My opponent does not deny that an intent to overthrow democracy is by itself a harmful thing, and that a murder attempt is considered very harmful and is strongly punished.
Instead, he says that failed attempt is more desirable and less harmful than actual success.
But that is not a refutation, since we are not comparing "success in overthrowing democracy vs a failed attempt to overthrow democracy".
No. We are comparing "a failed attempt to overthrow democracy vs some riots that went violent".
Its obvious that failed attempt contains intent which, if realized, would have meant an end to democracy.
This is not any "potential harm". This is an existing harm that by itself contains not potential but actual delusions and actual desire to overthrow fair elections.
Obviously, harm is not just material damage and realized murder. An intent is part of harm, since an intent to harm is by itself harmful and is legally punished. If I attempted to murder you, you would want me locked up for a long time. If I attempted to murder you, my defense in court would not be "I did no harm, because I failed to murder him.".
I would not walk away free. Therefore, even an attempt is considered very harmful and that is why it is punished.
My opponent already conceded that BLM riots were a result of an unfair killing of a black person, which my opponent stated in description.
He went as far to say that these riots wanted to overthrow government. However, as explained before, BLM riots were motivated by a just cause. They wanted to put an end to police brutality. Such riots did not at any point intend to overthrow democracy and replace it with dictatorship, nor is there any proof of that.
However, the only point of January 6 was to overthrow fair elections and prevent a democratic transition of power and make Trump a literal dictator. That was their motivation, their only motivation. They were looking for a way to do it, motivating others in the future. And their activities of spreading harmful ideas are not just limited to Jan 6, but they still spread harmful ideas that could lead to similar or worse events.
We know that motives and intents are part of an equation that every legal system takes into consideration when weighting harm.
On one side, we have BLM, who were fighting against oppression, motivated by unjust killing, seeking to end police brutality.
On the other side, we have Jan 6, people who were motivated by delusions and lies about Trump winning despite that Trump lost by huge difference, who were fighting against democracy, seeking to overthrow elections and establish dictatorship in USA.
Neat thing!
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/05/politics/enrique-tarrio-sentencing-proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy/index.html
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Redpilled // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: Arguments and conduct to pro
>Reason for Decision: Con made many points he was unable to prove
>Reason for Mod Action:
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.
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
**************************************************
Well okay. If you dont want to take my advice, then dont.
I did read your debate and you stated a bunch of opinions as facts. For example, "January 6th was an attempt to overthrow democracy and fair elections."
"BLM riots were motivated by a just cause. They wanted to put an end to police brutality. Such riots did not at any point intend to overthrow democracy and replace it with dictatorship, nor is there any proof of that"
"On one side, we have BLM, who were fighting against oppression, motivated by unjust killing, seeking to end police brutality.
On the other side, we have Jan 6, people who were motivated by delusions and lies about Trump winning despite that Trump lost by huge difference, who were fighting against democracy, seeking to overthrow elections and establish dictatorship in USA." Don't be a sore looser.
When voting, you have to compare arguments of both sides.
Simply list main arguments used by each side, compare what negates what and then choose winner.
Your vote needs to give impression that you read the debate and took all main arguments and rebuttals into consideration and weighted them.
I see that you vote a lot, so just need to work a bit on making those votes proper votes.
If you keep voting like that, they might remove your voting ability along with your votes.