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

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. https://www.splcenter.org...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. . https://www.fbi.gov... 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. ConclusionThe 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.