Black lives matter is promoting racism and black privilage

There is overwhelming proof provided in previous rounds that BLM has been promoting racism including: 1. Calling for the death of not just police but also white people in general. 2. BLM has continued using proven lies to claim racism where there has not been any. 3. They have not once condemned the actions of the men that put themselves a position to be shot. Instead they accuse the police and the system of racism despite whites being killed for the same type of situations and in greater numbers. This implies that BLM believes they are the exception which according to the Mariam Webster definition: Simple Definition of racism 1. poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race 2. the belief that some races of people are better than others Full Definition of racism 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination BLM incessantly claims number one of the simple definition and both numbers 1 and 2 of the full definition. They're guilty of 3 our of 4 definitions of racism. They claim blacks are treated unfairly They claims whites believe they are superior to blacks They claim whites have a racial prejudice. And this is not something that they are shy about, it's all over the internet and media and many of my links contain video proof of it all. Ranging from people on camera to the messages they tweet. My opponent has deflected this entire debate, refusing to explain how calling for the deaths of whites is not promoting racism for example. Everyone agrees that the KKK was a racist organization because they called for the death of blacks but somehow when BLM calls for the death of white people it isn't racist. True the KKK did claim white supremacy but does the call for the death of blacks not constitute racism on its own? Because if it does, BLM is also promoting racism. From my opponents arguement: "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." Yet again this is a deflection and also not the premises being made. These are 3 sources of statistical data that proves BLM is operating on lies. To continue my opponents unfinished list. Premise 4: BLM calls for the death of whites just as the KKK did blacks. Premise 5: The President and DOJ who made many claims of racism still being a problem bu turn around and state that there was no proof of racism. That the officers acted reasonably given the situation. It's no mystery why my opponent has provided no evidence to counter the last two premises, because there is no such evidence. My opponent does not seem to fully comprehend the implications of promoting racism. All one has to do in order to promote it is keep citing it as the root problem. And thus far the DOJ has found no racism despite having a blatant bias, projecting them or their family members in the position of the alleged "victims". A leader is not supposed to take sides, he is supposed to unite those he leads but instead Obama has made inflammatory statements that has made racial relations worse. America has its first black president and yet racial relations have not been this bad since the 1960's during the civil rights movement. During the Bush administration there were no mass riots being conducted under false narratives. So BLM and my opponent would have you believe that somehow America has become more racist than it has been since before the 60's. My opponent stated: "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!" My opponent has done nothing but deflect, attempt to point out fallacies, provided only opinion based sources whereas I linked sources with undeniable proof of BLM racism. BLM has lifted the burden of proof from me when they make public statements calling for the deaths of white people. BLM has lifted the burden of proof from me when they determined that the BLM narratives were based on lies and that the officers acted reasonable given the situations. The courts have lifted the burden from me when black judges have determined there was no reason to suspect the officers of acting out of racism. My opponent has listed the BLM website as proof they are not promoting racism but fails to account for the countless BLM members and their actions as well as their own words caught on video. It would seem that he failed to read the material posted on the website. This website only damages cons argument. It's full of promotional racism. Some quotes from the site: "How Black poverty and genocide is state violence. How 2.8 million Black people are locked in cages in this country is state violence. How Black women bearing the burden of a relentless assault on our children and our families is state violence. How Black queer and trans folks bear a unique burden from a hetero-patriarchal society that disposes of us like garbage and simultaneously fetishizes us and profits off of us, and that is state violence. How 500,000 Black people in the US are undocumented immigrants and relegated to the shadows. How Black girls are used as negotiating chips during times of conflict and war. How Black folks living with disabilities and different abilities bear the burden of state sponsored Darwinian experiments that attempt to squeeze us into boxes of normality defined by white supremacy, and that is state violence." What is the recurring theme in these quotes? Racism against blacks! So what are the founders promoting? Racism against blacks. The founders are claiming that blacks are being oppressed by society en mass. http://blacklivesmatter.com... More quotes from the site: "We affirm our contributions to this society, our humanity, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression" "It was a response to the anti-Black racism that permeates our society and also, unfortunately, our movements" "Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise." This website is chalked full of nothing but allegations of anti-black racism claims. To put it even more simply, its promoting the idea that racism is somehow rampant in the country and the system. My opponent stated: "Keep in mind, in order to uphold the resolution my opponent needs to show that BLM is promoting racial inferiority or superiority" As I showed earlier, this is not the sole definition of racism. Con is attempting to cherry pick. My quote followed by con rebuttal: "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." The topic is not that BLM is racist in and of itself, but that "Black lives matters is PROMOTING racism and black privilege" As I've shown time and time again, BLM is promoting racism as the cause for these black men being killed. BLM is promoting racism as the reason for so many problems in the black community despite a devastating lack of evidence. Part of the problem with BLM is that there is no structure within the organization. It's members are free to speak and act however they want which weakens any peaceful premise it claims to stand for. Con has spent the entire debate attempting to keep you from looking at the actions and words of the BLM members, instead trying to find logical holes in my arguments. I ask the readers this: Has the majority of BLM rhetoric pertained to a perceived anti-black system? If yes, they're promoting racism as the reason for its existence.