The Instigator
Letsdebate24
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DavidMancke
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Black lives matter is promoting racism and black privilage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
DavidMancke
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/20/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 795 times Debate No: 93934
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

Letsdebate24

Pro

The black lives matter movement has been advocating the innocence of convicted criminals despite all the evidence. This does not pertain to every case in recent history but the vast majority.
DavidMancke

Con

You didn't specify, but I will assume that this opening round is for acceptance.

To be clear, based on the terms of the resolution the burdens are for Pro to show teh BLM is promiting racism and "black privildge." Likewise the burden for the negative (that me!) is to show that BLM is NOT promoting racism and, "black priledge" If you object to this understanding of the burdens you ought to bring it up now and we can hash it out in teh comments.

You may want to pack a lunch, just sayin :-)
Debate Round No. 1
Letsdebate24

Pro

Apologies I should have provided more context in my opening statement. Ill number each point to make it easier to respond.
I made the statement that they are promoting racism because they only protest when a black man is shot by a white officer. Yes, the Freddie Grey case had 3 black officers but i'm speaking to the majority of incidents.

1. I wasn't able to pinpoint exactly which incident gave birth to this movement. As far as I can tell, it was created after the shooting of Michael Brown by Darren Wilson (a white police officer) in Ferguson, Missouri. The movement started with the motto "hands up, dont shoot!" which turned out to be a false narrative as stated by the DOJ and 2 separate autopsies. Despite the DOJ confirming Brown did not have his hands up, the movement continued to use the lie not caring about the truth. According to the DOJ there was no evidence to suggest that Brown was not the aggressor.
https://www.youtube.com...
http://newsbusters.org...
http://www.politico.com...
http://www.chicagotribune.com...

2. BLM does not speak out about the mass murder of black men in cities like Chicago when the primary murderer of black men is other black men. They kill each other in staggering numbers but there has been no march, no protests, no demands for a stronger police force. In fact it's been the complete opposite. When children have been gunned down in cold blood because of gang violence the communities have stayed silent. Accepting it as a part of the culture and a hazard of living where they do.
http://www.breitbart.com... The information below was pulled from breitbart.com

FACT 1. Over 1,400 more black Americans murdered other blacks in two years than were lynched from 1882 to 1968.

According to FBI data, 4,906 black people murdered other blacks in 2010 and 2011. That is 1,460 more black Americans killed by other blacks in two years than were lynched from 1882 to 1968, according to the Tuskegee Institute.

FACT 2. Black People (mostly men) commit a grossly disproportionate amount of crime.

In 2012, white males were 38 percent of the population and committed 4,582 murders. That same year, black males were just 6.6 percent of the population but committed a staggering 5,531 murders.

In other words: black people"at just a fifth of the size"committed almost 1,000 more murders than their white counterparts.

The figures above highlight a horrific truth that black racialists and white liberals routinely ignore: Lawbreaking black Americans, young black males particularly, put themselves in close proximity to (mostly white male) police officers at rates sometimes five to 10 times higher than whites.

FACT 3. Despite making up just 13% of the population, blacks committed half of homicides in the United States for nearly 30 years.

DOJ statistics show that between 1980 and 2008, black people committed 52% of homicides.

In 2013, black criminals committed 38% of the murders. Whites accounted for just 31 percent.

There are five times fewer black people than white people in America and, yet, they consistently carry out a larger share of the crimes? Given this rate, it"s no wonder that there aren"t more assistances where cops kill black criminals.

FACT 4. Chicago"s death toll is almost equal to that of both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined.

There have been almost as many deaths in one American city as there have been in the two major wars carried out by the U.S. military this century.

Chicago"s death toll from 2001"November, 26 2015 stands at 7,401. The combined total deaths during Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003-2015: 4,815) and Operation Enduring Freedom/Afghanistan (2001-2015: 3,506), total 8,321.

FACT 5. It would take cops 40 years to kill as many black men as have died at the hands of others black men in 2012 alone.

University of Toledo criminologist Dr. Richard R. Johnson examined the latest crime data from the FBI"s Supplementary Homicide Reports and Centers for Disease Control and found that an average of 4,472 black men were killed by other black men annually between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2012.

Professor Johnson"s research further concluded that 112 black men died from both justified and unjustified police-involved killings annually during this same period.

End of breitbart.com source

The internet is full of statistics showing the same thing, the number one killer of black men, is other black men! But still they narrative is that "America is racist towards blacks" and "the system is inherently racist" never providing any real evidence.
DavidMancke

Con

I’ll begin by providing a basic resolution analysis to clarify the topic of the debate and the burden(s) of each side. Next we deconstruct the Affirmative case and provide impact analysis of how the Aff case fails to support the resolution. Lastly, we will look at the negative counter analysis of the topic, the need the topic addresses and how the BLM movement relates to the issue; excessive use of force by police, and the consistent failure to prosecute it.

Resolutional analysis:

So to start, the topic, “The BLM movement is promoting racism and 'black privilege'” is a truth claim; to be shown either true or false. The debator that best supports their side of the topic, and provides the most significant examples should win the debate.

Aff case deconstructed;

To win the debate my opponent must show that BLM is promoting racism and black privilege. The case put forward in round two by my opponent does nothing to support this claim.

All, everything that was offered by the affirmative was just a litany of superfluous claims regarding black crime statistics provide by Breitbart. These do nothing, not a thing, to support the resolution. This can be demonstrated with simple logic.


The Aff case fundamentally claims;

Premise 1: More black men are killed by other black men than anything else.

Premise 2: Black people commit more crimes than other racial groups.

Conclusion: BLM promotes racism and black privilege. False; the conclusion is not at all supported by these premises.

This is the textbook example of a deductive fallacy, having premises that may be true without supporting the conclusion. Here is a link to the definition with examples on wikipedia. It’s also in chapter three of most college logic textbooks (Hurley’s Logic 2006 ed)

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


You can vote for the negative without any doubt. The Aff has provided no support of the truth claim. Even if you believe the premises of the Aff case, those premises do not support the claim that BLM promotes racism or "black privilege." They offered nothing, not one thing, to support that conclusion. The Aff has not carried any portion of their burdens, they already lose the debate.

