Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to exterminate the Negro race

As we conclude, I would like to note that I can only assume, because my opponent has not addressed any of my last points, that he agrees with them. Thus, all that remains, in this final round, is his final point:"My opponent has not addressed Sanger's friendly relationship with the K. K. K. . .. " The reason I did not address it is because I did not have to, as it does not establish that Sanger advocated for allof the KKKs positions, nor that the Klan, itself, was advocating for extermination at the time she spoke to them. Thus, considering I've already conceded that Ms. Sanger was racist, the point is irrelevant and has no merit. "It doesn't make much sense that someone with such close ties to a group like the K. K. K. , which is infamous for lynching blacks, would not share their main goals-- one of which was killing Negroes. "Killing some people does not equal the extermination of a race. In order to establish this as a useful point, you'd have to establish that, at the time of her visit, the KKK advocated for extermination, and that Ms. Sanger was aware of that at the time of her speaking. Even then, it would not mean she agreed with it; the quote you used does not go on to say "And boy, everything they said made perfect sense", or “I rushed right out and got a membership”. The KKK enforced their will through intimidation and murder. But, despite an obvious willingness to murder, they did not embark on a campaign of extermination. Rather, they supported an apartheid system, where the races or members of religions (remember that the Klan also hates Catholics) they believed to be inferior have less rights than those believed "superior". Further, you also overstep the quote in another way: She was not “invited back again”, she was invited to "similar groups". And we do not know the details of the speech, nor what Ms. Sanger knew about the organizatio before going. The KKK has changed in various ways over the years. As I understand it, Ms. Sanger visited them in 1926. "By the 1920s, the KKK developed a women's auxiliary, with chapters in many areas. Its activities included participation in parades, cross lighting, lectures, rallies, and boycotts of local businesses owned by Catholics and Jews. The Women's Klan were active in promoting prohibition, stressing liquor's negative impact on wives and children. Their efforts in public schools included distributing Bibles and working for the dismissal of Roman Catholic teachers. . .. As scandals rocked the Klan leadership late in the 1920s, the organization's popularity among both men and women dropped off sharply. " [1]I see no reference there to any position on the extermination of African-Americans, and thus, her association with them does not lend credence to your theory. The question is whether it was Ms. Sanger's intent to exterminate a race. You have not established that it was her intent. "In regards to the semantics of the title of my debate: I still say I need only prove that a single one of the reasons Planned Parenthood was founded for was extermination of the Negro race. "You said "X did Y [in order] to Z". At best you can argue that your premise was unclear, considering the lack of specificity. The missing clause could be "The only reason X did Y", "The primary reason X did Y" or "Among the reasons X did Y". But without any extra clause you are saying that the sentence requires the interpretation that there are other reasons, and that extermination was only one of them. Such a notion is not in the sentence. By not specifying, you have left the sentence open to interpretation, and cannot defend your interpretation more than mine, as we are both using the exact words as written. The irony here is that that is the point of contention, as Ms. Sanger's language lends itself to multiple interpretations (particularly if divorced from its context). However, the burden is on you to prove that extermination was her intent. The sentence alone does not do that, nor does her consortion with racists. As previously noted, if Pro did establish that extermination was even a reason, I would concede the debate. Pro did not do so, therefore the proposition has not been established. The argument fails. Thank you to my opponent and the readers, and please vote Con. [1] – . http://en.wikipedia.org...