The Instigator
Pro (for)
9 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

Black Lives Matter, New Black Panthers, et al are more dangerous to the USA than ISIS

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2015 Category: News
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,121 times Debate No: 84335
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (3)




Black Lives Matter (BLM), New Black Panters, and other leftist black groups and community organizers and "leaders" are more dangerous to the USA than ISIS. I am not looking for a semantic debate of what "et al" stands for. Their are many of these leftist black community organizations that are very dangerous and I attempt to prove that they are more dangerous to the USA than ISIS.

Ground rules:
ISIS - may be extended to radicalized muslims who are not formally in ISIS but take on a radicalized belief.

BLM et al - May be extended to any leftist group catering to advancing the agenda of "black people" in the USA.

Black people - More recently referred to as African Americans, historically negros as those who are served by the United Negro College Fund.

Dangerous - implied or actual threats or damage directly to life, liberty, property. The scope is to be limited directly to the nature of the threat or action and not extended to a response. For example, the danger would be taking a hostage as an attack on an individual or groups liberty. Not the government response to the hostage situation of searching homes response which is the effect of reducing liberty secondary to the dangerous action.

USA - This country. An attack in Paris is not an Attack in the USA. Black Brotherhood movements in Egypt are not happening in the USA. The scope of action, danger, risk must be directly limited to the USA homeland and not to US diplomacy or citizens abroad. ADDENDUM: Consider the USA to be way of life, liberty, domestic home, safety, property etc here in the USA, not limited to the actual ground or buildings but all those things here in the USA that we consider to make us the nation we are. Consider but not limited to life, work, and this we own here...

Round 1: Introduction acceptance
Round 2: Main points
Round 3: Rebuttal/summary

Good luck and thank you for accepting this debate.


Thank you and I am pleased to accept this debate. I will contend first that BLM does not pose any risk to the US, and secondly that while the NBPP may pose a small risk, while Daesh (what I will refer to ISIS as) poses an existential risk that is much greater than any risk posed by any black separatist groups.

I would however like to clarify a few things before we proceed to the next round.

1) The definition of BLM and NBPP as Leftist organizations is simply nonsense. BLM is a grassroots, non-ideological movement, it is not left wing or right wing. While the Left is more supportive of BLM that does not make it a leftist group. Furthermore it is not a single group, it is a movement made up of different groups and individuals. I would say that the definition be changed to simply the Broad based protest movement known as "Black Lives Matter" and groups opposed to systemic racism and police violence.
The New Black Panther Party is a completely different story. They are not a left wing AT ALL. They actually eschew left wing politics, socialism, and communism. They also hate capitalism, which is typical of groups in the so called "Third position", a description often used by the Far-Right and White Supremacists, which makes sense, since their goals are essentially the inverse of White Supremacists and White Supremacists and the NBPP have aligned often. NBPP has actually come into conflict with the Black Live Matter movement because the two groups have different goals and strategies which are incompatible. Furthermore the NBPP promotes violence, while BLM is opposed to violence, so debating the danger they pose to the US is very different.
I would like to make this clear as to not conflate the two groups and that this is really two debates in one.

2) We mist clarify that the NBPP is in no way related to the original Black Panther Party from the 1960s. The groups are not actually connected in anyway, be it historically, ideologically, or organizationally.

3) Danger to the US must refer to the danger to US citizens or property, located in the US. The idea that the American "Way of life" is at risk is frankly absurd as this is a extremely subjective term, and defining danger to ones way of life is itself subjective and cannot be universally defined.

4) I am going to let the definition of Black people slide for now, but that isn't happening again.
Debate Round No. 1


It is clear my opponent is distracting from the original argument with his ignorance. Please keep this in consideration when you vote. Realizing I needed to spend valuable characters defending my original stipulated argument he agreed to by accepting this debate.

2, 3, 4 " I am conceding for the purpose to move forward. HOWEVER... specific to point 1:

1.So far he has claimed black lives matter BLM is a "grass roots nonideaolgical movement" and not an organization. "Black Lives Matter is a chapter-based national organization... working to (re)build the Black liberation movement" Clearly idealogical. Clearly an organization.