The Affirmative has offered nothing else, let alone anything to suggest that BLM is promoting racism. For one, the Aff failed to even define these concepts, but if we use the most pedestrian understanding of those terms, racism is defined as, “the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.” (google)

The Aff has given us nothing at all to show that BLM promotes this idea in any form. The same goes for, “Black privilege,” though it is important to point out that this very term tends to typify a new brand of racist vitriol, and was coined by ultra-right mouthpieces as counter to the term, “white privilege” Below is an entertaining HuffPost article that clarifies the grievances many have with this dubious term. Please draw your own conclusions as to whether or not the term itself is racist, but it is patently obvious that the Aff provided nothing to support the claim that BLM promotes, “black privilege.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Suffice to say we could bury the affirmative and call it a day right now, but convention holds that we should thoroughly address the issues a topic touches on and some of the more dubious claims and implications of what the Aff tries to imply.

Though my opponent offered nothing to support the resolution, they impart a sentiment of something rather vile; excessive use of force and unjustified violence by police, particularly towards people of color, is not significant. My opponet tries to imply that BLM doesn’t have a case because, “black on black crime,” has not been fixed first.

This is a total error in logic as well, here’s why.

Let’s consider two prisms of analysis to expose just how foolish this idea is; first, law and order and second, justice for all.

In the case of law and order my opponent’s error is obvious here as well. The reality is that crimes which our justice system cannot punish are a greater threat to law and order than those we can punish.

In the case of crime of one civilian upon another, regardless of race; there is not a demonstrated pattern of impunity; those guilty do not typically escape justice.

In the case of the many shootings and killings that inspired BLM, there is a clear pattern of impunity. The movement started with the acquittal of George Zimmerman in FL, who was a vigilante that gunned down an unarmed black teenager with impunity. His acquittal became a referendum on our justice system that has since seen a string of questionable killings of black citizens, mostly by police, that have all escaped justice. The aquittal of Trayvon Martin's killer also inspired the initial use of #blacklivematter


Any authority figure operating above the law is cuase for pause, but this pattern is far worse when examined though the lens of justice. This pattern of impunity is all the more disturbing when we consider its police that operate with impunity. This strongly suggests that officers of the court are not subject to the law they enforce. Moreover, trying to characterize black people as criminals does nothing to excuse this disturbing pattern or balance justice. Black on black crime is no excuse for excssive use of force by police. The murder of a bully is still murder. The rape of a promiscous person is still rape. Questioning the character of a victim or their community does not exucse the crime.

No degree of black criminality excuses a police officer misusing authority or a firearm. No amount of black on black crime should allow agents of the law to operate above the law. No degree of entrenched poverty justifies tacit denial of justice to communities of color.

In conclusion the Affirmative would have miles, perhaps light years to go before getting their case back on track. They have provided nothing to support the claim(s) that the resolution makes. They have tried to unload notions onto us regarding black criminality to excuse institutional denial of justice to people of color and obfuscate the memory of young black men and women killed by cops with the understanding that such behavior by police never leads to jailtime. Oficers of the law cannot be above the law they enforce.

When we consider that the Aff so provided no support whatsoever of the thesis, and they leaned on questionable material all to excuse institutional injustice, this should be the easiest negative ballot you will ever complete. Yet unfortunately, the real issues this question turns our attention to may require a generation of tough questions and increased standards both of our policing practices and the government agencies that supposesly police the police.
Debate Round No. 2
Letsdebate24

Pro

My opponent would attempt to persuade you into believing that somehow the statistics provided by Breitbart do nothing to do with the resolution but this is simply a failed attempt to deflect from the truth. The alleged simple logic provided in the rebuttal was nothing more than an opinion lacking virtually any proof except a link to wikipedia.org (infamous for providing false information) and a poem that the Huffingtonpost decided showcase on their website. This is a foolish attempt to give credibility based on the perspective of one individual who also provides no statistical proof that BLM has any legitimacy.
Instead of providing evidence in support of a "con" position my opponent has given a tu quoque (too-kwoh-kwee) fallacy.

Tu quoque - a retort charging an adversary with being or doing what he criticizes in others (websters dictionary)

Con has suggested that I have provided no credible source while he/she has provided even less.

1. One of the most blatant ways the BLM movement is promoting racism is by promoting the lies of matters such as "hands up dont shoot" instead of embracing the truth. By ignoring the truth and continuing with a false premise as they have, it only discredits any legitimate grievances they may have had. This movement is contending that these men are being shot and killed for absolutely no reason despite all the physical evidence. By supporting criminals based on obvious lies they are making the assertion that these black criminals are somehow above the law. That just because he attacked the officer doesn't mean the officer had a right to kill him, for example.
https://www.youtube.com...
http://www.theguardian.com...

According to theguardian.com,
1.51 whites are killed per million (out of approximately 250,000,000)
3.71 blacks are killed per million ( out of approximately 50,000,000)

Blacks represent far less of the American population than whites and yet they account for far more of the crimes committed, mainly homicides. What my opponent refuses to admit is the fact that the vast majority of black men killed since the Michael Brown incident were already convicted of crimes, meaning that they had a history of getting into trouble to simplify it further. Thats not to say that every black man killed has a criminal record but that is the theme of most cases.
Why then are we not seeing people with no criminal history being killed by police? The obvious answer is because those with clean records are law abiding citizens that have little to no interactions with the police. The BLM movement has done virtually nothing to explain this while they continue to accuse police and the system of being racist.

The facts do not care about your feelings and the numbers do not lie!

Instead of condemning the actions that lead these men to their deaths, BLM has accused police of inherent racism. Whether they mean to or not, they are making the suggestion that it doesn't matter what black men do, they should not be killed. This line of thought places black lives on an elevated pedestal above other races. Because the fact of the matter is white people are consistently killed in greater numbers and yet there have been virtually no mass riots, no calls for reform, and no allegations of racism when a black officers kills a white civilian. In the white community it is generally accepted that if you attack a police officer or disobey an officers commands in a dangerous situation, there is a chance you will be killed for your actions. This is basic cause and effect and the judicial system has recognized this time and time again with officers like Darren Wilson. This means that there was not sufficient evidence to support the claims made by BLM.
This speaks to the privilege portion of the debate. BLM seeks to reform the system based on the death of criminals just because the criminals are black.

https://www.youtube.com...
http://downtrend.com...
http://www.dailywire.com...

