Black Lives Matter is not a racist organization
Debate Rounds (5)
Con: Black Lives Matter is a racist organization
It is my intention to prove that BLM is not motivated by race. This will be supported with facts.
1st round is acceptance
2-4 rounds arguments
5th round closing statement
I await a challenger
I accept the challenge, and will argue on how the Black Lives Matter movement is racist is some form of way.
The Black Lives Matter group is harmless and is not racist because they defend black people. They do not defend whites or Asians or Latinos, only blacks. There's the proof. You cannot be a racist if you support black people only.
I shall Rebuttal my opponent's statements, and provide my own arguments to disprove my opponent's contentions.
Blacks "Cannot" be Racist
For this silly argument presented by my opponent, I like to provide the definition of "racist". The definition is "A person who believes that a particular race is superior to another" (1). First off, with the movement called "Black Lives Matter", isn't that putting a higher superiority than "All Lives Matter". If one group is supporting only one race than others, doesn't that show they believe they are superior then others? This shows that they are racist, instead of promoting a movement where everyone can get involved without being shoved away.
To even add a bit more to my argument, I like to discuss about "All Lives Matter". Like the name says for itself, all lives in society matter no matter the race, gender, or age. It's a clear no brainer, and even presidential candidate Ben Carson even says that all lives matter. Quoted by Carson himself: "And we have to stop submitting to those who want to divide us into all these special interest groups and start thinking about what works for everybody" (2). This quote disproves my opponents statements that Republicans are not racist, and that it shows that the movement is increasing racial tension than lowering it. In fact, stated by Katie Pavlich: "A racist, violent hate group that promotes the execution of police officers" (3). They are causing more harm than good.
My opponent in this round even follows the definition of racist. In the previous round, I defined racist (Since no definition wasn't defined yet) as: "A person who believes that a particular race is superior to another". In this round, my opponent said the following: "They focus on promoting the black race only". This proves how the "Black Lives Matter" movement is promoting the definition of racist, by showing a belief of being a higher race than other races.
Also, my opponent has failed to rebuttal my argument about the "All Lives Matter" movement, in which promotes all lives; even blacks. So far, my opponent has failed to really attack my case and keeps rehashing the same argument.
In the following round, my opponent argues that I have showed no proof about the "Blacl Lives Matter" movement is racist; when in fact I did. In the second round, I provided the definition of racist being one race being superior to another. Black Lives Matter promotes this on only focusing on African-Americans compared to other races. My opponent's ignorance is clearly showing on not even looking at the evidence I presented previously, and not even progressing the argument. My opponent is jus making multiple claims, but lacks to Rebuttal my own statemens. This shows that my opponent is lackluster in this argument, and should be behind on points.
Also to even further my own argument, here is some evidence that the Black Lives Matter movement promotes more problems than solutions. This even wages more racial tension, comparatively to the "All Lives Matter" movement.
For this final round of the debate, I'd like to state how this debate went. First beginning with my opponent's argument that Blacks cannot be racist, when in fact they encorage racism. Stated in my opening argument with the definition of "racist" being "A person who believes that a particular race is superior to another". How is it not racist when an organization that focuses on one race, than all other races like the movement "All Lives Matter". I asked this question constantly throughout the debate to my opponent, and he refused to answer. Making claims that I don't understand, when in fact he isn't progressing the debate any further; revealing his ignorance.
In conclusion, my opponent provides many claims; but does not progress with them any further. While I did, and provided more evidence for my argument. For these few reasons, I urge voters to vote Con!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sincerely_Millenial 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro repeatedly ignored the rebuttal from Con's argument and denied the actual definition of racism. It's clear that this instigator was not here for a debate but rather a pointless argument.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.