The Instigator
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Hiu
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

BLM is NOT worse than the KKK

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 912 times Debate No: 91298
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)

 

Wylted

Con

My opponent has stated in the following thread he would defend that the Black Lives Matter movement is not worse then the KKK.

http://www.debate.org...

My interpretation of the resolution and all it entails is that the burden of proof is split between me and my opponent, and since the word "is" is used, that it refers to the present tense.

Present tense in this scenario is a vague term, so let's make it a bit more clear. To be fair we will define present tense as occurring after the year 2013, since that is relatively recent, and because that is the year that Black Lives Matter (here after referred to as BLM) was formed. http://www.theguardian.com...

My opponent can begin in round one and skip round 4 or he can just accept the debate and we can both debate up to round four. Whatever he feels is more appropriate.
Hiu

Pro

First off let me thank the author for inviting me to this debate!

Let me say that my overall contention is to demonstrate that BLM or Black Lives Matter is currently not worse than the Klu Klux Klan, so I submit in the following some beginning points that will allow me to create an auxiliary for further substantive proofs in my favor in the future rounds. To help with discussion, allow me to first define what BLM and KKK stand for in accordance to their organizations:

According to Wikipedia, Black Lives Matter is "an international activist movement, originating in the African-American community, that campaigns against violence toward black people. BLM regularly organizes protests around the deaths of black people in killings by law enforcement officers, and broader issues of racial profiling, police brutality, and racial inequality in the United States criminal justice system.

In 2013, the movement began with the use of the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter on social media, after the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of African-American teen Trayvon Martin. Black Lives Matter became nationally recognized for its street demonstrations following the 2014 deaths of two African Americans: Michael Brown, resulting in protests and unrest in Ferguson, and Eric Garner in New York City." Using the OP's link, BLM was birth as a grassroots movement based on the perceived failings of the justice system from the Trayvon Martin killing.

See:http://www.theguardian.com...

See:https://en.wikipedia.org...

The Klu Klux Klan represents "three distinct past and present movements in the United States that have advocated extremist reactionary currents such as white supremacy, white nationalism, anti-immigration, and, especially in later iterations, Nordicism, anti-Catholicism, and anti-Semitism, historically expressed through terrorism aimed at groups or individuals whom they opposed. All three movements have called for the "purification" of American society, and all are considered right wing extremist organizations."

Although I'm not privy in citing Wikipedia, I felt that it was the most basic research source that could define these two groups basically.

As we see in the beginning, the differences between both groups is one is founded on the principle of social injustice, while another is created off the principle of white nationalism. Although some critics may cite that black lives matter are responsible for the destruction of property, black lives matter is a leaderless organization composed of many groups such as Black Youth Project 100, the Dream Defenders, the Organization for Black Struggle, Hands Up United, Millennial Activists United, and the Black Lives Matter national network (see:http://blacklivesmatter.com...). Whereas in recent events the KKK as well as other white national groups are responsible for influencing the likes of Dylan Roof and Frazier Glenn Miller (who gunned down several people at a Jewish Center in 2014).

See: http://www.usatoday.com...

I would assert my opponent would have to demonstrate that black lives matter are as dangerous and/or can produce individuals of this magnitude of hate.
Debate Round No. 1
Wylted

Con

That should be counted as an argument. Most is trash, but deserves a response.

"I would assert my opponent would have to demonstrate that black lives matter are as dangerous and/or can produce individuals of this magnitude of hate."

We are debating who is worse, his suggestion on how to weigh that is silly. Judges should use their best judgement. Besides, that. The navy seals produce more dangerous people, but it does not make them worse than serial killers, and hate can be harnessed to do good things

The groups my opponent mentioned are a good starting point, but the voters should keep in mind they are his best descriptions of the group should not serve as definitions.

Rebuttals
The next round is meant to be for rebuttals, but my opponents statements require a response.

"one is founded on the principle of social injustice, while another is created off the principle of white nationalism."

This is inaccurate. The KKK was created by veterans in the confederacy as an attempt to restore the confederacy. http://www.history.com...

Over the course of the debate, my opponent will likely conflate all white nationalist organizations with the KKK. Don"t let him get away with it. Pro says BLM started as movement for social justice, but the KKK started the same way. The Southerners were treated extremely bad after the civil war. The organization was about people sick of being treated unfairly by their conquerors. They likely got a taste of what it felt like to be a black guy at the time and didn"t like it. Both groups may have started as movements for social justice, but they both sprang from reactionary anger, and they are both now hate groups. One group is worse than the other, because one group is looked at favorably enough, and has the numbers to do some damage.

" the KKK as well as other white national groups are responsible for influencing the likes of Dylan Roof and Frazier Glenn Miller (who gunned down several people at a Jewish Center in 2014)."

The debate is about the KKK, and BLM. Dylan Roof was spending most of his time on the Christian Conservative Citizen"s site, reading their propaganda and seems to be almost entirely influenced by them. http://time.com...

