BLM is NOT worse than the KKK

I am actually shocked by my opponent's arguments. He seems to be confused. He focuses on rebutting pointless rhetoric and yet ignores or glosses over substantive arguments. I don't get this strategy. Take for instance where I point out that the KKK started out the same way as BLM in the sense that members of both groups felt like victims and sprang up in anger. My opponent goes on to point out incidences of bad things KKK members did to disprove a piece of rhetoric, and is even unsuccessful at that. Not only do the negative events not disprove the KKK started the way I said, but they aren't even relevent to the debate, because we are debating what both groups are currenty or recently engaged in. My opponent asks:"Despite our contemporary moral compass what was the social justice of hanging black men on trees"I could similarly ask what is the social justice for the numerous things the BLM movement has done, such as things listed in the last round, but it is a silly question. The current actions of a group does not necessarily reflect the reason for the groups formation. Dylan Roof I can't believe my opponent is still talking about Dylan Roof. He really needed to address my arguments instead of pushing this already disproven argument where I showed that Roof was influenced by that Christian group. "According to one source, Roof stated: "There is no 'real KKK' to help him so he has no choice but to act."I submit that the very invocation of the desire for the help of the KKK is clear enough that their historical influence in the terrorizing of people of color is evidence enough that they are an extremist terror organization."What Dylan roof said is: "We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet. Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me."http://gawker.com...Dylan Roof was hoping that some white nationalist organization, any white nationalist organization would commit acts of violence so he would not have to. This statement far from showing that he is a part of or influenced by the KKK as my opponent suggests, actually shows he is not, nor is he a skinhead. What he is, is a self styled white nationalist. The KKK can't be blamed for that, he got his ideology from that christian group. Lot's of groups have certain ideologies in common, just like both Burger King and McDonald's share similar things with each other, but if we are talking about McDonalds we don't start randomly blaming McDonald's for cold fries we got at Burger King. That is essentially what my opponent is doing by conflating all white nationalist organizations with each other.BLM Statement My opponent pulls up a BLM statement made to paint the organization in a good light. I want the voters to keep two things in mind. One thing is the statements I am about to refer to from the KKK, the other is the fact that a groups intention may have nothing to do with it's results, and it is the results we are evaluating here. The results I have outlined in the previous round.Statements from KKK FAQ: "Why do you think you are so superior to everyone else? A. We don’t care who is superior and who isn’t. God made us all." "Why do you hate black people, Asian people, etc.? A. This is a misconception many people have. Most have this idea about the Klan because of the entertainment industry." "Q. Why do you kill black people? A. This is almost too stupid of a question to answer, but since some misled person is probably going to ask – even though it isn’t frequently asked – we’ll answer it in this section. We don’t kill black people."" Why do you hate Catholics? A. We do not hate Catholics." "You say you don’t hate minorities, but they can’t join The Knights. Doesn’t that make you all prejudice? A. To be prejudice means you are pre-judging a matter before receiving all of the evidence. It is usually others who are guilty of pre-judging the Klan, not vice versa. It is a fact that America was founded as a white Christian nation. You may not like it, but it is still true. The Knights appreciates this concept because it leads to peace. It is the means to self-determination for all people regardless of race." "Does The Knights believe in slavery? A. No, The Knights does not believe in slavery." http://kkk.bz...As we can see, the KKK also attempts to paint itself in a good light. This is why we judge a group based on it's actions. My opponent mentions a lone nut who was influenced by a white nationalist rganization not associated with the KKK, but I mention systematic and common things associated with BLM, including the anti-police rhetoric "fry em up", the nuts the group inspires (dead NY officers), the increase in crime by over analyzing every move cops make (Ferguson effect), The outlaw behavior such as shutting down highways so people can't rush their newborn babies to the emergency room, rioting, looting , as well as many other things. The KKK's statement that they are not racist means just as much as the statement my opponent pulled up where it is stated that BLM is not anti-cop. This is without even going into the thinly veiled hate of the message my opponent shared, which presumed that cops are trained to treat black citizens differently, or that police are a threat to the black community, or for blaming police for the stereotypes that some communities they police give them. All unsubstantiated claims. "Again, using degenerates screaming out "Black Lives Matter" does not substantiate the claim that they are apart of the movement. Bloods and Crips can scream black lives matter which may indicate their own individual opinion, but it does not substantiate the idea that the actual movement is responsible. Even in fact they are, there are individual branches."There are individual branches of the KKK as well. KKK is a name that is in the public domain and freely available for anybody to use. My opponent has dropped my arguments from the previous round, the arguments about shut downs of traffic, rioting, celebrating the death of police, lawlessness etc.. This should be counted against him, and since his evidence consists of lone nuts in no way associated with the KKK and provably so, this debate is an obvious win for me. I want to point out what my opponent is doing, by disregarding evidence that works against him, and only accepting evidence that works in his favor. He is committing a logical fallacy known as "cherry Picking"." Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is theconfirmation bias" https://en.wikipedia.org...You see my opponent isn't disqualifying them for any other reason than he doesn't like that the evidence contradicts his position. If he agrees with the people in BLM, he considers them a part of the BLM, but if I show evidence of BLM inspiring shut downs or inciting riots at political rallies, then he merely dismisses the people who do it as degenerates. My opponent would be better off showing that they do more good than harm, despite some harm coming from having such a decentralized group, but he doesn't make that argument. Instead he chooses to cherry pick. My opponent is one step away of making the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, and he may even commit that fallacy before the debate is over.Final Statement:My opponent should be on his last round and not making any new arguments next. I also want the judges to look at how I deal with evidence that goes against me, showing why it doesn't work and how my opponent deals with it by waving his hand and announcing "degenerate", cherry picking the evidence.