Blacks are More Racist Than Whites

Blacks are not more racist than whites. For this round I will be doing a line-by-line and then some wrapping up. (Quotes are his/her words) "I am not only using crimes to measure racism." Then you have provided no real means to measure racism, and thus, you lose. "Everybody thinks Martin Luther King Jr. was a hero and was so important. He wasn't. However, he has his own holiday now, people get a break from usual activities on that day! Why? Well, the only reason I can think of, well, he's BLACK. Martin Luther King Jr. is not important enough to have his own holiday, yet he does! He did what millions of people were doing: protesting segregation and slavery. I'd say that since King got his own holiday for doing that, that everyone who protests anything should get their own holiday. They don't, however, proving how King was not superior in importance as any other protester." Martin Luther King Jr. does deserve respect, and he was important. Your claims are fallacious, if we are to accept them, then none of the "great leaders" of history deserve any of our respect. Essentially, you are claiming that Luther wasn't more important than any other protestor, which is untrue, and by implication, that civil rights protestors were not heros. Every singly protestor was a hero in their own right, but Martin Luther King was a leader, he was inspiration. He was part (there were others of course) of the soul of the movement, while the mass of protesters were the body, the part that did the heavy lifting. The inspiration is still very important. Every leader in history has the same story, did Caesar actually conquer Rome, or was it his soldiers? Did Napoleon conquer Europe, or was it his thousands of soldiers? Was Abraham Lincoln the saviour of the Union, or was it the soldiers that fought for him? Again and again, throughout history, leaders are figureheads of great movements. We honor Lincoln, yet he did not, by himself, save the Union. So should we not respect anyone? And finally, Martin Luther King having a holiday in his name does not show racism in the slightest. It shows that a man who fought for something important is recognized for it. Even if a reader might agree (though its been well refuted) that there is racism here, it is stemming from the government, and this does not prove that blacks, as a group, are more racist than whites, as a group. "Very correct, there is no way to measure that type of racism. However, it is common knowledge that the more outspoken you are about a subject, the stronger you feel about said subject. don't see any whites complaining about how blacks are horrible or evil. I do, however, see blacks complaining about how whites are horrible and evil. Thus, making them racist, or, at least, more racist than whites." That's not true, many people are introverted, and do not speak their mind. Others prefer to be polite rather than voice their opinions (ever heard of "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything"?). There are many ways in which one could be racist, and not express it. And you haven't given any source that proves that blacks complain about whites being evil. In a debate, if you are the affirmative, you need to provide proof, and your only source in this round does not address this issue, and has already been refuted in the previous round. And really, one group could be less vocal and still more racist, as I said in my first round, there's no real way to measure racism, there's no magic barometer here. "And, as such, don't you ever wonder how blacks can insult other races or religions in a comedy act, when whites can't do such a thing? It's really common knowledge. It's simple, blacks are more racist than whites." You haven't give a source, or any other proof that blacks have insulted other races (and religion isn't even relevant here). You also haven't proven that whites don't do this. It is not common knowledge, in fact, I have heard some extremely racist comments from people that I thought I knew, yet I would not say that one group is more racist than another. So no, blacks are not more racists than whites. My Arguments I. My opponent has not adequately sourced his claims. 1. My opponent has provided one source, which I thoroughly refuted in the last round. His argument, based of off that source has already been torn apart, and my opponent has brought new arguments in this final round. However, my opponent has not sourced any of these arguments, and his source cannot support these new claims (and you can see why the source is bad, my args in Round 2). 2. There is no reason to expect evidence from me. A. I am the negative, if the affirmative cannot prove their arguments, as they have not done, I win by default. B. The majority of my arguments are very simple, and use logic, which has not been argued against by my opponent. C. My opponent has not requested that I bring evidence. II. My opponent has not prove that blacks, as a group, are more racist than whites. 1. The affirmative has not truly proved that blacks are more racist than whites. I have requested that the affirmative give adaquate means to measure racism, and they have been unable to truly do so. As well, the affirmative has failed to analyze racism towards other groups, which should be included in the topic, because the topic does not specify that this debate should be about who is more racist to the other. 2. The only means of measuring racism provided is essentially through government policies. The affirmative does not source these claims, and they still would not prove racism. For instance, at best, the affirmative could be granted that the government favors one side, but that does not prove that either group is more racist than the other. 3. The affirmative's means of measuring racism are inadequate, and leave out many types of racism. This means should be rejected, and so should the affirmative. III. There is no real means to tell which group is more racist. 1. Again, I have argued that there is no scientific way for us to measure racism. 2. Because the affirmative has not provided a reliable way to detect racism, the affirmative cannot prove that either side is more racist. 3. Unless the affirmative can specifically prove that blacks as a group are more racist than whites, he/she should not receive your vote. 4. Because we cannot determine which side is more racist, I should receive your vote, there is no way to evaluate the racism of one group in comparison to another. IV. Wrap-Up 1. There have been many huge concessions in this debate. A. The affirmative has provided one poor, already refuted source. You cannot take the rest of their claims. B. The affirmative has conceeded that it does not matter if the government/judicial system is racist, but what matters is the two groups overall racism. C. Affirmative has not discussed racism of whites and blacks towards other groups, thus we cannot arrive at an accurate conclusion. D. The affirmative has conceeded (not argued against) that his source is poor. E. The affirmative has conceeded that there is racism that we cannot measure, thus we cannot be certain that one group is more racist. F. The affirmative has not provided a real way to measure racism. 2. Voting Ultimately, there's plenty of reasons to vote for me. The affirmative has not proved their case (no sources, no means to measure racism, etc), which by itself is a reason to vote for me. I have made my claims, and they have been unrefuted in their entirety. My opponent has also made many key concessions, another reason to give me your vote. Even if you agree with my opponent, I think you should vote on the debating here. If you feel anything I have done is illegitimate, note that my affirmative has not raised any issues, so there's no issue here. So in conclusion, vote for me!