Criminals of every race are held to the same standards, that is equality.

More whites are killed by police and more blacks kill whites than the other way around and yet BLM has the audacity to make claims which are not supported by the statistics. The very title Black Lives Matter singles them out
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...

Con will undoubtedly attempt to discredit these videos as showing a bias but what he cannot do is deny the individuals in the videos and what they're saying. It is perfectly acceptable for these people to call for the death of white people and they are not considered racist. If whites were to call for the death of blacks they would be labeled racists and this is part of the black privilege the movement is promoting.
DavidMancke

Con

Pro never disputed the argument that criminality does not justify denial of justice. That argument goes to Con.

Pro attacks the syllogism explaining how he did not support the resolution.

I have provided a plethora of supports (in comments) to show what constitutes a deductive fallacy.

Pro accused me of a, “'Tu quoque' - a retort charging an adversary with being or doing what he criticizes in others (websters dictionary)" and linked it to my critique of Breitbart's bias.

I did call into question the bias of Brietbart, but I still grant my opponent all of the statistics he offered, because even if they are true they do not support the thesis. I am not making a case against those statistics, this is categorically irrelevant.

Pro then at least tries to offer an example of how BLM could be understood to promote racism, by trying to claim that BLM values the lives of black people above others.

The stated aim of BLM is to protest the dehumanization of people color by state institutions like our justice system, specifically extrajudicial killings that have consistently failed to yield convictions or indictment. The perception of the movement is that the taken life of a person of color holds less value within our justice system than the lives of others.

To better deconstruct the Pro’s arguments, we will examine each one by one in the sequence they appear.

One of the most blatant ways the BLM movement is promoting racism is by promoting the lies of matters such as "hands up dont shoot" instead of embracing the truth

This does not show that BLM is promoting racism. Even if the, “hands up, don’t shoot,” meme is a misnomer, it doesn’t constitute the promotion of racism. This statement has been used to highlight the perception, right or wrong, that non-violent unarmed people of color have been killed by police operating with impunity. Even if BLM is wrong, there is nothing within the device that promotes racism.

This movement is contending that these men are being shot and killed for absolutely no reason despite all the physical evidence. By supporting criminals based on obvious lies they are making the assertion that these black criminals are somehow above the law. That just because he attacked the officer doesn't mean the officer had a right to kill him, for example.

For one, my opponent is presuming that in all cases contested by BLM, the victims of police violence were engaged in criminal activity. This is a false generalization fallacy. My opponent assumes that because in some instances the officer that fired was provoked/attacked that all extrajudicial killings by police are justified. This doesn’t even address instances like Trayvon Martin, which did not involve a police officer.

Consider a recent example, the shooting of Charles Kinsey in Florida. A black man caring for an autistic adult was needlessly shot without provocation. Now information is surfacing suggesting that representatives of Miami Dade Metro have lied to the public when calling it an accident.
This example gives us enough to know that the generalization my opponent is trying to make is not true in all cases, and that BLM has a legitimate gripe regarding police violence as well as judicial impunity and corruption.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

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

The circumstances of some of these killings were highly questionable, and the killer(s) in question never face legal consequences. In many instances a grand jury failed to pursue any charges.

This pattern is the core issue of BLM; crime against a person of color is less of a crime, crimes as the hands of police are not crimes at all. Calling this into question does not promote racism. BLM wants equal dispensation of justice.

Pro would need to show how agitating against institutional injustice (perceived or not) is promotion of racism. It's not and his argument drops to the cutting room floor.

the vast majority of black men killed since the Michael Brown incident were already convicted of crimes, meaning that they had a history of getting into trouble to simplify it further. Thats not to say that every black man killed has a criminal record but that is the theme of most cases.

Again, trying to paint with a broad brush, whilst acknowledging not every example is a criminal, he argues that there's enough to make the generalization. He's characterizing all of the shootings that have drawn the protest of BLM as a criminal on the wrong side of the law, even when he knows and the record shows it’s not always the case.

My opponent wants to apply a generalization he already knows, and acknowledges, is incorrect.

Why then are we not seeing people with no criminal history being killed by police? The obvious answer is because those with clean records are law abiding citizens that have little to no interactions with the police. The BLM movement has done virtually nothing to explain this while they continue to accuse police and the system of being racist.

To provide the answer given by the Miami Metro police union, police sometimes miss. That is the current reasoning behind this shooting of Charles Kinsey. The point being though, that we in fact have seen shootings and even killings of innocents. Moreover, objecting to this does not constitute racism.

Instead of condemning the actions that lead these men to their deaths, BLM has accused police of inherent racism. Whether they mean to or not, they are making the suggestion that it doesn't matter what black men do, they should not be killed.

BLM is objecting to unequal dispensation of justice; and they have a case! Since the acquittal of Zimmerman this movement has had a case. This does not constitute racism on the part of BLM. Once again, the Pro would need to show us that calling justice and policing practices into question promotes racism.

Because the fact of the matter is white people are consistently killed in greater numbers and yet there have been virtually no mass riots, no calls for reform.

That is a categorical falsehood. Consider the tragic story of Otto Zehm in Spokane WA. Otto Zehm was a mentally handicapped white man needlessly beaten and suffocated by police. His death sparked local and national public outrage, the officers involved were indicted and the ranking officer, Karl Thomson was tried and convicted.

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

http://www.spokesman.com...

This is totally contrary to the report given by my opponent; extrajudicial killing of whites never sparks outrage. Yes it does, and has. In this case, the police officer(s) in question were indicted, tried and convicted and the city paid restitution to the bereaved.

BLM holds that these kinds of things don’t happen when the cops hurt someone of color, and they have a point.
In the white community it is generally accepted that if you attack a police officer or disobey an officers commands in a dangerous situation, there is a chance you will be killed for your actions.