2.That my opponent claims BLM is NOT a left wing organization suggests he is either being dishonest to frame his future argument or does not even know what a left wing organization is. Either way this calls into question a lot of what he is about to claim are facts. Below is a description of a Left wing organization. Which part does not apply to BLM?
"Left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality. They typically involve concern for those in society who are perceived as disadvantaged relative to others and a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished."

Also my opponent wishes to remove the New Black Panthers from this debate because they "Promote violence" . That group was in the debate title that NBP are a threat " greater than ISIS. If it can"t be defeneded then I am right. To prove my point I will handicap myself and I will not focus on NBP, I don"t need to. But Do keep this in mind while reading this debate.

At this point my opponent must either concede the above facts, or he can resign. I will not continue on with a debate that is not based on facts

Now on to the main points using 1/3 less space....

First ISIS has no reach. In the past 10 years 75 Americans have been killed by radicalized muslims in the US. Over the same period about 7 times that amount will drown in a 5 gallon bucket. Contrast to 50% of all murders in the US are committed by blacks. Nonhispaic blacks make up about 12% of the US population. ACCORDING TO THE FBI 4000 of the 8000 murders in 2012 were committed by blacks.

Both ISIS and NBP and BLM have called for violence against cops. Everyone recalls the NYC cops getting attacked by terrorist with a hatchet. However less known is the Black Lives Matter activist arrested after posting a video calling for "open season" on police and "crackers" that also called for taking over a police stations 1 mile from her house while she waived her gun on youtube. Later she was taken to the FBI terrorism taskforce.

Other BLM activist stated: "All you Worchester gangsters and what not. You clearly have a mission on Wednesday. Kill Donald Trump." .

Outside of the Waller County Sheriff"s Jail, the New Black Panthers a hate group, met, armed with assault rifles, calling for the death of police officers throughout America.

And where few see what happened in Ferguson as inexcusable, people shooting at cops, burning down businesses, looting" BLM titles an article : Ferguson 1 year later why protestors were right to fight for Mr. Brown.

These groups have cause disruptions and show no remorse. BLM has most recently succeeded to restrict your rights to liberty and travel within this country as a free citizen. Their members have succeeded in taking over an airport terminal in Minneapolis. TSA was forced to close down 2 check points for 45 minutes until they were able to regain control of the situation. Similar attempts were made in San Franciso as well. .

How much longer until this group of people has slowly escilated their tactics. How much longer until it is successfully channeled to someone willing to act on their behalf in a more aimed violent manner? As this youtube video shows Black lives matter called for the killing of cops 2 days before the shooting of a Houston deputy by a black lives supporter. If you have any doubts of what this group ultimately has in mind, consider their most recent hashtag #F**kparis And that is not Hilton. BLM continued to claim the slaughter in France as retribution for the Western colionialist, imperialist, racist, and white culture.

I will give my opponent that anything written above could also be attributed to ISIS. However it wasn't. ISIS cannot mobilize enough people in the US to commit 2 attacks at the same time nevertheless to section off city streets. If ISIS took over a part of a US airport it would be front page news. ISIS has never made a city look like a war zone in the US. ISIS lacks numbers in the US, and the US government actively prevents domestic islamic terrorist attacks. On that note, consider, when the street war begins, in light of recent charges, the people paid to protect you might hesitate if it's a black man holding a weapon.

BLM hands down, vote Pro.


My Original Concerns
1) The website cited is for the #BlackLivesMatter Organization, which is one organization within the greater black live matter movement. Numerous organizations take part in the movement, along with independent activists. Examples include Hands Up United, Organization for Black Struggle, the Green Party, Socialist Alternative, Outside Agitators, Anyonymous, etc. ect. Secondly "Black Liberation" is a social movement, not and ideology. The Pro clearly does not understand this and will grasp at straws on this issue.

2) Black Lives Matter is built around specific concerns around police violence and systemic racism. It does not have an overal view of how the world should be organized, how the economy should be run or how the government should function and therefore is not a political ideology and is not affiliated with any political viewpoint.