The Southern Poverty Law Center can"t find a connection to the KKK, and I don"t think one exists. https://www.splcenter.org...


Anti-Police

The bLM movement is a hate group like the KKK. They hate cops. They target cops for violence, and most dangerous of all they actually have quite a bit of political influence. My opponent brings up a few racist lone gun men not even associated with the KKK to prove it is worse, but I can similarly bring up lone gun men associated with BLM. In 2015 a man who openly supported BLM on Facebook shot and killed a Kentucky officer. http://www.nydailynews.com...

In 2014 2 cops were located and shot at point blank range by a person who was associated with BLM. http://nypost.com...

So instead of trading stories about a few nutcases, we should focus on the wider actions of each group. Actions like BLM"s constant attacks on innocent officers. Take officer Darren Wilson for example. The evidence proved that Officer Wilson"s shooting of Michael Brown was justified. Forensics determined that mr. Wilson"s version of events were accurate. http://www.justice.gov...

It"s not about truth with BLM, it"s about blind rage that"s why Wilson is in hiding.

Just recently at Dartmouth, a pro police poster was posted in the school hallway, but Black lives matter supporters were angry and tore the posters down. http://patriotupdate.com...

In response to these posters a group of BLM protesters systematically harassed, threatened and made racist remarks towards white students.(The language was too filthy to post) http://www.washingtontimes.com...

After the New York double shooting, BLM came out in support for the shooters chanting "Pigs in a blanket, fry em like Bacon" http://www.breitbart.com...

After the death of Eric Garner BLM protested in New York chanting "What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want them? Now. http://www.nbcnewyork.com...

Crime Rates

Attacks on police have been devastating. It has not just hurt cops. Cops have been overly scrutinized, this has caused them to be afraid to do their job aggressively. This is dangerous for the officer"s safety as well as the publics. After these viral videos start popping up everywhere and the protests happen a rise in the crime rates occur. FBI director James Comey references the Ferguson effect which has caused murder rates to rise 55-75% in cities effected by it. http://www.nytimes.com...

When the BLM makes it harder for police to do their job bad stuff happens.

BLM breaks the law

BLM is known for their looting, leaders within the movement support and even glorify it, comparing the looting to what happened during the Boston Teaparty. This looting is not just some bad element getting out of control, it is what their leaders support. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

BLM caused riots in Ferguson, Baltimore and elsewhere. Dozens of people have died. Hundreds have been injured in the riots. They have been recorded throwing bricks at the police, at one point somebody shot at the police. A cop was pushed off his bike. Public and private property was destroyed, arson was common place. http://www.breitbart.com...

BLM protestors have been blocking traffic different cities. People can"t get to work, some need to get to the hospital, but BLM has no disregard for their lives, so they just illegally block traffic. http://www.cnn.com...

They also have been frequently interrupting political events, violating the free speech of the speakers and inciting riots. Everyone saw when BLM protestors stormed Bernie Sanders" stage and took his mike, as well as put him in serious danger. They also shut down a Trump rally and tried to incite a riot with people there to see Trump speak. https://www.allenbwest.com...

End
The KKK may get rowdy from time to time, but you won"t see them looting, shutting down political rallies and interrupting politicians. The KKK aren"t throwing rocks at police.
BLM is dangerous. Unlike the KKK they are large and very active. They loot, riot, arson, encourage and celebrate the murder of police. They block traffic, causing violent confrontations with motorists, interrupting other people"s days and just generally getting in the way of people who need to take their children to the hospital. You won"t see the KKK randomly attacking people who don"t support their cause like the BLM did to a marine that was literally just minding his own business. http://www.breitbart.com...
Hiu

Pro

The following is a sequence of rebuttals of my opponent as follows:

"This is inaccurate. The KKK was created by veterans in the confederacy as an attempt to restore the confederacy."

Using my own opponent's link: http://www.history.com...

"Local Klan members"often wearing masks and dressed in the organization"s signature long white robes and hoods"usually carried out their attacks at night, acting on their own but in support of the common goals of defeating Radical Reconstruction and restoring white supremacy in the South."

In addition:

"Among the most notorious zones of Klan activity was South Carolina, where in January 1871 500 masked men attacked the Union county jail and lynched eight black prisoners."

Despite the actual intent of the creation (which was to continue the production of the southern economic growth and suppress the freedom of the black people of the south, the subsequent intent and killings of the klan under the idea of white supremacy, trumps all other prior intent of its creation.

My opponent says:

" Don"t let him get away with it. Pro says BLM started as movement for social justice, but the KKK started the same way."

Despite our contemporary moral compass what was the social justice of hanging black men on trees, or burning crosses on the lawns of freed black men and women and families? Or what was the social justice of the idea of "keeping the white race pure," all-the-while suppressing the freedoms of others? Since we are historically regressing to these thoughts my opponent has to answer for the moral judgments placed on the klan since their original intent was for social justice. My opponent has to explain how one can be an advocate of social justice while suppressing the justice of others?