This is a bald face lie.

Otto's sad story shows the opposite. If my opponent's claim was the case then Otto’s death would not have sparked public outrage, police involved wouldn’t have been indicted, Karl Thompson would never have gone to jail.
Pro videos

1st: This video is cherry picking examples of people that have no formal relationship to BLM. These behaviors have been repudiated by BLM leaders.

2nd: I appreciate the young man’s opinion, but it is nothing more than that. This is about as strong as, “my pal says so and he really gets me, so he must be right.”

3rd: Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi (BLM founders) aren’t the subject of this video.

http://blacklivesmatter.com...

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

http://fortune.com...

4th: This could be argued to suggest some BLM youngsters lack manners, but not to say they promote racism.

Debate Round No. 3
Letsdebate24

Pro

No argument was needed that criminality does not justify denial of justice. The problem with that line of thought if that there was not sufficient evidence to even bring these cases to court. The majority of officers are not even indicted. Take the Michael Brown case for example. Darren Wilson was not indicted because no proof of the BLM claims was found. In fact the opposite was true. They found reason to believe that the account of Wilson was true.

The "plethora of supports" my opponent listed fell quite short of proving a deductive fallacy, instead trying to deflect from the issue at hand. When someone deflects or attempts to diminish the opponents argument without proving proof of ones own position it shows the lack of any foundation.

The statistics I provided are completely relevant to the topic because it proves the BLM claims to be completely false. BLM is promoting racism in America as an excuse for those statistics. They claim that those stats are falsely presented. They also claim that because black people are a minority and still account for so much of the incarceration rate proves racism. Instead of trying to figure out how to change the criminal culture so prevalent in the black community they accuse the system. That's making false accusations to deflect from the real issues. BLM promotes racism as the culprit despite the myth being repeatedly debunked.

My opponent goes on to argue that BLM is simply protesting the "dehumanization" of colored people. Again I ask, where is the proof? If there was truly so much racism there would be substantial proof to back up such allegations but even black judges have found no reason to convict these officers, the vast majority of times not even being indicted. If the BLM perception is that the taken life of a person of color holds less value within our justice system they should try doing some research because despite the larger numbers of whites being killed, cops are still not being prosecuted because they do not just kill people without good reason. They are trained to respond to the threats presented to them and they have to make these decisions in a split second or they could very well end up killed themselves.

Using the "hands up, don't shoot" mantra is indeed promoting racism because despite the fact that it was proven to be a lie and proof that Brown attacked the officer, BLM continued to cry racism. In other words they were making allegations of racism when it wasn't true. Using racism as an excuse for the actions of a criminal that resulted in his own death is promoting racism. Every time they accuse someone of racism without proof, they're promoting racism.

I presume nothing but instead make an observation based on all the evidence presented. BLM is citing racism as the reason for these men being killed but witness accounts and video evidence have told a much different story.
Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked and he was killed in self defense. (Admittedly Zimmerman was being very idiotic but he was not the one to start an altercation)

Charles Kinsey is one particular case I happen to believe the officer was wrong for. It's hard to say what happened when the video cut out but even so I find it incredibly hard to believe the officers account of the incident. This is the only legitimate situation which might qualify as racism. I would like to see an investigation into this incident and see the officer taken to trial. I don't like to make judgments based on an incomplete video but the officer does look guilty. Even though the man was not killed I agree he should not have been shot.

Again, there was not evidence for the officers to be indicted. Refer to my 3rd paragraph for the rest of my opponents paragraph. Ill say it again, accusing people of racism when there is no proof is promoting racism. BLM is claiming that these men are killed because of racism, not because of their actions. That is promoting racism.

My opponent failed to cite the case what records show someone to have been doing nothing to warrant being shot.

I used the term "vast majority" because thats what the evidence has proven. There has yet to be any proof to prove these officers were in the wrong. If racism was truly so rampant as BLM contends there would be an overwhelming amount of proof followed by my officers being convicted.

Charles Kinsey was seemingly shot for no justifiable reason but to use the excuse "police sometimes miss" does nothing to prove my opponents position on the topic. Whether he meant to or not im not sure but by that statement hes implying that so far only the criminal blacks have been killed. Apparently the people with clean records are harder to kill. BLM can object all they want but when they start falsely accusing officers of being racist without solid evidence they're promoting racism.

My opponent stated
"BLM is objecting to unequal dispensation of justice; and they have a case! Since the acquittal of Zimmerman this movement has had a case. This does not constitute racism on the part of BLM. Once again, the Pro would need to show us that calling justice and policing practices into question promotes racism"
Theres only one problem, no unequal dispensation of justice has been proven! BLM has failed to prove these officers were unjustified and the courts have found no reasons to indict them. They have no case (except Kinsey), they have ruined their own movement by citing known lies, making unfounded allegations, denying physical evidence, ignoring the findings of the DOJ (which happened to be run by a black man who also suspected racism), failing to condemn criminals, and calling for the death of cops. Some of the sources I listed in previous round showed members of the BLM movement celebrating the death of 5 white cops and calling for more murder of whites. Calling for the death of whites is also racist.

My opponent stated the following paragraph in response to my statement that white people are consistently killed in greater numbers and yet there have been virtually no mass riots and no calls for reform.

"Consider the tragic story of Otto Zehm in Spokane WA. Otto Zehm was a mentally handicapped white man needlessly beaten and suffocated by police. His death sparked local and national public outrage, the officers involved were indicted and the ranking officer, Karl Thomson was tried and convicted."
1. The victim was mentally handicapped
2. There were no mass riots of destruction
3. There were not calls for reform but there was a very high demand that the officers be prosecuted.
4. Video evidence shows the victim being attacked for no reason, this man had not attacked anyone.
https://www.youtube.com...

Has there been outrage, yes but again there has never been a mass riot resulting in the destruction seen in Ferguson and Baltimore. The case my opponent listed does not compare to the string of recent shootings. My opponent has given absolutely no proof that any of the black men shot since BLM have been attacked the same way Otto was.

