The Instigator
17djones
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
arugula278
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should people involved with ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter be prosecuted?

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 1 vote the winner is...
17djones
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 546 times Debate No: 105432
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

17djones

Pro

DEBATE STRUCTURE:
Round One: Acceptance and Opening Statement
Round Two: Rebuttal
Round Three: Counterarguments and Closing Statement

ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter are two of the most controversial groups today in politics. Both of them are very different from each other. One claims to fight for the African American community. The other claims to fight "fascism" in America today. However, there is a similarity between them: Both are very dangerous groups. These two groups both speak violent rhetoric and uses violence to strike fear into the hearts of their enemies. Black Lives Matter calls for the death of white cops and wants to incorporate black supremacy in America. ANTIFA claims to be anti-fascist, but are the actual fascists. They constantly are destroying property, rioting in the streets, beating up and being disrepsectful towards people, police, retired vets, etc. They also claim to be pro free speech, but then goes and denies people that same right and even beats them up. These two groups are violent and dangerous, and they both seek a political or idealogical goal. So, by the dictionary definition of terrorism, which is, and I quote: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons", these two groups are indeed domestic terrorists and therefore anyone involved in participating in their violent activities should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. My opponent will be arguing why this should not be the case and why. I await for my opponent's acceptance and their opening statement.
arugula278

Con

I accept Pro's parameters, and will argue that members of Antifa and Black Lives Matter should not be prosecuted.

It is blatantly unconstitutional to jail anyone based solely on their political views, as the first amendment prohibits this measure being taken, almost explicitly. Doing so would set a dangerous precedent, that you could prosecute people for their political views. This is especially dangerous when the basis for taking such action is highly subjective. There is no real scale on which "danger" or "radicalism" can be measured, let alone be measured impartially.

Also, the "threat" of Antifa being a dangerous terrorist organization is extremely overblown, as shown in this video(1). The media tactics that cultivated those fears are actually several decades old. Keep in mind, the burden of proof is on my opponent to prove that these groups are dangerous enough to be designated as terrorist organizations.


(1) https://www.youtube.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
17djones

Pro

First, I would like to point out the fact that while the 1st amendment protects our political differences, I would like to point out that violence towards other people because of those differences, such as the violence shown by ANTIFA. Which will be shown here (Note: The volume of the guys voice is a little low):
https://www.youtube.com...

As for Black Lives Matter, they are being led by misleading facts from the MSM, as which the proof will be shown here:
https://www.youtube.com...

The first video shows how the ANTIFA group is very dangerous and that the media is not over hyping ANTIFA. They have been responsible for multiple violent acts such as rioting at UC Berkeley, multiple times, beating up people no matter what political stance they take. And Black Lives Matter, while being formed on a decent cause, has grown into a dangerous threat and is very backwards in their ideological thinking. There is also much evidence for their violent acts, such as in Dallas when the Black Lives Matter supporter killed 5 cops, all of who were white. Colin Kaepernick, who if you recall pretty much started that whole take a knee mess in the NFL and is a staunch BLM supporter, wore socks depicting cops as pigs. Again, BLM is rallying against a serious problem, but they go about it the wrong way, which is violence. Because of the violent acts committed by both groups, they should be investigated and prosecuted.

arugula278

Con

In his rebuttal, my opponent attempts to substitute in anecdotal evidence as a valid argument. The source I provided was never mentioned. In fact, all of my opponent's sources and all of my opponent's arguments rely, and entirely hinge on that same outlier bias which is deconstructed and ultimately debunked in that source.

My first source, the video, still stands up to and debunks my opponent's antifa argument. My opponent's argument on the Black Lives Matter group also falls flat in the same way that his Antifa argument does. He mentions the Dallas attack, and uses that to insinuate that all Black Lives Matter supporters must, therefore, be cop killers. This is patently absurd and untrue, not least because Black Lives Matter condemned the attack(2). Your other example, which uses Colin Kaepernick, does not hold water. Kneeling or wearing socks depicting cops as pigs, however you may feel about those, is in no way violence.

Under the weight of these rebuttals, and that of my original point, my opponent's arguments are demolished thouroughly.
Debate Round No. 2
17djones

Pro

First off, I never stated that all BLM supporters were cop killers. I said a Black Lives Matter supporter killed 5 cops. And the fact that I mentioned Colin Kaepernick was not because I think he kills cops, it's to show that BLM has a general opinion of white cops and that they call for their deaths. If that's not violent rhetoric, I don't what is. I did not say him the socks was violent, I'm just saying that BLM are biased in their thinking of all white cops and are dangerous for their violent rhetoic against the very people who go and protect the streets from thugs. My ANTIFA argument shows how the group, while may having only a small amount of arrests, still pose a threat to society through their actions. They are an endangerment to other people and their property. They also pose a threat to people's first amendment rights, which I stated earlier in the argument.