My opponent states in the following:

"The organization was about people sick of being treated unfairly by their conquerors."

Who were the conquerors? the British were expelled. the North and South were divisional enemies. who was conquering who? As I can see it, history tells a different story. A true conqueror does not advocate the freedom of slaves that would eventually lead to reinforcement of the north after its decimation and that emancipation was a military policy (see:http://www.history.com...)

My opponent says in the following:

"The debate is about the KKK, and BLM. Dylan Roof was spending most of his time on the Christian Conservative Citizen"s site, reading their propaganda and seems to be almost entirely influenced by them."

In you subsequent post you identify the actions of miscreants of BLM to "water down" the actions of the KKK so I thought it was necessary to point out the actions of an individual who was directly influenced by the KKK. I submit the following:

"A manifesto issued by Charleston church shooter Dylann Storm Roof makes clear he was defending the ideology of white supremacy espoused by traditional racist organizations like the KKK and other white Christian extremist groups."

- See more at: http://www.patheos.com...

According to one source, Roof stated: "There is no 'real KKK' to help him so he has no choice but to act."

I submit that the very invocation of the desire for the help of the KKK is clear enough that their historical influence in the terrorizing of people of color is evidence enough that they are an extremist terror organization.

My opponent stated:

"The bLM movement is a hate group like the KKK. They hate cops."

My opponent apparent missed this source link as I used it in my initial presentation. this appears to be a direct source from BLM (my opponent's rejection of this is the result of personal bias therefore any subsequent assumptions of BLM are matters of opinion nor can my opponent substantiate that fact with objective proof):

" The movement hates police officers. Police officers are people. Their lives have inherent value. This movement is not an anti-people movement; therefore it is not an anti-police-officer movement. Most police officers are just everyday people who want to do their jobs, make a living for their families, and come home safely at the end of their shift. This does not mean, however, that police are not implicated in a system that criminalizes black people, that demands that they view black people as unsafe and dangerous, that trains them to be more aggressive and less accommodating with black citizens, and that does not stress that we are taxpayers who deserve to be protected and served just like everyone else. Thus the Black Lives Matter movement is not trying to make the world more unsafe for police officers; it hopes to make police officers less of a threat to communities of color. Thus, we reject the idea that asking officers questions about why one is being stopped or arrested, about what one is being charged with, constitutes either disrespect or resistance. We reject the use of military-grade weapons as appropriate policing mechanisms for any American community. We reject the faulty idea that disrespect is a crime, that black people should be nice or civil when they are being hassled or arrested on trumped-up charges. And we question the idea that police officers should be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to policing black communities. Increasingly, the presence of police makes black people feel less rather than more safe. And that has everything to do with the antagonistic and power-laden ways in which police interact with citizens more generally and black citizens in particular. Therefore, police officers must rebuild trust with the communities they police. Not the other way around."

See: http://blacklivesmatter.com...

Even the president of the United States indicates his feelings on BLM according the following source:

"The notion was somehow saying "black lives matter" was reverse racism or suggesting that other people"s lives didn"t matter or police officers lives didn"t matter," Obama said, referring to critics of the organization accusing them of being "bogged down" in negative stereotypes.

"I think everybody understands all lives matter," he continued. "I think the reason that the organizers used the phrase "Black Lives Matter" was not because they were suggesting nobody else"s lives matter."

Obama insisted that the protests were based on a "legitimate issue," pointing out that African-Americans were not being treated fairly in some communities. He urged critics realize that the African-American community was "not just making this up."

See:http://www.breitbart.com...

Since there is too much to respond to, let me conclude with the following of my opponent:

"The KKK may get rowdy from time to time, but you won"t see them looting, shutting down political rallies and interrupting politicians. The KKK aren"t throwing rocks at police.
BLM is dangerous. Unlike the KKK they are large and very active. They loot, riot, arson, encourage and celebrate the murder of police. They block traffic, causing violent confrontations with motorists, interrupting other people"s days and just generally getting in the way of people who need to take their children to the hospital. You won"t see the KKK randomly attacking people who don"t support their cause like the BLM did to a marine that was literally just minding his own business."

Again, using degenerates screaming out "Black Lives Matter" does not substantiate the claim that they are apart of the movement. Bloods and Crips can scream black lives matter which may indicate their own individual opinion, but it does not substantiate the idea that the actual movement is responsible. Even in fact they are, there are individual branches.
Debate Round No. 2
Wylted

Con

I am actually shocked by my opponent's arguments. He seems to be confused. He focuses on rebutting pointless rhetoric and yet ignores or glosses over substantive arguments. I don't get this strategy. Take for instance where I point out that the KKK started out the same way as BLM in the sense that members of both groups felt like victims and sprang up in anger. My opponent goes on to point out incidences of bad things KKK members did to disprove a piece of rhetoric, and is even unsuccessful at that. Not only do the negative events not disprove the KKK started the way I said, but they aren't even relevent to the debate, because we are debating what both groups are currenty or recently engaged in.