3) I do not wish to remove the NBPP from this debate, merley to separate them from the Black Lives Matter movement, as the two are separate things that are not connected in anyway. I said they promote violence, but that does not mean they are a greater threat than ISIS.

Responses to the Pros Arguments
1) The fact that murders were committed by Black people does not in ANY WAY implicate Black Lives Matter, the New Black Panther Party or any other political movement, ideology or organization. Furtermore, those statistics are from 2012, before the Black Lives Matter movement really existed. This argument has no ground and is frankly ridicoulous. Unless all of the 4,203 in 2012 comitted by black people were some how related to a movement that hadn't even begun, then this argument should be completley disregarded.

2) There are a number of problems with this argument. First, the sources. Brietbart is an openly conservative newsletter, with a clear agenda and has made it clear that it is opposed to the Black Lives Matter movement. Its behavior has been regarded by many as unethical and unjournalistic and has had a history of publishing blatantly flase, often unfounded, articles.

The second article is from "US World Report", not to be confused with the well known and well sourced US News and World Report. This website is a crowd sourcig website and is therefore no more relibable than a blog. Furthermore the article used cites two other articles. One is from Brietbart, the other is from "US World Report".

Both articles cited by the Pro are clear examples of cherry picking. Both articles cite just one activist involved in the Black Lives Matter movement, not the movement as a whole. The movement as a whole is Nonviolent. Black Lives Matter has repreatedly condemned violence agains police officers and violence as a whole.

3) While the New Black Panthers protested with weapons outside a police department, they did not use said weapons and no one has ever been killed by the NBPP. There has never been an incident where the NBPP has acted on its violent rhetoric.;

4) That article did not mention looting, "shooting at cops" or burning down buildings, and was about why it was right to protest for justice in Ferguson. Said nothing about rioting.

5) Taking over airport termnal is not a danger to the country. Hijacking a plane would be, but shutting down a terminal is not. Further more disruption does not equal violence.

6) The first video cites the Brietbart Article that was cited the the "US World Report" which I have already addressed. Secondly, the daily stormer is a NEO-NAZI website. It is well known for that and is openly Neo-Nazi.

The Pro has no ground to stand on as his arguments use poor citations, incorrect analysis and cherry picked examples

Furthermore, the attacks in San Bernadino shows that Daesh poses a threat to the US. In total 14 people have been killed by Daesh inspired terrorists in the last month in the US. Throughout its existence 0 deaths have been linked to BLM or NBPP. Neither have killed anyone and therefore the risk is much less than posed by Daesh.
Debate Round No. 2


1.My opponent by default has forfeited. The rules were to accept this debate in round 1. He did not. I offered a negotiation in round 2 with the stipulation he accept or resign. He did not accept. It is impossible to fairly debate a topic when only 1 person agrees to the ground rules. As the instigator, the burden falls on me, making this an impossible feat vs another who is not in acceptance of the ground rules and is unwilling to even compromise after the Round 1 objection. For that reason alone, anyone reading this debate needs to seriously consider voting in a manner that disqualifies my opponent.

2. My opponent shall object to the above, since he cannot accept the organization called Black Lives Matter, that states on their website is an organization, is an organization. This type of willful ignorance and lack of basic understanding of the issue must seriously cloud any of his points in this debate.

3.My opponent has used fallacies to attempt to undermine my facts. He poisons the well claiming any information I post is inaccurate because of the sources conservative roots. HOWEVER he does nothing to show the source is reporting inaccurate information, nor does he attempt to counter the facts with his own sourced information. His only objection are based on fallacies and prejudice. His position is clearly at best bad taste, and at worst a losing position. And his links have nothing to do with supporting his postition. Some of his links don't even work.

4.To bullet 3 above, he implies conservative media is unable to report the truth. He backs this up with links to liberal media outlets such as LAtimes. Mainstream media is also as biased. It spoon-feeds s a narrative about BLM and the black culture.

