Black lives matter is promoting racism and black privilage

Pro never disputed the argument that criminality does not justify denial of justice. That argument goes to Con.Pro attacks the syllogism explaining how he did not support the resolution. I have provided a plethora of supports (in comments) to show what constitutes a deductive fallacy.Pro accused me of a, “'Tu quoque' - a retort charging an adversary with being or doing what he criticizes in others (websters dictionary)" and linked it to my critique of Breitbart's bias.I did call into question the bias of Brietbart, but I still grant my opponent all of the statistics he offered, because even if they are true they do not support the thesis. I am not making a case against those statistics, this is categorically irrelevant.Pro then at least tries to offer an example of how BLM could be understood to promote racism, by trying to claim that BLM values the lives of black people above others.The stated aim of BLM is to protest the dehumanization of people color by state institutions like our justice system, specifically extrajudicial killings that have consistently failed to yield convictions or indictment. The perception of the movement is that the taken life of a person of color holds less value within our justice system than the lives of others. To better deconstruct the Pro’s arguments, we will examine each one by one in the sequence they appear.One of the most blatant ways the BLM movement is promoting racism is by promoting the lies of matters such as "hands up dont shoot" instead of embracing the truth This does not show that BLM is promoting racism. Even if the, “hands up, don’t shoot,” meme is a misnomer, it doesn’t constitute the promotion of racism. This statement has been used to highlight the perception, right or wrong, that non-violent unarmed people of color have been killed by police operating with impunity. Even if BLM is wrong, there is nothing within the device that promotes racism.This movement is contending that these men are being shot and killed for absolutely no reason despite all the physical evidence. By supporting criminals based on obvious lies they are making the assertion that these black criminals are somehow above the law. That just because he attacked the officer doesn't mean the officer had a right to kill him, for example.For one, my opponent is presuming that in all cases contested by BLM, the victims of police violence were engaged in criminal activity. This is a false generalization fallacy. My opponent assumes that because in some instances the officer that fired was provoked/attacked that all extrajudicial killings by police are justified. This doesn’t even address instances like Trayvon Martin, which did not involve a police officer. Consider a recent example, the shooting of Charles Kinsey in Florida. A black man caring for an autistic adult was needlessly shot without provocation. Now information is surfacing suggesting that representatives of Miami Dade Metro have lied to the public when calling it an accident.This example gives us enough to know that the generalization my opponent is trying to make is not true in all cases, and that BLM has a legitimate gripe regarding police violence as well as judicial impunity and corruption.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.cnn.com... The circumstances of some of these killings were highly questionable, and the killer(s) in question never face legal consequences. In many instances a grand jury failed to pursue any charges.This pattern is the core issue of BLM; crime against a person of color is less of a crime, crimes as the hands of police are not crimes at all. Calling this into question does not promote racism. BLM wants equal dispensation of justice.Pro would need to show how agitating against institutional injustice (perceived or not) is promotion of racism. It's not and his argument drops to the cutting room floor.the vast majority of black men killed since the Michael Brown incident were already convicted of crimes, meaning that they had a history of getting into trouble to simplify it further. Thats not to say that every black man killed has a criminal record but that is the theme of most cases.Again, trying to paint with a broad brush, whilst acknowledging not every example is a criminal, he argues that there's enough to make the generalization. He's characterizing all of the shootings that have drawn the protest of BLM as a criminal on the wrong side of the law, even when he knows and the record shows it’s not always the case.My opponent wants to apply a generalization he already knows, and acknowledges, is incorrect.Why then are we not seeing people with no criminal history being killed by police? The obvious answer is because those with clean records are law abiding citizens that have little to no interactions with the police. The BLM movement has done virtually nothing to explain this while they continue to accuse police and the system of being racist.To provide the answer given by the Miami Metro police union, police sometimes miss. That is the current reasoning behind this shooting of Charles Kinsey. The point being though, that we in fact have seen shootings and even killings of innocents. Moreover, objecting to this does not constitute racism.Instead of condemning the actions that lead these men to their deaths, BLM has accused police of inherent racism. Whether they mean to or not, they are making the suggestion that it doesn't matter what black men do, they should not be killed. BLM is objecting to unequal dispensation of justice; and they have a case! Since the acquittal of Zimmerman this movement has had a case. This does not constitute racism on the part of BLM. Once again, the Pro would need to show us that calling justice and policing practices into question promotes racism. Because the fact of the matter is white people are consistently killed in greater numbers and yet there have been virtually no mass riots, no calls for reform.That is a categorical falsehood. Consider the tragic story of Otto Zehm in Spokane WA. Otto Zehm was a mentally handicapped white man needlessly beaten and suffocated by police. His death sparked local and national public outrage, the officers involved were indicted and the ranking officer, Karl Thomson was tried and convicted.https://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.spokesman.com...This is totally contrary to the report given by my opponent; extrajudicial killing of whites never sparks outrage. Yes it does, and has. In this case, the police officer(s) in question were indicted, tried and convicted and the city paid restitution to the bereaved.BLM holds that these kinds of things don’t happen when the cops hurt someone of color, and they have a point.In the white community it is generally accepted that if you attack a police officer or disobey an officers commands in a dangerous situation, there is a chance you will be killed for your actions. This is a bald face lie. Otto's sad story shows the opposite. If my opponent's claim was the case then Otto’s death would not have sparked public outrage, police involved wouldn’t have been indicted, Karl Thompson would never have gone to jail.Pro videos1st: This video is cherry picking examples of people that have no formal relationship to BLM. These behaviors have been repudiated by BLM leaders.2nd: I appreciate the young man’s opinion, but it is nothing more than that. This is about as strong as, “my pal says so and he really gets me, so he must be right.”3rd: Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi (BLM founders) aren’t the subject of this video.http://blacklivesmatter.com...https://en.wikipedia.org...http://fortune.com...4th: This could be argued to suggest some BLM youngsters lack manners, but not to say they promote racism.