My opponent asks:

"Despite our contemporary moral compass what was the social justice of hanging black men on trees"

I could similarly ask what is the social justice for the numerous things the BLM movement has done, such as things listed in the last round, but it is a silly question. The current actions of a group does not necessarily reflect the reason for the groups formation.

Dylan Roof

I can't believe my opponent is still talking about Dylan Roof. He really needed to address my arguments instead of pushing this already disproven argument where I showed that Roof was influenced by that Christian group.

"According to one source, Roof stated: "There is no 'real KKK' to help him so he has no choice but to act."

I submit that the very invocation of the desire for the help of the KKK is clear enough that their historical influence in the terrorizing of people of color is evidence enough that they are an extremist terror organization."

What Dylan roof said is: "We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet. Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me."

http://gawker.com...

Dylan Roof was hoping that some white nationalist organization, any white nationalist organization would commit acts of violence so he would not have to. This statement far from showing that he is a part of or influenced by the KKK as my opponent suggests, actually shows he is not, nor is he a skinhead. What he is, is a self styled white nationalist. The KKK can't be blamed for that, he got his ideology from that christian group.

Lot's of groups have certain ideologies in common, just like both Burger King and McDonald's share similar things with each other, but if we are talking about McDonalds we don't start randomly blaming McDonald's for cold fries we got at Burger King. That is essentially what my opponent is doing by conflating all white nationalist organizations with each other.

BLM Statement

My opponent pulls up a BLM statement made to paint the organization in a good light. I want the voters to keep two things in mind. One thing is the statements I am about to refer to from the KKK, the other is the fact that a groups intention may have nothing to do with it's results, and it is the results we are evaluating here. The results I have outlined in the previous round.

Statements from KKK FAQ:

"Why do you think you are so superior to everyone else?

A. We don’t care who is superior and who isn’t. God made us all."

"Why do you hate black people, Asian people, etc.?

A. This is a misconception many people have. Most have this idea about the Klan because of the entertainment industry."

"Q. Why do you kill black people?

A. This is almost too stupid of a question to answer, but since some misled person is probably going to ask – even though it isn’t frequently asked – we’ll answer it in this section. We don’t kill black people."

" Why do you hate Catholics?

A. We do not hate Catholics."

"You say you don’t hate minorities, but they can’t join The Knights. Doesn’t that make you all prejudice?

A. To be prejudice means you are pre-judging a matter before receiving all of the evidence. It is usually others who are guilty of pre-judging the Klan, not vice versa. It is a fact that America was founded as a white Christian nation. You may not like it, but it is still true. The Knights appreciates this concept because it leads to peace. It is the means to self-determination for all people regardless of race."

"Does The Knights believe in slavery?

A. No, The Knights does not believe in slavery."

http://kkk.bz...


As we can see, the KKK also attempts to paint itself in a good light. This is why we judge a group based on it's actions. My opponent mentions a lone nut who was influenced by a white nationalist rganization not associated with the KKK, but I mention systematic and common things associated with BLM, including the anti-police rhetoric "fry em up", the nuts the group inspires (dead NY officers), the increase in crime by over analyzing every move cops make (Ferguson effect), The outlaw behavior such as shutting down highways so people can't rush their newborn babies to the emergency room, rioting, looting , as well as many other things. The KKK's statement that they are not racist means just as much as the statement my opponent pulled up where it is stated that BLM is not anti-cop.

This is without even going into the thinly veiled hate of the message my opponent shared, which presumed that cops are trained to treat black citizens differently, or that police are a threat to the black community, or for blaming police for the stereotypes that some communities they police give them. All unsubstantiated claims.

"Again, using degenerates screaming out "Black Lives Matter" does not substantiate the claim that they are apart of the movement. Bloods and Crips can scream black lives matter which may indicate their own individual opinion, but it does not substantiate the idea that the actual movement is responsible. Even in fact they are, there are individual branches."

There are individual branches of the KKK as well. KKK is a name that is in the public domain and freely available for anybody to use.

My opponent has dropped my arguments from the previous round, the arguments about shut downs of traffic, rioting, celebrating the death of police, lawlessness etc.. This should be counted against him, and since his evidence consists of lone nuts in no way associated with the KKK and provably so, this debate is an obvious win for me.

I want to point out what my opponent is doing, by disregarding evidence that works against him, and only accepting evidence that works in his favor. He is committing a logical fallacy known as "cherry Picking".

" Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is theconfirmation bias" https://en.wikipedia.org...



You see my opponent isn't disqualifying them for any other reason than he doesn't like that the evidence contradicts his position. If he agrees with the people in BLM, he considers them a part of the BLM, but if I show evidence of BLM inspiring shut downs or inciting riots at political rallies, then he merely dismisses the people who do it as degenerates. My opponent would be better off showing that they do more good than harm, despite some harm coming from having such a decentralized group, but he doesn't make that argument. Instead he chooses to cherry pick. My opponent is one step away of making the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, and he may even commit that fallacy before the debate is over.