5.EXAMPLE: The reported and reapeated lies about BLM supporter who ran people over on the Las Vegas strip reported a "homeless woman" first on CNN. As friends who spoke with the famly spokes person on facebook wrote " this will probably help her out" in the long run to draw sympathy or a cover story for "why".

6.The family spokeswoman on DEC 21 1:17pm "Stupid CNN she"s not homeless." The MSM is just as biased as it reports lies. Do you no longer consider CNN a valid source? No, but information must be backed up or disproven not just pushed aside as my opponent is attempting to do. I am not attempting to discredit CNN I am posting alternative information. My opponent has made no attempt to challenge my information. He has only attacked my source. A fallacy, a losing position

7.My opponent attempts to discredit FBI.GOV source because he does not like the data stating 50% of all murders are committed by black people. He attempts to discredit it by stating it is from 2012 not realizing 2012 is the most recently published data AND he is unable to show 2012 is an annomoly. Every year 12% of the US population is responsible for for 50% of the murders. He is unable to disprove the fact so he attempts to discredit the source. A fallacy, a losing position.

8.My opponent attempts do distance BLM from the FBI facts because it looks bad. He claims there is no correlation between BLM and other leftist black organizations, those who support them, and black violence. At a black lives rally Reporter threatened by on public grounds outside. Another, what do we want dead cops, when do we want it? Now. . Does anyone else remember "Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon"? And this video of the NPB, armed walking streets wearing bullet proof vests chanting death threats to cops? 2 cops were shot execution style while eating lunch in Las Vegas as the black murdered shouted "This is a revolution".

9.It is impossible to believe the rhetoric openly discussed about killing cops is not responsible for the actions and motivations of a single of the 4000 murders. My opponent has evidence to refute my points, he attacks the sources. A fallacy, a losing position.

10.My opponent is unable to address #F**KPARIS with the repeated posts on twitter that are anti American, anti police, anti white, and call for a black uprising against white and those in power. Want to know the end game? #F**KPARIS is all you need to know.

11.My opponent does not see the danger of taking over an airport terminal. Does nothing to support his claim except voice an opinion. Do you agree with him that a group at the direction of BLM taking over a portion of an airport is NOT dangerous? Do you not think when the group at the direction of BLM takes over a mall that is not dangerous or alter your rights or effect your way of life? At what point does BLM become dangerous? My opponent would probably side with never. Is that the position you are taking?

12.BLM website stated a goal of disrupting commerce. And they were successful. Your jobs and your rights. How is this NOT dangerous? His attempt to dispute my point is with broken links... see:

Who do you agree with? ISIS has done nothing in the US. Radicalized muslims have killed fewer people in the past 10 years than have drowned in 5 gallon buckets. Isis has not disrupted your holiday shopping, stopped you from driving in roads, and does not have the followers in the US to act on the statements. ISIS didn"t set fire to Ferguson or Baltimore. ISIS isn"t kllling cops. ISIS isn"t successfully taking away your right to be free. MY opponent has no answer to #F**KPARIS, to the statements of BLM supporters calling to assassinate TRUMP, cops, or white people other than fallacies and personal opinions. His only defense is with Falacies and opinions - a losing debate position.

Hands down, Vote Pro.


Seeing as the Pro has based his entire argument on Cherry picked examples, allegations of "Media bias" which he cannot support, and confuses fallacies with facts. He also accuses me of not understanding this debate, when I clearly do and have responded to all his arguments as such.
I do not know what is wrong with the weblinks I posted, but I will repost them to see if they work again

As to his specific points.

1) He claims that I have forfeited by refusing to accept his definitions. His definitions were faulty and I challenged this. As the Pro he must refute this, but he cannot simply say "I said it you must accept it". That is not how a debate works. If something can be refuted then it must be or it must be conceded, I refuted and he said that I could not.

2) The fact is that I have shown with evidence that all his sources are faulty, and incredible. He claims that I have stated conservative media outlets are unreliable, however I did not claim this, I simply stated that Brietbart is Biased against BLM and thus would take a very negative view no matter what, in addition to having a history of unjournalistic and unethical behavior. I also stated that "US World Report" is no more reliable than a blog as it is crowd sourced. And all the articles were clear examples of cherry picking, and thus do not prove the point.