Ill finish addressing the Otto example in the next round. I've run out of characters
DavidMancke

Con

The third constructive from Pro concedes the two critical arguments of Con; criminality does not justify denial of justice, and that his case is a deductive fallacy. Here’s why

Simply put, Pro doesn’t understand his burden. His burden is to show that BLM is promoting racism, and the stats don’t support this thesis. Furthermore, Pro never provided a definition for racism and I did. He didn’t dispute said definition, so we will be using the only one provided.

Racism: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. (google)

Pro’s claims regarding black criminality, white morbidity and Pro’s claims that BLM’s memes are misnomers (hands up don’t shoot) do not support the resolution even if they are true. Let’s look at the syllogism again, and incorporate his additional premise.

Premise 1: Black criminality

Premise 2: Intra-racial crime among black men

Premise 3: white morbidity in police encounters

Conclusion; BLM is promoting racism. False, the premises do not support the conclusion.

Oddly enough, Pro calls this a deflection of “the truth” and claims that the litany of supports to clarify what a deductive fallacy is fell short.

The reality is that all the sources provide, several from college logic curriculums, are great authorities in this area, and the logic is patently obvious.

To dispute this syllogism my opponent needs to provide an equally authoritative source that disputes my logic. Every logic text going back to ancient Greece agrees with my structure of logic, and these rules of deduction. Pro lost this argument, badly!

Notice, how Pro claimed the syllogism was a deflection and unsupported, but he did not provide counter-evidence to support his claim regarding said syllogism, or the rules of logic.

Con has provided logic showing how Pro fell short of supporting the thesis. Pro simply said, “no,” without giving us a reason why. We need more than his assertion, and the supports need to be as strong as mine to be considered. Pro provides no supports, he just rejects the syllogism. That is very poor logic, and not enough to carry the debate. You can vote Con right now.

This pattern of Pro’s bad logic is replete though every constructive in this debate. Let’s just look at what he offered for this round.

“The statistics I provided are completely relevant to the topic because it proves the BLM claims to be completely false.”

Even if this is true, given the definition it doesn’t support the thesis.

To further simplify my opponent’s view, he claims BLM is wrong in where they perceive and make accusations of racism; and therefore promote racism. This is horrible logic, especially given the definition of racism we are using. Let’s use another syllogism to make it clear.

Premise 1: BLM claims of injustice are wrong, men killed in recent police shootings are alone responsible.

Premise 2: BLM incorrectly blames racism for these killings

Premise 3: BLM deliberately engages in misinformation regarding extrajudicial killings

Conclusion; BLM promotes racism False, these premises do not support the conclusion.

My opponent tries to conflate what he calls BLM’s errors, with the notion that this is a tacit valuing of black lives over other lives. This is not logical, nor is it supported by BLM’s published aims and sentiments.

“My opponent goes on to argue that BLM is simply protesting the "dehumanization" of colored people. Again I ask, where is the proof?”

I said in the last constructive that BLM’s stated aim is to protest the dehumanization of people of color, and Pro asked for evidence. Here is a link to the movement’s website stating those aims and who they hope to advance social justice for.

http://blacklivesmatter.com...

The verbiage I used to describe the goals of this movements is nearly verbatim. Nothing, not a single goal or value stated on the website or any BLM published literature even implies racism, let alone promotes it. Even if BLM is wrong in its aims or perception of injustice, that doesn't constitute racism.

My opponent has latched on to a false equivalence fallacy, that incorrectly crying discrimination is a tacit promotion of racism. Here’s a source defining that from Purdue curriculum.

https://owl.english.purdue.edu...

The syllogism I provided demonstrates that, but my opponent’s error becomes more glaring when we look at his bad logic through any number of other prisms.

If someone is wrong about the causes of poverty that doesn’t mean they want to expand poverty. If someone is wrongly identifies a threat to the environment, arguing against said threat is not an argument to destroy the environment.

My opponent is either struggling to understand what racism is, or what a promotion is; in either case it’s a mistake that cost them the debate. Keep in mind, in order to uphold the resolution my opponent needs to show that BLM is promoting racial inferiority or superiority.

Pro did offer some examples of individuals that Pro called members of BLM saying some rotten things, but those folks don’t speak for the movement, just themselves.

Again, a hasty generalization.

Did Osama bin Laden speak for every Muslim..? Does David Duke of the KKK speak for all conservatives, or even Trump voters..? Do the chair throwers of the Sander’s campaign speak for all Progressives..?

This is the second hasty generalization fallacy form Pro. Assuming that since some people identifying with BLM are behaving badly that all who embrace BLM share the sentiment(s). It’s fallacious nonsense. We can now cross apply this Con response as this fallacy continues to surface in the Pro case.

Let’s continue down his case.

“I presume nothing but instead make an observation based on all the evidence presented. BLM is citing racism as the reason for these men being killed but witness accounts and video evidence have told a much different story.”

If BLM is wrong about this, that doesn’t make BLM racist.

“Charles Kinsey is one particular case I happen to believe the officer was wrong for.”

My opponent agrees here, so you can flow the impacts linked to it in my last constructive across the debate, that the generalization regarding criminality is wrong. In the last round we saw Pro paint all these instances of police violence with a broad brush of criminality. Even then he conceded his generalization was faulty, here he concedes it again. Con wins all these arguments.

“Ill say it again, accusing people of racism when there is no proof is promoting racism.”

Once again, false equivalence, but this time he is just letting it hang out and swing in the wind (gross!)

“My opponent failed to cite the case what records show someone to have been doing nothing to warrant being shot.”

That sentence doesn’t make much sense. It sounds like his is asking for examples of someone being shot [by police] for doing nothing wrong. The case of Charles Kinsey is a great example and my opponent agrees. If this is an argument my opponent is referring to, the Con wins it per Pro and Con (thanks pro, I think..?)

“I used the term "vast majority" because that’s what the evidence has proven. There has yet to be any proof to prove these officers were in the wrong. If racism was truly so rampant as BLM contends there would be an overwhelming amount of proof followed by my officers being convicted.”

BLM contends one instance is too much, but even if wrong in every case they have protested, it does not constitute promotion of racism.