Final Statement:My opponent should be on his last round and not making any new arguments next. I also want the judges to look at how I deal with evidence that goes against me, showing why it doesn't work and how my opponent deals with it by waving his hand and announcing "degenerate", cherry picking the evidence.

Hiu

Pro

My opponent said the following:

"I am actually shocked by my opponent's arguments. He seems to be confused. He focuses on rebutting pointless rhetoric and yet ignores or glosses over substantive arguments. I don't get this strategy. Take for instance where I point out that the KKK started out the same way as BLM in the sense that members of both groups felt like victims and sprang up in anger. My opponent goes on to point out incidences of bad things KKK members did to disprove a piece of rhetoric, and is even unsuccessful at that. Not only do the negative events not disprove the KKK started the way I said, but they aren't even relevent to the debate, because we are debating what both groups are currenty or recently engaged in. "

I believe my opponent forgot (or conveniently) skimmed through my argument because I was basing my previous argument based off the source that he used. When my opponent stated the origin of the KKK referring to their initial organization as a struggle against social injustice using his source I wasn't referring to simple "piece of rhetoric," I was pointing out how their actions severely outweighed whatever their initial intent was. The main theme of my last post was that the KKK intentionally killed people and was the source of being an influence in the Dylan roof case. If my opponent has any issue of me addressing the point...My opponent needs to understand that I am addressing his views paragraph from paragraph....

My opponent states:

"I could similarly ask what is the social justice for the numerous things the BLM movement has done, such as things listed in the last round, but it is a silly question. The current actions of a group does not necessarily reflect the reason for the groups formation."

I disagree. the current actions of a group does reflect the reason for a groups formation. Just as Frazier Glenn's actions of the Jewish Center killings, reflects his belief as a Klan member.

See: http://www.cnn.com...

My opponent states:

"What he is, is a self styled white nationalist. The KKK can't be blamed for that, he got his ideology from that christian group."

The KKK is a white nationalist group. Regardless who or where he received his ideas, he mentioned the KKK and even if he remotely wanted them to act, the very mentioning of the Klan is important enough to mention in this debate.

"Statements from KKK FAQ"

My opponent is now quoting from the KKK website...Great idea considering no organization is outright going to tell people they influence people to hate, but I shall entertain this....

My opponent quotes:

"Why do you think you are so superior to everyone else?

A. We don"t care who is superior and who isn"t. God made us all."

According to one source:

"The KKK"s core belief is to restore America back to being a white, Christian nation free from drugs, homosexuality, immigration, and race-mixing, which the group attributes to the country"s downfall. Extreme pride comes at the forefront of their ideology. On their website, they claim to be proud of their race, history, and traditions. They refer to the acts that the KKK did in the past as accomplishments, and believe they are, in essence, building a better society for everyone to live in."

In addition:

"The KKK page immediately begins by trying to dispel lies told about them through the "liberal news media." One of the first things they claim is that they are not a group of hate but of love"love for their country and their people."

See: http://guardianlv.com...

Again no organization which intends to attract people is going to outright state they hate, just as gangs do not refer to themselves as gangs but as a family. Certain organizations tend to code their hateful language to market appeal.

My opponent quotes the following:

"Q. Why do you kill black people?

A. This is almost too stupid of a question to answer, but since some misled person is probably going to ask " even though it isn"t frequently asked " we"ll answer it in this section. We don"t kill black people."

Right, they only target people of Jewish descent:

Suspect In Killings At Kansas City Jewish Sites Linked To KKK " has more background.

http://www.npr.org...

But I guess they occasionally shoot at BLM:

"On Monday in Minneapolis, a group of white supremacists opened fire on Black Lives Matter protesters assembled in protest of another officer-involved shooting of an African American witnesses say was handcuffed. Five of the protesters were shot and sustained injuries; injuries that law enforcement curiously stressed were "not life-threatening." Reports in local media announced that the three white male suspects were reported to be "wearing masks and bulletproof vests;" likely an updated version of the KKK"s historic bed-sheet-and-hood uniform."

See: http://www.politicususa.com...

"As we can see, the KKK also attempts to paint itself in a good light. This is why we judge a group based on it's actions."

This we can agree that any organization can paint itself as positive however the klan and BLM are apples and oranges as I have noted the reference to Frazier's shootings.

"The outlaw behavior such as shutting down highways so people can't rush their newborn babies to the emergency room, rioting, looting , as well as many other things."

Again, can you discern miscreants within the black lives matter protests as actual members or opportunists to commence in destructive behavior?

"This is without even going into the thinly veiled hate of the message my opponent shared, which presumed that cops are trained to treat black citizens differently, or that police are a threat to the black community, or for blaming police for the stereotypes that some communities they police give them."

Unsubstantiated? Blacks treated differently?

