Black lives matter is promoting racism and black privilage

The third constructive from Pro concedes the two critical arguments of Con; criminality does not justify denial of justice, and that his case is a deductive fallacy. Here’s why Simply put, Pro doesn’t understand his burden. His burden is to show that BLM is promoting racism, and the stats don’t support this thesis. Furthermore, Pro never provided a definition for racism and I did. He didn’t dispute said definition, so we will be using the only one provided. Racism: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. (google) Pro’s claims regarding black criminality, white morbidity and Pro’s claims that BLM’s memes are misnomers (hands up don’t shoot) do not support the resolution even if they are true. Let’s look at the syllogism again, and incorporate his additional premise. Premise 1: Black criminality Premise 2: Intra-racial crime among black men Premise 3: white morbidity in police encounters Conclusion; BLM is promoting racism. False, the premises do not support the conclusion. Oddly enough, Pro calls this a deflection of “the truth” and claims that the litany of supports to clarify what a deductive fallacy is fell short. The reality is that all the sources provide, several from college logic curriculums, are great authorities in this area, and the logic is patently obvious. To dispute this syllogism my opponent needs to provide an equally authoritative source that disputes my logic. Every logic text going back to ancient Greece agrees with my structure of logic, and these rules of deduction. Pro lost this argument, badly! Notice, how Pro claimed the syllogism was a deflection and unsupported, but he did not provide counter-evidence to support his claim regarding said syllogism, or the rules of logic. Con has provided logic showing how Pro fell short of supporting the thesis. Pro simply said, “no,” without giving us a reason why. We need more than his assertion, and the supports need to be as strong as mine to be considered. Pro provides no supports, he just rejects the syllogism. That is very poor logic, and not enough to carry the debate. You can vote Con right now. This pattern of Pro’s bad logic is replete though every constructive in this debate. Let’s just look at what he offered for this round. “The statistics I provided are completely relevant to the topic because it proves the BLM claims to be completely false.” Even if this is true, given the definition it doesn’t support the thesis. To further simplify my opponent’s view, he claims BLM is wrong in where they perceive and make accusations of racism; and therefore promote racism. This is horrible logic, especially given the definition of racism we are using. Let’s use another syllogism to make it clear. Premise 1: BLM claims of injustice are wrong, men killed in recent police shootings are alone responsible. Premise 2: BLM incorrectly blames racism for these killings Premise 3: BLM deliberately engages in misinformation regarding extrajudicial killings Conclusion; BLM promotes racism False, these premises do not support the conclusion. My opponent tries to conflate what he calls BLM’s errors, with the notion that this is a tacit valuing of black lives over other lives. This is not logical, nor is it supported by BLM’s published aims and sentiments. “My opponent goes on to argue that BLM is simply protesting the "dehumanization" of colored people. Again I ask, where is the proof?” I said in the last constructive that BLM’s stated aim is to protest the dehumanization of people of color, and Pro asked for evidence. Here is a link to the movement’s website stating those aims and who they hope to advance social justice for. http://blacklivesmatter.com... The verbiage I used to describe the goals of this movements is nearly verbatim. Nothing, not a single goal or value stated on the website or any BLM published literature even implies racism, let alone promotes it. Even if BLM is wrong in its aims or perception of injustice, that doesn't constitute racism. My opponent has latched on to a false equivalence fallacy, that incorrectly crying discrimination is a tacit promotion of racism. Here’s a source defining that from Purdue curriculum. https://owl.english.purdue.edu... The syllogism I provided demonstrates that, but my opponent’s error becomes more glaring when we look at his bad logic through any number of other prisms. If someone is wrong about the causes of poverty that doesn’t mean they want to expand poverty. If someone is wrongly identifies a threat to the environment, arguing against said threat is not an argument to destroy the environment. My opponent is either struggling to understand what racism is, or what a promotion is; in either case it’s a mistake that cost them the debate. Keep in mind, in order to uphold the resolution my opponent needs to show that BLM is promoting racial inferiority or superiority. Pro did offer some examples of individuals that Pro called members of BLM saying some rotten things, but those folks don’t speak for the movement, just themselves. Again, a hasty generalization. Did Osama bin Laden speak for every Muslim..? Does David Duke of the KKK speak for all conservatives, or even Trump voters..? Do the chair throwers of the Sander’s campaign speak for all Progressives..? This is the second hasty generalization fallacy form Pro. Assuming that since some people identifying with BLM are behaving badly that all who embrace BLM share the sentiment(s). It’s fallacious nonsense. We can now cross apply this Con response as this fallacy continues to surface in the Pro case. Let’s continue down his case. “I presume nothing but instead make an observation based on all the evidence presented. BLM is citing racism as the reason for these men being killed but witness accounts and video evidence have told a much different story.” If BLM is wrong about this, that doesn’t make BLM racist. “Charles Kinsey is one particular case I happen to believe the officer was wrong for.” My opponent agrees here, so you can flow the impacts linked to it in my last constructive across the debate, that the generalization regarding criminality is wrong. In the last round we saw Pro paint all these instances of police violence with a broad brush of criminality. Even then he conceded his generalization was faulty, here he concedes it again. Con wins all these arguments. “Ill say it again, accusing people of racism when there is no proof is promoting racism.” Once again, false equivalence, but this time he is just letting it hang out and swing in the wind (gross!) “My opponent failed to cite the case what records show someone to have been doing nothing to warrant being shot.” That sentence doesn’t make much sense. It sounds like his is asking for examples of someone being shot [by police] for doing nothing wrong. The case of Charles Kinsey is a great example and my opponent agrees. If this is an argument my opponent is referring to, the Con wins it per Pro and Con (thanks pro, I think..?) “I used the term "vast majority" because that’s what the evidence has proven. There has yet to be any proof to prove these officers were in the wrong. If racism was truly so rampant as BLM contends there would be an overwhelming amount of proof followed by my officers being convicted.” BLM contends one instance is too much, but even if wrong in every case they have protested, it does not constitute promotion of racism. “BLM can object all they want but when they start falsely accusing officers of being racist without solid evidence they're promoting racism.” False equivalence again. “Theres only one problem, no unequal dispensation of justice has been proven! BLM has failed to prove these officers were unjustified and the courts have found no reasons to indict them. They have no case (except Kinsey)” So, by my opponent’s admission BLM has a case. I'll finish with Zehm once Pro responds