“BLM can object all they want but when they start falsely accusing officers of being racist without solid evidence they're promoting racism.”

False equivalence again.

“Theres only one problem, no unequal dispensation of justice has been proven! BLM has failed to prove these officers were unjustified and the courts have found no reasons to indict them. They have no case (except Kinsey)”

So, by my opponent’s admission BLM has a case.

I'll finish with Zehm once Pro responds

Debate Round No. 4
Letsdebate24

Pro

There is overwhelming proof provided in previous rounds that BLM has been promoting racism including:
1. Calling for the death of not just police but also white people in general.
2. BLM has continued using proven lies to claim racism where there has not been any.
3. They have not once condemned the actions of the men that put themselves a position to be shot. Instead they accuse the police and the system of racism despite whites being killed for the same type of situations and in greater numbers. This implies that BLM believes they are the exception which according to the Mariam Webster definition:

Simple Definition of racism
1. poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race
2. the belief that some races of people are better than others

Full Definition of racism
1
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2
: racial prejudice or discrimination

BLM incessantly claims number one of the simple definition and both numbers 1 and 2 of the full definition. They're guilty of 3 our of 4 definitions of racism.
They claim blacks are treated unfairly
They claims whites believe they are superior to blacks
They claim whites have a racial prejudice.

And this is not something that they are shy about, it's all over the internet and media and many of my links contain video proof of it all. Ranging from people on camera to the messages they tweet.
My opponent has deflected this entire debate, refusing to explain how calling for the deaths of whites is not promoting racism for example.
Everyone agrees that the KKK was a racist organization because they called for the death of blacks but somehow when BLM calls for the death of white people it isn't racist. True the KKK did claim white supremacy but does the call for the death of blacks not constitute racism on its own? Because if it does, BLM is also promoting racism.

From my opponents arguement:
"Premise 1: Black criminality

Premise 2: Intra-racial crime among black men

Premise 3: white morbidity in police encounters

Conclusion; BLM is promoting racism. False, the premises do not support the conclusion."

Yet again this is a deflection and also not the premises being made. These are 3 sources of statistical data that proves BLM is operating on lies. To continue my opponents unfinished list.

Premise 4: BLM calls for the death of whites just as the KKK did blacks.

Premise 5: The President and DOJ who made many claims of racism still being a problem bu turn around and state that there was no proof of racism. That the officers acted reasonably given the situation.

It's no mystery why my opponent has provided no evidence to counter the last two premises, because there is no such evidence.

My opponent does not seem to fully comprehend the implications of promoting racism. All one has to do in order to promote it is keep citing it as the root problem. And thus far the DOJ has found no racism despite having a blatant bias, projecting them or their family members in the position of the alleged "victims". A leader is not supposed to take sides, he is supposed to unite those he leads but instead Obama has made inflammatory statements that has made racial relations worse. America has its first black president and yet racial relations have not been this bad since the 1960's during the civil rights movement.
During the Bush administration there were no mass riots being conducted under false narratives.
So BLM and my opponent would have you believe that somehow America has become more racist than it has been since before the 60's.
My opponent stated:
"To dispute this syllogism my opponent needs to provide an equally authoritative source that disputes my logic. Every logic text going back to ancient Greece agrees with my structure of logic, and these rules of deduction. Pro lost this argument, badly!"
My opponent has done nothing but deflect, attempt to point out fallacies, provided only opinion based sources whereas I linked sources with undeniable proof of BLM racism.
BLM has lifted the burden of proof from me when they make public statements calling for the deaths of white people.
BLM has lifted the burden of proof from me when they determined that the BLM narratives were based on lies and that the officers acted reasonable given the situations.
The courts have lifted the burden from me when black judges have determined there was no reason to suspect the officers of acting out of racism.

My opponent has listed the BLM website as proof they are not promoting racism but fails to account for the countless BLM members and their actions as well as their own words caught on video. It would seem that he failed to read the material posted on the website. This website only damages cons argument. It's full of promotional racism.
Some quotes from the site:
"How Black poverty and genocide is state violence.

How 2.8 million Black people are locked in cages in this country is state violence.

How Black women bearing the burden of a relentless assault on our children and our families is state violence.

How Black queer and trans folks bear a unique burden from a hetero-patriarchal society that disposes of us like garbage and simultaneously fetishizes us and profits off of us, and that is state violence.

How 500,000 Black people in the US are undocumented immigrants and relegated to the shadows.

How Black girls are used as negotiating chips during times of conflict and war.

How Black folks living with disabilities and different abilities bear the burden of state sponsored Darwinian experiments that attempt to squeeze us into boxes of normality defined by white supremacy, and that is state violence."

What is the recurring theme in these quotes? Racism against blacks! So what are the founders promoting? Racism against blacks. The founders are claiming that blacks are being oppressed by society en mass.
http://blacklivesmatter.com...
More quotes from the site:
"We affirm our contributions to this society, our humanity, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression"
"It was a response to the anti-Black racism that permeates our society and also, unfortunately, our movements"
"Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise."

This website is chalked full of nothing but allegations of anti-black racism claims. To put it even more simply, its promoting the idea that racism is somehow rampant in the country and the system.
My opponent stated:
"Keep in mind, in order to uphold the resolution my opponent needs to show that BLM is promoting racial inferiority or superiority"
As I showed earlier, this is not the sole definition of racism. Con is attempting to cherry pick.
My quote followed by con rebuttal:
"I presume nothing but instead make an observation based on all the evidence presented. BLM is citing racism as the reason for these men being killed but witness accounts and video evidence have told a much different story."

"If BLM is wrong about this, that doesn"t make BLM racist."
The topic is not that BLM is racist in and of itself, but that "Black lives matters is PROMOTING racism and black privilege"
As I've shown time and time again, BLM is promoting racism as the cause for these black men being killed. BLM is promoting racism as the reason for so many problems in the black community despite a devastating lack of evidence.