I submit the following:

"Landmark Decision: Judge Rules NYPD Stop and Frisk Practices Unconstitutional, Racially Discriminatory. August 12, 2013, New York " In a landmark decision today, a federal court found the New York City Police Department's highly controversial stop-and-frisk practices unconstitutional.Aug 21, 2014"

See: http://ccrjustice.org...

Cops do treat minority communities differently...I also submit the following video link to "substantiate" this claim

https://www.youtube.com...

"My opponent has dropped my arguments from the previous round, the arguments about shut downs of traffic, rioting, celebrating the death of police, lawlessness etc.. This should be counted against him, and since his evidence consists of lone nuts in no way associated with the KKK and provably so, this debate is an obvious win for me."

You have not shown evidence that the looting, and destruction of property was done by "blacklivesmatter" the burden is on you to "substantiate" that blacklivesmatter was responsible. So how can I address your supposed claim if you have not supported your assertion yourself?
Debate Round No. 3
Wylted

Con

That should be my Pro's final round. The next round should be skipped by placing in a statement similar to this: "No round as agreed upon".

I did notice pro made several new arguments in his final round. These should be ignored as the last round is too late to bring in new arguments, he should probably even lose a conduct point for creating new arguments in his final round.

I once again am stunned by my opponent. I'm not sure if there is a reading comprehension problem on his part or not, judging by the way he interprets his sources and my arguments. I probably shouldn't respond to as much as I am going to respond to in hs argument, since so much is gibberish and quite frankly off topic, but I can't help myself.

Impact Anaalysis

Me and my opponent have both brought up the fact that both BLM and the KKK can turn out some lone gunman. I have used the guy in New York who hunted down and shot two oficers in broad daylight as an example, and he has used Dylan Roof. The difference between the 2 is that the lone nut I mentioned actally associates himself with BLM, while Dylan Roof merely mentioned that the KKK as well as other White Nationalist organizations are not going to help him do his evil deed. This would be no different than me saying Santa Clause is not going to write my arguments for me, and my opponent saying that because I don't want help from Santa Clause that I am clearly one of his elves. It makes no sense. Here is the Dylan Roof quote just to remind people why my opponent thinks he is connected to the KKK:

"We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet. Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me."

He also mentions no doing anything talking on the internet, it does not mean he is inspired by or associated with everyone who talks on the internet. Seeing as how pro has based this whole debate on which group is worse by making a case for a single lone nut that has been proven to not be associated or inspired by the KKK, but instead inspired by the white nationalist organization abbreviated the "CCC", he loses. His single argument is disproven.

Let's say you believe that my opponent has proven that sometimes the KKK has created/inspired lone nuts, then he still loses. He loses not only because I have proven that the BLM movement has created some lone nuts also, but because I have proven the problems are systematic. Even if you buy the argument that a few hoodlums are making the BLM look bad, we still have stats showing the increase in crime in areas that BLM is extremely active in, an effect known as "The Ferguson effect". Even if you believe it is only a few deranged people rioting and causing problems, organized events are certainly a result of BLM. Organized events such as the shutting down of traffic which lead to how many babies not getting medical attention fast enough? They are certainly responsible for the organized events meant to disrupt political campaigns and inhibit freedom of speech such as at a few Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders rallies that have been highly publicized.

But honestly you should believe every bit of evidence I have provided to show that BLM is worse. You should believe it because my opponent hasn't addressed it other than to say the folks who do not are not representative of BLM. (which does not address organized events mentioned or crime stats from ferguson effect). By the way I have provided citations for every claim, and my opponent has not explained how the citations are wrong. The only differentiation my opponent uses to seperate a true BLM person from a non true one, is whether he agrees with their actions or not. The people I mention proudly claim BLM, but my opponent does not want to count them. Dylan roof mentions the KKK offhand and has literally stated he does not associate with them, and my opponent links him to the KKK. How is my opponent's double standard fair? He is clearly cherry picking, as I have explained in the previous round. A major logical fallacy.

This is a pretty easy decision for the judges, vote con (Wylted).

Various Responses

I've already won, my impact analysis explains why, but it is plainly obvious based on the fact that I have brought up more on the Con side of BLM than he has with the KKK, and this is even with him conflating all white nationalists and white nationalist organizations.

"I believe my opponent forgot (or conveniently) skimmed through my argument because I was basing my previous argument based off the source that he used. "

I am aware of that. I was wondering why you cited things from that article that have nothing to do with this debate as it was clearly stated in round 1 the debate takes place in the modern era. I was wondering why you actually cited things that really don't help your case and did not contradict anything I said.

"I disagree. the current actions of a group does reflect the reason for a groups formation. Just as Frazier Glenn's actions of the Jewish Center killings, reflects his belief as a Klan member."

First off the Frazier statement is a new argument and needs to be disregarded by the judges, second of all it is stupid to say a groups actions have to do with their formation. I am not sure if my opponent is trolling me or just dumb. If I form a group to play basketball, and then we decide basketball is dumb and start playing hockey, the fact we are laying hockey does not mean it was formed to play hockey. Why my opponent is busy making nonsensical statements that have nothing to do with which group is worse is beyond me.