3) I provided numerous sources showing how brietbart is unreliable and pointed out several issues with both articles taken directly from them. His allegations of "Prejudice" are unfounded and unsupported. As the burden of proof falls on the Pro, any claim that is unsupported by the Pro must be disregarded unless it can be justified.

4) He has no evidence supporting his claim that the LA times is biased or how the MSM "spoon-feeds a narrative about BLM and the black culture", and thus this point must be disregarded.

5) This is an example of cherry picking. Furthermore this example was not mentioned in previous arguments and there can be no new arguments in the final round. This must be disregarded.

6) This is another example of a new argument, and is also an unsupported argument. Disregard it as such. And claiming that indicting the source is a fallacy is ITSELF A fallacy. Furthermore, I have pointed out that all these examples are not relevant, are not examples of "danger" or are examples of cherry picking.

7) I did not discredit the FBI statistics, I have just show that they ARE NOT RELEVENT to this debate. This is because a) the Black Lives Matter movement did not truly exist until 2014, and b) those statistics show NO LINK between murders in the Black community and BLM. And if he wants more recent data, 2014 stats have been published.

8) Those are all cherry picked examples, and he cannot prove a link between the BLM and all the murders in 2012, mostly because BLM DID NOT EXIST YET.

9) He has shown no evidence of anyone actually being killed by BLM or the NBPP, as no one has. Hollow Rhetoric does not constitute danger.

10) That is not an example of danger and does not constitute one.

11) This argument is frankly ludicrous. Refer to my CSM article posted in round 2. No one was harmed in any significant way by that action. And furthermore he has now shown how this in any way threatens anyone's way of life. It would inconvenience someone's day, and delay their flight, but there is no evidence that your "way of life" is in anyway at risk.

12) Disrupting commerce can also be done by boycotts, strikes and even inclement weather. None of these threaten your jobs or your rights. And the link I posted had nothing to do with this anyway. What he is simply creating here is a distraction.

The Con's arguments are unsupported, based on faulty evidence, and cherry picked examples. He has failed to show how the BLM or the NBPP poses any danger to the USA, and much less that they pose a greater risk than Daesh. He has no further argument, other than to make ad hominem attacks and unsupported claims. He accuses me of prejudice without any justification and he has not backing to almost any of his claims.
His premise is faulty and unsupported and he has failed to meet the Burden of Proof required.

I can see nothing but a solid vote for the Con.

Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by donald.keller 9 months ago
Told you i'd get 2 votes on this.
Posted by tajshar2k 9 months ago
I will award arguments to Pro, because he only was on the offensive, and his arguments were more convincing,

Sources will go to Con, because he used more reliable sources. I encourage Pro to try use statistics and reliable sources, other than youtube videos, and neo nazi websites.
Posted by tajshar2k 9 months ago

First I think it"s important that we realize this. The BOP is shared for this, because neither group is defined more dangerous. So both Pro and Con need to show that BLM or ISIS is more dangerous.


First Con broke the first acceptance rule, but I"m willing to keep a blind eye to it, because it isn"t really any arguments, but I encourage Con not to do this in the future.

Round 1
Pro arguments are very strong. He lists many incidents that show that BLM has attacked and looted stores. The stat on 4000 out of 8000 murders were blacks isn"t very convincing because not all blacks are part of BLM. Pro also explains that ISIS do not have enough men to mobilize an attack on the U.S, and the U.S government plays a huge role in preventing terrorist attacks. However I think Pro should have tried to find more realiable sources because youtube video"s aren"t really all that acceptable.

Round 2

Con doesn"t provide any offensive arguments, which hurts him a lot in this debate. Con tries to prove that Pro"s sources are faulty, but I"ll give him some credit for that. Con does provide some real sources, but his arguments regarding ISIS are very weak. Even though Pro said that he would allow the definition to broadly cover all radicalized muslims. First Con tries to discredit Pro"s arguments on BLM, by saying it"s not an organization, but this is largely irrelevant, because it doesn"t need to be a organization to be more violent. His other arguments are simply trying to discredit his sources. Along with that he does concede some arguments.