Allow me to explain my theory further. Regardless of the fact that these groups are combatting serious issues or other groups that have terrible ideology, they have also proven to be a threat to other people. There is a way to handle situations or other groups without resorting to violence. In proving my case relating to BLM, I have shown how they are a dangerous and violent group who are calling for the removal of cops based on their skin color as well as supporting segregation from white people because of their skin color. In fact, the ideological guru behing BLM is a convicted cop killer on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorist list. If MLK Jr. was alive today, he would be ashamed of what BLM is doing, regardless if they are doing it to protest police brutality. He denounced violent activity against people of other color, and yet, BLM does the opposite of what he preached. As for the argument pertaining to ANTIFA, they are dangerous in their own way. There has been multiple video and photographic proof to show how ANTIFA is a threat to society. My opponent stated earlier that the media was overhyping this, but I disagree. There is really nothing to overhype when it comes to a group of people smashing up people's property and harming other people, espicially when they do it all the time. In conclusion, these two groups have done nothing but spread chaos throughout the nation through terroristic activity. So, as I stated earlier, these two groups must be charged snd prosecuted for terrorism.
arugula278

Con

My opponent never meaningfully addresses my points, and spouts plain lies about black lives matter. He moves the goalposts when I prove his points wrong, under the guise of "let me explain further," and never actually shows an instance of BLM calling for segregation or the heads of white cops.

By virtue of my points never being meaningfully addressed, i have flattened my opponent in this debate.

VOTE ARU!
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 17djones 7 months ago
17djones
Also, you pretty much disqualified yourself during round 3. You stated that you accepted the parameters of the debate, which meant giving a counterargument and closing statement in round 3. You failed to do so, thus disqualifying yourself.
Posted by 17djones 7 months ago
17djones
Clearly it says people involved with, not anyone involved with. And I clarified my stance during the debate. Or did you suddenly forget that?
Posted by arugula278 7 months ago
arugula278
dude then why does the debate header say "anyone involved with"

"never said" ahahahahaha
Posted by 17djones 7 months ago
17djones
I never said anyone involved with them period. I said anyone involved with their violent activities should be prosecuted. If they're bold enough to go around and basically create chaos, then they should be bold enough to face justice.
Posted by arugula278 7 months ago
arugula278
That isn't what pro said through. He said anyone affiliated with those groups, REGARDLESS OF PERSONAL ACTIONS, should be prosecuted. "People involved with," not "people who committed crimes in the name of." Did you think I was arguing that people who rioted and caused chaos shouldn't be prosecuted? That would explain a lot.

(btw you aren't accepting PMs)
Posted by SupaDudz 7 months ago
SupaDudz
@arugula278

Not to mention it also says peacefully protest, when the CON evidence says it "highlights the bad things." It obviously had bad things going on. Are buildings getting burned really peaceful

Shoot me a PM if you have any questions.
Posted by SupaDudz 7 months ago
SupaDudz
@arugula278

Does the first amendment say anything with people who are causing harm should go and live on. There is clear evidence that they cause harm and tamper with the society at hand. We wouldn't let ISIS kill people and cause havoc in the city, why should we let them. The bill of rights also say that justice should be served in court.
Posted by arugula278 7 months ago
arugula278
So you think his two pieces of anecdotal evidence were enough to overpower the first amendment? Alright buddy.
Posted by sunny108 7 months ago
sunny108
kya hai ye
Posted by sunny108 7 months ago
sunny108
szjfcsdjlkzcxcsazcxzxz
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SupaDudz 7 months ago
SupaDudz
17djonesarugula278Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO on sources because the video says that it highlights the bad things that happened, which mean it did happen and CON sources state how the truth actually is and the facts behind it. My vote had to go PRO for that. I did not see any bias in the claim and PRO reasonably brought up the points made while CON falsely claims this without extending enough to change the judge(me) vote. He did bring the arguments that he made, not well enough however. You basically surrender your R3 argument without extensions in this absurd claim. It is basically 3 winnable arguments vs 2 short but good arguments. That will not win you a debate in my opinion. My paradigm is on my bio if you need more info on it. In the end, my vote will go PRO due to a dropped R3 and invalid dropped claims. Good debate overall.