" The KKK is a white nationalist group. Regardless who or where he received his ideas, he mentioned the KKK and even if he remotely wanted them to act, the very mentioning of the Klan is important enough to mention in this debate."

Not really, I mean Barack Obama might have mentioned he wanted the KKK to be less racist. He is requesting they act, it does not mean he was inspired by the KKK to become president. Not to mention Roof did not request they act, he also mentioned Nazis and people on the internet in the same sentence, and it was only to say those groups would not act. In a way it was an insult, because he caled them all talk, but if insulting the KKK makes somebody a part of the KKK, then my opponent should go get his white robe. This is why you are oing to lose the debate. You could have came up with good arguments and pointed out actual peope associated with the KKK who have done bad thins, but instead you go with an example that is irrelevant and never give up on it.

" My opponent is now quoting from the KKK website...Great idea considering no organization is outright going to tell people they influence people to hate, but I shall entertain this...."

That is the whole point. You quoted the BLM site saying it's quote about not being anti-police should be taken at face value. I wonder why you want me to take the BLM's statements as fact, and yet you don't want to accept statements by the KKK as fact? This is special pleading, and it is a double standard. If we cannot accept the KKK message as fact, then the judges should disregard the BLM statement. I made it blatently clear that was the point I was making with those quotes, but amazingly it somehow went over my opponent's head.

In the end my opponent bafflingly pulls up some facts on stop and frisk. I guess the point is to show that there are disproportionate amounts of blacks stopped, and this really has nothing to do with the debate but it is a policy to combat gang violence, and since a disproportionate amount of gang members are black, obviously a disproportionate amount of frisks will be on black people. It is not proof of any sort of racism, in fact it is proof of police trying to help black communities with their gang problem and BLM calling them racist for it.

Anyway easy decision by judges.Vote Wylted
Hiu

Pro

Hiu forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missbailey8 8 months ago
missbailey8
Oh yeah, my vote is on behalf of the Voter's Union.
Posted by missbailey8 8 months ago
missbailey8
(RFD)

First, Con provides proof of instances where cops are seriously injured or killed, looting, interruption of political events, arson, etc. He also states the because of BLM, the crime rate went up in areas affected. He also notes that "The KKK may get rowdy from time to time, but you won"t see them looting, shutting down political rallies and interrupting politicians." This proves to be a very effective argument.

Pro doesn't even provide instances in the present. (2013 and after) He mostly talks about events of the past, which doesn't add to his argument, as it goes against the resolution proposed. He also provides a quote from a BLM member saying that their intentions aren't to kill police officers and such. This is a weak argument, as it's a possibly biased quote from a BLM activist. Overall, this argument is mostly irrelevant towards the resolution.

Once again, Con proves the inaccuracy of the Dylan Roof argument Pro tries to hammer in. He also says that Pro shouldn't base his arguments on the words of KKK or BLM members, but their actions.

Con takes this argument by showing examples of each groups trying to paint themselves in a good light. All Pro does is provide irrelevant information about non KKK members. Pro doesn't add anything to the resolution.

Overall, I believe Con won this debate by proving that BLM's actions are truly worse than the KKK's. How so? He provides examples that are actually relevant to the resolution, while Pro gives information mostly about the history of the KKK. Con also wins for reliable sources as he repeatedly shows the inaccuracies in Pro's sources. For example: Dylan Roof, the cause of the KKK's formation, etc. Congratulations to Wylted for winning this debate!
Posted by Danielle 8 months ago
Danielle
[RFD part 1]

Technically Con has the BOP, however, the debaters agreed to share the burden. Wylted mentions right away that "worse" will be up to the subjective standards of the judges, which is true because no standard was established in R1. He begins by pointing out that both the KKK and BLM started out as social justice movements but eventually became violent.

Con notes BLM is anti-police and listed a few instances where BLM activists killed cops. Moreover he shows they break the law with looting and violence, and frequently call for police brutality. Wylted says the KKK is rowdy but not dangerous. He notes BLM is a larger group that randomly attacks people and is widely accepted hate mongering.

Pro challenges the KKK"s roots, however, this is not relevant to which group is worse. Pro claims that the group"s "historical significance" should be relevant and not what the group (or lack thereof) actually does. I disagree as the resolution is written in present tense.

Pro also claims that BLM is not trying to make the world unsafe for police officers (based on the quote of one BLM activist). His argument is that not all miscreants who scream BLM represent the movement.