This was a messy debate overall. Many of Pro"s arguments were cherrypicked and some of them didn"t make sense. However one point that stood out with Pro was that the U.S government is actively trying to fight Islamic terrorism. Con"s response was very disappointing. Con should have given more examples of how radical muslims are more dangerous to the U.S, but he played it safe.
Posted by donald.keller 9 months ago

Establishing BOP: The debate is about whether Group A is more harmful. Therefore BOP is on Pro. If the debate were on who was worse, the BOP would be shared. However, only one side needs to be proven "worse" here. If Pro can't prove the BLM movement is worse, he loses, even if Con doesn't prove otherwise.

The questions that I will look to see answered are A) How dangerous is the BLM movement. And B) How dangerous is ISIS.

Once Pro establishes any harm from Black Rights groups, Con must either disprove ALL of the harms, or prove an equal/larger harm from ISIS.

Round 1: Introduction.

I shouldn't be writing a review of this round... While I find Pro's definitions ridiculous, they are still the definitions given. When you accept a debate, you accept the definitions, and can not challenge them. That being said, R1 is acceptance only. Posting arguments is inappropriate, even if only to attack the Definitions. I understand Con doesn't think "Way of Life" should be included, but he accepted that it will be when he clicked Accept. Saying it "MUST" include only what you agree with post-acceptance is poor conduct. Luckily, I don't hand out Conduct....

If Con attempts to argue based on his idea of what the definitions are, he will have a bad time....
Posted by donald.keller 9 months ago
Round 2: Arguments.

Starting a round with "distracting from the original argument with his ignorance" is a terrible way to handle things. If I were to take note of conduct, Pro would be hurt by this line more. I will ignore all arguments regarding the definitions. The definitions in the beginning are the ones Pro and Con accepted in the beginning, therefore argument over them is a waste of each other's characters.

Pro does make a powerful start. This debate is about Black Rights groups like the BLM and BPP, and so the stats about 50% of murders being by black people doesn't mean that the BLM, for example, is responsible. None-the-less, Pro lists off a huge quantity of harm caused by Black groups. While this quantity is speculative, we can assume it's huge (as saying "a lot of money" is speculative, but still presumably large). Pro would benefit from giving more numbers that help to quantify his harms.

Either-way, Pro gives a lot of harm... Terrorist-like videos, police shootings, and even real airport security threats.

Con starts the round by addressing the issue with the "50% of murders" claim. Con then goes on to attack the sourcing. While this gives his sources more credence, he didn't post anything, and so it doesn't matter. The only way to truly beat a source is to post a counter-source attacking the claim itself. Attacking the credibility of a source only works to ensure your claim's sources are preferable, but when you don't have any sources, it doesn't work. Con's case about the movement being peaceful is unsourced.

Con's attempt to make the BPP appear to not be a threat is unsuccessful. Saying the group did hold up a police station with weapons, but didn't use them or hurt anyone, still makes them a threat. The group did, as Con concedes, still use weapons to hold up the place.
Posted by donald.keller 9 months ago
At the end of this round, Con handled the issue of the BLMs holding up an ariport, but only to make me question if they might, or might not, be a threat, without securing the idea that they are not a threat. Otherwise, most of Pro's case stands. Con's attempts to tackle Pro's sources only work if Con posted sources countering the claim, and not just the source itself.

Con's claims that ISIS did kill 14 people by association. This is a good start for Con, although I feel he could have also listed the deaths at the Boston Bombings, and other such events.

Round 3:

Pro tries to say Con concedes the debate by breaking the rule of "acceptance only." I find it in poor form to only now be bringing this up. Because Con's first round arguments were about the credibility of the definitions, I ignored it. That being said, the rules doesn't say you lose by default if you fail to use R1 for acceptance only. While I might worry about this more if it were a more serious rule, this just doesn't seem important enough.