Part of the problem with BLM is that there is no structure within the organization. It's members are free to speak and act however they want which weakens any peaceful premise it claims to stand for.
Con has spent the entire debate attempting to keep you from looking at the actions and words of the BLM members, instead trying to find logical holes in my arguments.
I ask the readers this: Has the majority of BLM rhetoric pertained to a perceived anti-black system?
If yes, they're promoting racism as the reason for its existence.
DavidMancke

Con

You will vote Con because the material provided by pro doesn’t support the thesis. We looked at a couple of syllogisms that perfectly demonstrate why pro’s stats about back criminality, intra-racial crime and white morbidity in police encounters have nothing to do the thesis.

My opponent imagines a link since he thinks that BLM is wrong in accusing the criminal justice system of racism, he calls this the promotion of racism.

False, and also wrong in the assessment of BLM, racism of our justice system is not imagined.

In my last constructive I said, “my opponent either doesn’t know what racism is, or he doesn’t know what promoting is, and it’s a mistake that will cost him the debate.”

Pro says, “by promoting lies BLM promotes racism.”

Pro accuses BLM of fabricating or imagining racism where none exists, and says spreading this “promotes racism.” Even if this were true, that would be a marketing gimmick, not encouraging racism.

Promote: further the progress of (something, especially a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage.

Even if some of the grievances of BLM are misplaced, that does not equate to actively encouraging racism.

More importantly though, BLM has several legitimate grievances, and agitating against them is the discouragement of racism. Pro is completely wrong here.

To try and make the case BLM is, “promoting lies,” Pro runs to the defense of Darren Wilson of Ferguson Missouri, and results of the DOJ inquiry that excused officer Wilson.

But Pro always fails to mention that very same DOJ investigation found racist policing practices permeate the department.

https://www.justice.gov...

“Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices both reflect and exacerbate existing racial bias, including racial stereotypes. Ferguson’s own data establish clear racial disparities that adversely impact African Americans. The evidence shows that discriminatory intent is part of the reason for these disparities. Over time, Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices have sown deep mistrust between parts of the community and the police department, undermining law enforcement legitimacy among African Americans in particular.”

There was even a racist email scandal to go with it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com...

As stated before, even if BLM was wrong about, “hands up dont shoot” that doesn't mean BLM is wrong about racism in our justice system.

The reality is the DOJ that excused Wilson also found racist and exploitative police practices were rampant in Ferguson, and even if Michael Brown didn’t have his hands up BLM has legitimate gripes about people of color being mistreated by our justice system and police.

Pro claims, “BLM calls for the death for the death of whites,” pointing to individuals saying or tweeting things to that effect and claimed they represent the BLM movement.

The reality is they don’t speak for the BLM movement, just themselves. To better demonstrate that I offered the BLM website which showcases the movements aims and views. In his last round Pro was nice enough to list each one. Not a single thing stated or published by BML or Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi (BLM founders) advocate violence against whites.

Again, one rouge doesn’t speak for the entire group.

The shooter in the 2011 Norway attacks; Anders Behring Breivik, didn’t represent northern Europeans even when he claimed to have acted on their behalf.

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

Vile tweets or comments from someone identifying with some of BLM’s sentiments doesn’t mean that person speaks for the BLM movement itself, or even correctly reflect BLM’s position on any issue.

Again I point your attention to the published views of BLM, including the ones Pro was kind enough to list for us. It tells us BLM is concerned with not just extrajudicial homicide, but all examples of institutional injustice against people of color, and all people in general. It emphasizes the inclusion of women and LGBTQ people of color that have been historically left out of black civil rights struggles of the past. Not once does it prescribe violence against whites.

It also bears mentioning that nothing listed actively encouraged (promoting) racism by any definition offered by either of us.

Pro tries to compare BLM to the KKK, which is really offensive. The Klan was and remains a white supremacy group with a heritage of hate crimes. The Klan was never a civil rights movement, it was about denying people civil rights. The KKK did promote racism. BLM is not the KKK. Con resents the comparison.

What this example does is demonstrate that one person tweeting about violence toward white people doesn't make them the spokesperson for BLM any more than the KKK represents whites or even everyone that has racist notions.


We know black criminality, intra-racial crime and white morbidity during police encounters don’t themselves have anything to do with the views of BLM, and that these stats don’t show us BLM promotes racism. We looked at two syllogisms to see it.

We know that criminality doesn't justify denial of justice, and Pro conceded it.

We know that even if, “hands up dont shoot” is inaccurate, it doesn’t mean BLM’s wrong about institutional injustice as a whole. The DOJ report excusing Darren Wilson offered by Pro also proves the patterns of racism in our justice system.

Pro agreed that BLM has a grievance in the shooting of Charles Kinsey.

Pro tried to claim that police violence against whites never draws outcry. But the case of Otto Zehm dispels that, and suggests that a white victim sees a higher level of justice.

Let’s address a few things from the last Pro constructive.

My opponent does not seem to fully comprehend the implications of promoting racism. All one has to do in order to promote it is keep citing it as the root problem. And thus far the DOJ has found no racism despite having a blatant bias, projecting them or their family members in the position of the alleged "victims'.

For one, the DOJ has found patterns of racism in police practices in Ferguson and Newark, NJ.

Pro says that complaining of racism is a promotion of racism. That’s absurd. Complaining of a thing is not encouragement of that thing, its the opposite.

Perhaps Pro is again trying to tell us BLM is just spinning, “hands up dont shoot” as a marketing gimmick when the problem is imagined...

Except Pro’s pet DOJ report shows us the gripes of BLM aren’t imaged, and using a gimmick to combat racism is not actively encouraging racism. Again, pro also agreed the example of Charles Kinsey shows BLM has a case.

Pro again tries to challenge prositional logic, even calling it a deflection. I know, it’s absurd. I know...(shm)

Nevertheless, pro said it, never offering to deconstruct the logic, he just calls it a defection and opinion.

Prop logic is chapter two of Hurley’s logic, the best selling logic text book in the US. Informal fallacies are chapter three. All the logic supported by Con is modeled and supported in that text as well as the web sources offered.

The topic is not that BLM is racist in and of itself, but that "Black lives matters is PROMOTING racism and black privilege

Here my opponent blatantly shifts, moving away from accusing BLM of racism, to claiming BLM promotes racism by simply speaking to the issue of racism.

