRO has failed to list even a single honest impact limited to BLM conduct and therefore PRO has failed to present any impact whatsoever.
RFD
Funny realization, Oromagi hasn't actually had to conduct many impact based ideas versus principle so this one is ... interesting to say the least.
Pro lists:
- 1~2$ billion insured damage, only occurred in two weeks, making the time-scale pretty tough to beat
- thousands of buildings burned or damage, or vandalized businesses
- American families lost their sources of income
- Under construction house were set ablaze, perpetuating the poverty (hard to differentiate from previous point)
- At least six people killed, 400 cops from NYPD hurt, 2,000 officers nationwide
- Homicides rose significantly, with 6,000 extra deaths nationwide
And finally ending with capitol riot only costing 1.5$ million to the US Capitol Building. So far looking good.
- Con starts by saying the riots were based off of Trump's false claim, thus being worse purely off of the basic idea of the riot.
- followed by trying to overcome the US Constitution
- Con says 1,000+ tried to overturn the election result, while turning pro's points against him by saying the Floyd murder was protesting in a justified manner.
- Con says only the Umbrella Man and Ivan Hunter with specific cherry picks caused the problems.
- Con's further 19 death picks seem inconsequential in the big picture, so let's move onto the 7,000 protest study. Con states the violence were low, and most were against protestors.
- Con argues Pro's ideas were vague since there was no way to prove the deaths directly related/caused by protesters themselves, making it difficult to due so
- Con also says Impact of COVID may have inflated numbers with economic assessment (this doesn't unset the insured damage point, however)
Con hasn't said why principle is more important than results; if someone claims to lawfully do something but ends up killing 100 innocents, while someone merely sets off to unlawfully do something, yet achieves nothing, I am not convinced Con's ideas are to be taken at face value. Let's see what pro says... (TBU)
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: "The reasons are far better. Pro states why damage was much worse in clearer and easier to read language."
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
**************************************************
Skimmed a bit, it looks like it will be a way closer outcome than expected.
Thanks for voting!
Bruh, imagine Novice_II winning the #1 debater the first time tried.
Not only are hyperlinks available but pro seems to be aware of how to use them
Some ody just told me hyperlinks are available for debates, so I think I will award argument points later
"As the instigator of this debate, PRO bears the entire burden of proof for this debate. PRO must show that the BLM protests (and only the BLM protests) were WORSE by any applicable standard than the attack on our US Capitol. If CON can show that Jan. 6th was worse by some standards, PRO's argument must fail."
This is why I don't even like voting on your debates. This isn't even remotely true. This is definitely a shared burden debate. I don't know how the debate precedes after this and Don't know if I'll have to accept your framing of BOP yet, but it's incorrect. This isn't a policy debate, it is merely a debate to assess the damage caused by the BLM protests vs the damage caused by the capital protest by the standards you guys define worse as
This site is absolute shit, and the I ability to get a single competent voter on these debates is proof. It is why I have a hard time even trying to win debates. I know the voters usually just go with the less ridiculous opinion and then deal in a lot of confirmation biases, instead of doing an actual impact analysis.
Despite the ambiguity of the term "worse" it should be easy to come up with a clear winner.
First you judge who wins the debate on how to apply the term worse and do an impact analysis based on that. I have not read the debate but perhaps pro argued "worse" means more damage to tangible items like physical property, while con thought worst meant "more damage to American institutions".
I know if no moral framework is argued in the debate, the judging is still easy. You would base worst on weighing the damages on each side against each other, preferably using money as a tool. How much money is oligarchs feeling safe worth vs how much money are protecting the economic interests of minorities whose businesses were looted by antifa/black blok lead riots across America .
Yeah, I am considering reading and judging. I am probably the slowest voter here though. So it is a huge commitment. I take a bunch of notes and usually read the debate several times.
Currently I am trying to build a poker bankroll again, so I am playing like 16 hours a day, it's hard to get time for anything else in.
Yeah next day I get off work I'm voting on this
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Pro is advocating the overthrow of the Federal Government.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must address specific points made by both sides in the debate and consider how they function with the resolution. The voter instead presents their views on the general argument made by one side, does not consider any specific points made by either side, and casts a vote for arguments, sources and conduct on that basis. That is not sufficient for any of these.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Better reasons
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter must address specific points made by both sides in the debate and consider how they function with the resolution. The voter does not consider any points made by either debater and simply asserts that Pro had "Better reasons". That is not sufficient to award arguments.
Both of these votes are honestly vote bombs. Might vote on this myself just so this debate gets at least one good vote.
What's with whiteflame's profile picture? I was confused for a minute
I may vote on this debate but I am concerned of revenge from the one I vote against, tbh.
It ultimately comes down to what we define 'worse' as.
Report both.
Is this guy a troll?
From the FBI Website: Election Crimes and Security
Fair elections are the foundation of our democracy, and the FBI is committed to protecting the rights of all Americans to vote.
The U.S. government only works when legal votes are counted and when campaigns follow the law. When the legitimacy of elections is corrupted, our democracy is threatened.
While individual states run elections, the FBI plays an important role in protecting federal interests and preventing violations of your constitutional rights.
Thanks for voting, but I would expand on you reasons. Other people like to see why people cast the votes they do
As an active user I hope you will consider voting, believing you are the most likely to be available.