Pro does address the sourcing problems I listed. He even explains the hypocrisy of Con's case here. Pro then moves to post a plentiful supply to video evidence showing the threat of BLM and BPP groups. This evidence is convincing. However, the argument against the airport is not. Con posted evidence that the airport scene wasn't a 'hold up' or a threat. Also, Con's link was an easy fix... Erase the space at the end. DDO does that a lot. SO I find it funny that he ended up posted a fix version of the link on accident.
Posted by donald.keller 9 months ago
While I buy that ISIS's impact isn't large enough for most to see, I don't buy that 14 dead counts as doing "nothing to the US." The case is still relevant... ISIS hasn't hurt US commerce, traffic/travel, or a number of other aspects of American life. (While I'm certain they have, Con needs to show they have for me to vote on those ground.)

A quick note for Con... Pro does NOT need to defend those sources. If you didn't agree to them, you shouldn't have agreed to the debate. Another note, refuting your claim against his sources by showing that your sources were also bias, and proving it, does not count as a "new argument." It counts as a "refutation." Which are allowed in the last round.

Con fails to refute the evidence Pro posted about members of these groups preaching violence. Saying they are cherry-picked doesn't work. Pro listed a number of examples, and Con does little to show even one example of the BPP or BLM preaching peace, and fails to show that these groups are peaceful, and Con's examples are rare. As I see it, the only examples of BPP or BLM saying or doing anything so far is Pro's negative videos. Therefore, the videos stand. Calling something cherry-picked only works if you can show that there are far more examples against the opposition's examples.
Posted by donald.keller 9 months ago
Con says that harming Commerce doesn't hurt one's rights or freedom. Maybe not, but hurting the US economy is still hurting the US...


After some thinking, I can say that BLM and BPP do pose a threat. They have hurt commerce, held up a police station with guns, and preached insane violence on a number of occasions. They have a number of examples of them hurting people. Pro had Ferguson riots and other riots in his favor, including the burning down of homes, businesses, and other riot-based crimes. Now to the big issue here...

Almost no time was focused on how much of a threat ISIS is. This works in Pro's favor. Because the only threat from ISIS listed in the whole debate was 14 dead, Con never mentioned to prove enough of a harm from ISIS to offset Pro's Black Group harms. Con should have address far more harm from ISIS than he did. In the last round, Pro established that ISIS has done little to nothing to effect US lifestyles, and Con didn't remotely address this.

14 Dead is a sad ordeal, but it's also isolated. It's one example... Con doesn't post three or four examples of this happening. I'm left with the knowledge that ISIS only struck once, while BLM and BPP are consistent threats who have caused riots and attacked a Police Station...

Therefore, Pro wins. While Pro couldn't prove all of his harms, what he did prove does outweigh the one harm Con was able to show from ISIS... Had Con listed the many, many other successful attacks on the US, he could have won. One lone example simply doesn't outweigh a consistent threat.
Posted by donald.keller 9 months ago
I promise the Voter's Union will have votes on this debate. I myself will vote if needed.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
>Reported vote: Objectivity// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Conduct goes to Pro because neg refused to accept the rules layed out in R1, they should have been disputed before acceptance. Cross apply this as an RFD for arguments on top of neg's misguided critique of aff's evidence, where he disputes the sources but not the methodology or anything specific except "it came from someone who can be biased therefore it must be biased". Furthermore neg offers no constructive arguments, only critiques of aff's constructive, therefore if even one of aff's points isn't properly refuted he wins based on a line by line analysis, and neg did not sufficiently refute every point so arguments go to aff.

[*Reason for removal*] The argument points require further explication. The voter has to at least point to those arguments made by Pro that met his BoP (which requires explaining how that was met) and went unaddressed. Merely stating that this happened is too generalized to suffice.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 9 months ago
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: -- This is a vote on behalf of the Voter's Union. PM Donald Keller, Whiteflame, or Midnight1131, if you have a debate you need voted on.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 9 months ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: In comments
Vote Placed by donald.keller 9 months ago
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: RFD in Comments: This is a vote on behalf of the Voter's Union. PM me, Whiteflame, or Midnight1131, if you have a debate you need voted on.