Pro told us BLM called for killings, and values lives of black criminals over others. What happened..?

BLM is promoting racism as the cause for these black men being killed. BLM is promoting racism as the reason for so many problems in the black community despite a devastating lack of evidence.

So he just means BLM claiming racism exists in our justice system promote racism, expect Pro’s DOJ report is proof of the racism BLM complains about. Pro says this despite already admitting BLM has a case in the instance of Kinsey.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by warren42 9 months ago
warren42
The Pro insinuation about assuming those with records guilty is very disturbing, as America holds true the value of "innocent until proven guilty" not "guilty if suspect has a record."

Additionally,
- Even if guilty that doesn't mean officers should shoot and kill individuals
- Law-abiding black citizens are being killed (see Philando Castile, Charles Kinsey, et al.)

I'd really urge Pro to consider the insinuation he/she made, because as I said, it is not consistent with American protection under law.
Posted by DavidMancke 9 months ago
DavidMancke
Sorry posted that last comment from my phone, my apologies for the typos
Posted by DavidMancke 9 months ago
DavidMancke
Well it's a good thing that's only last two words

I gave great reasons to vote con, propositional logic and the existence of injustice in our justice system. We also dispelled the notion that if BLM has erred in some portions of its criticisms, that doesn't mean they are wrong about the trend. We also saw how the doj report offered in defense of Wilson showed rampant racism in court and police practices, buttressing BLMs overall grievances.

We are exposed the generalization Pro made, equivocating a few nut radicals speaking to the same issues as BLM with speak for the whole movement or it's founders.

We exposed the conflation Pro makes between calling attention to racism and actively encouraging racism. Those things are not the same; Pro says they are.

We also saw that even if BLM has some grievances misplaced, that doesn't mean they are fabricating the greater pattern in policing. Error regarding Michael Brown doesn't mean BLM has everything wrong.

We saw how pro shifts between accusing BLM of being racist, and then instead accuse BLM of speaking to racism; as I'd just speaking to it was an attempt to encourage racism. That's absurd.
Posted by ZeldaMafia 9 months ago
ZeldaMafia
You don't just type "Vote Con!" and expect people to vote for Con.
Posted by DavidMancke 10 months ago
DavidMancke
Clarification: I cited something from Pro's first constructive and failed to italicize it.

"In the white community it is generally accepted that if you attack a police officer or disobey an officers commands in a dangerous situation, there is a chance you will be killed for your actions."

I cited this so it was easier to see what I was debunking, it was not part of my constructive case.
Posted by DavidMancke 10 months ago
DavidMancke
**... does however *suggest* that you are trying to paint a group of people criminal.
Posted by DavidMancke 10 months ago
DavidMancke
All lives matter is a tautology if I am understanding you correctly. Also, the point of BLM is given the record of our justice system, the movements perception is that black lives do not matter when it comes to justice. One can kill a black person with impunity, but a black defendant stands likely to get a poorer defense, and harsher sentence and more brutal treatment while in the custody of police. Your presented claim in the comment below suppresses this robustly established reality; that is a fallacy of suppressed evidence, or cherry picking if you prefer.

And you are wrong in that BLM is only outraged by the killing of blacks by white officers. The Trayvon Martin murder and subsequent acquittal of George Zimmerman, who is of mixed race btw, sparked the movement which takes it's primary issue with the dispensation of justice more than the crimes themselves.

The argument you claim in your comment is not the thesis of the debate you are defending, nor is it the case you made in the first constructive. You claimed in the thesis that BLM is promoting racism and 'black privilege' (a rather dubious term btw). Your support for that was a litany of black crime statistics compiled by Brietbart, a notoriously bias new source targeting xenophobic, angry white conservatives. Brietbart is not credible, especially in a charged topic like this.

Nevertheless, the material you provide doesn't even support your claim, it does however that you are trying to paint a group of people, "criminal" in order to excuse institutional injustice. You're welcome to complete the debate, but structurally you have already lost.
Posted by Letsdebate24 10 months ago
Letsdebate24
The argument is that inherently all lives matter. To hold protests and disrupt entire cities citing "Black lives matters" is not only stating the obvious but also a fallacy in and of itself to those that are protesting. My argument goes to the fact that the BLM movement only care about black lives when they are taken by police officers, specifically white officers.
Posted by DavidMancke 10 months ago
DavidMancke
Based on the response rate this goose should be cooked by about suppertime Monday.

$100 says he forfeits before all the rounds are over.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by warren42 9 months ago
warren42
Letsdebate24DavidManckeTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I find some level of validity in each point Pro made regarding the lack of protest for black on black crime, increased crime rates, etc. HOWEVER, as Con pointed out in R2, none of these further the claim that BLM is racist or promotes black "privilage" and though Pro claims may be valid, they don't affirm the resolution. Pro never adequately refuted this single argument which debunked the Pro case. Additionally, Pro 's critique of the HuffPo poem is relatively valid, it is an individual's experience and opinion, however Pro then used the same general idea with the YouTube videos posted. I also was very put off by the untrue insinuation made by Pro in R3 that if an individual (black individual in this case) has a criminal record, Pro seems to be okay with the idea of assuming him/her guilty of committing future crimes. "the vast majority of black men killed...were already convicted of crimes, meaning that they had a history of getting into trouble" Cont. in comments
Vote Placed by evanjfarrar 9 months ago
evanjfarrar
Letsdebate24DavidManckeTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes plenty of legitimate arguments, but none really prove the claim that BLM is promoting racism or black privilege. Putting forth statistics of black-on-black homicide and crimes committed by blacks does not do much to prove BLM is a racist organization, whether or not it is legitimate. Perhaps Pro proved that BLM is illegitimate, but really, this does nothing to advance his case as it relates to the resolution. Con quickly debunks Pro's faulty logic and points out its irrelevancy, therefore seeming much more convincing. Pro drops Con's argument about criminality and how it does not constitute inequality before the law. Con, therefore, appears to be the winner. I would advise Con in the future to use emboldened text more sparingly.