Con pointed out that Dylan Roof"s quote citing a lack of KKK indicates the KKK should not be held responsible for the actions of non-members. He argues that the KKK cannot realistically represent all racist groups and people. Ironically Pro uses a similar argument for BLM and I would agree with both of them. Therefore they must prove the actions of specific KKK members or things done on behalf of BLM (or with BLM support) are currently worse than the other.
Posted by Danielle 8 months ago
Danielle
[ RFD part 2 ]

Con successfully showed that both groups attempt to paint themselves in a good light but have questionable goals (and behaviors). Whereas Wylted highlighted current poor and widespread behavior of BLM activists, Pro merely said some non-KKK members (whom are arguably irrelevant to this discussion) do some bad things too. But Con showed more examples and expressed this being not only more common but more widely accepted by society. He also showed how BLM advocates outright murder against entire groups; what the KKK does is not worse in that regard.

Finally Pro writes, "The KKK is a white nationalist group. Regardless who or where [Dylan Roof] received his ideas, he mentioned the KKK and even if he remotely wanted them to act, the very mentioning of the Klan is important enough to mention in this debate." Yet this goes against his own point on the poor actions of BLM members. Just because someone references a group doesn"t mean the entire group is responsible for those actions based on Pro"s own logic.
Posted by Wylted 8 months ago
Wylted
Thanks I appreciate that. Hey half the time I don't agree with the position I am debating
Posted by Emmarie 8 months ago
Emmarie
Wylted, you kicked his as$. I may return and vote formally, since I was completely against your stance to begin with. Me admitting that you kicked his as$ in this debate, in know way means that I actually agree with you, I simply think you did a better job in this debate. I may not actually vote for one reason though: I'm not certain if you proved that the BLM movement is worse than the clan. Had the resolution been that the BLM movement is as bad as the clan, I would certainly decide the debate in your favor. I have to vote based on you evidence in relation to the resolution.

I will take this debate to voting threads, and try to assure that this debate receives some votes, whether I vote or not. It was a worthwhile debate to read! :)
Posted by Wylted 9 months ago
Wylted
I also disagree that the KKK is organized. I know that the misconception exists that it is organized, but it is untrue. One of the reasons David Duke left the KKK was because it is not a single entity. The name can not be copyrighted or trademarked so literally anybody can use it, and Duke was embarrassed by many of the groups calling themselves KKK, he is an intellectual while the people in the group getting all the media attention are just mindless hateful people.
Posted by Wylted 9 months ago
Wylted
thanks for the compliments
Posted by Wylted 9 months ago
Wylted
I actually debate to win so I am not going to give BLM more credit than my opponent forces me to, but I have given some analysis of why the group exists in the past, and even how to prevent further BLM like movements. In the past I have explained how to make things right for the people behind the BLM movement (Which is not by giving into their demands, though I like a few of them).

Also yeah, I try to not make the readers mad. No matter what my position is, I always attempt to portray it from a position that allows anyone on the left-right paradigm to accept it.
Posted by Emmarie 9 months ago
Emmarie
I'm glad to see that you have returned to debating, Wylted. You are a great debater, for me to have read through your argument and not to have become furious, given how seriously I take this subject. I give you props for remaining tactful (outside of calling Hui's argument trash. I will be posting comments throughout this debate, because I don't plan on voting, due to the preconceived ideas I bring while reading the content.

What I really wish is that the both of you could recognize the validity that individuals within each group tries to communicate via extreme movements, groups.

One reason that I fault Wylted's defense of the KKK, is because he fails to appreciate that the KKK was a powerful and is yet an organised group of persons with and agenda specific ideology, while the BLM movement is an unorganized collective of individuals who have witnessed and experienced systematic injustice, for their entire lives. The danger with the movement, that Wylted mentioned, are that individuals incite more violence than is necessary (example "Pigs in a blanket, fry em like Bacon"
"What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want them? Now.") Someone knows the power of the collective and makes these chants, to discredit the validity of the entire movement, in my opinion.

I hope the both of you will continue to debate in a fashion that can enlighten one another as well as the audience, of the injustices that are occurring to Americas underclasses regardless of race, sometimes in spite of race, and sometimes specifically because of race.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by missbailey8 8 months ago
missbailey8
WyltedHiuTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 months ago
Danielle
WyltedHiuTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Edlvsjd 8 months ago
Edlvsjd
WyltedHiuTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I was aware that the KKK was started for more of a reason than hatred, and that the media always misconstrues organizations like this, BLM included. (Look at old Springer episodes) I didn't know they went to this extent. Com has given several instances to support his stance, while pro offers very little. This debate sparked me to do a little research, as I feel there may be more to the story.
Vote Placed by DonutQueen 8 months ago
DonutQueen
WyltedHiuTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a heated debate and while it did lead me to question my previous beliefs that the BLM is not nearly as bad as the KKK it did not fully swing my opinion. Better conduct gos to pro because can made multiple rude remarks along the lines of "That should be counted as an argument. Most is trash" ' shocked by my opponent's arguments. He seems to be confused. ' and " I once again am stunned by my opponent. I'm not sure if there is a reading comprehension problem on his part". Con wins convincing arguments because he seemed to not only rebuttal but build up his case throughout. Sources is a tie because both not only provided links but used a wide range of websites. All in all good debate! Both pro and con did a wonderful job!