Black lives matter is promoting racism and black privilage

We looked at a couple of syllogisms that perfectly demonstrate why pro’s stats about back criminality, intra-racial crime and white morbidity in police encounters have nothing to do the thesis. My opponent imagines a link since he thinks that BLM is wrong in accusing the criminal justice system of racism, he calls this the promotion of racism. False, and also wrong in the assessment of BLM, racism of our justice system is not imagined. In my last constructive I said, “my opponent either doesn’t know what racism is, or he doesn’t know what promoting is, and it’s a mistake that will cost him the debate. ”Pro says, “by promoting lies BLM promotes racism. ” Pro accuses BLM of fabricating or imagining racism where none exists, and says spreading this “promotes racism. ” Even if this were true, that would be a marketing gimmick, not encouraging racism. Promote: further the progress of (something, especially a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage. Even if some of the grievances of BLM are misplaced, that does not equate to actively encouraging racism. More importantly though, BLM has several legitimate grievances, and agitating against them is the discouragement of racism. Pro is completely wrong here. To try and make the case BLM is, “promoting lies,” Pro runs to the defense of Darren Wilson of Ferguson Missouri, and results of the DOJ inquiry that excused officer Wilson. But Pro always fails to mention that very same DOJ investigation found racist policing practices permeate the department. . https://www.justice.gov... “Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices both reflect and exacerbate existing racial bias, including racial stereotypes. Ferguson’s own data establish clear racial disparities that adversely impact African Americans. The evidence shows that discriminatory intent is part of the reason for these disparities. Over time, Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices have sown deep mistrust between parts of the community and the police department, undermining law enforcement legitimacy among African Americans in particular. ” There was even a racist email scandal to go with it. . http://www.chicagotribune.com...As stated before, even if BLM was wrong about, “hands up dont shoot” that doesn't mean BLM is wrong about racism in our justice system. The reality is the DOJ that excused Wilson also found racist and exploitative police practices were rampant in Ferguson, and even if Michael Brown didn’t have his hands up BLM has legitimate gripes about people of color being mistreated by our justice system and police. Pro claims, “BLM calls for the death for the death of whites,” pointing to individuals saying or tweeting things to that effect and claimed they represent the BLM movement. The reality is they don’t speak for the BLM movement, just themselves. To better demonstrate that I offered the BLM website which showcases the movements aims and views. In his last round Pro was nice enough to list each one. Not a single thing stated or published by BML or Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi (BLM founders) advocate violence against whites. Again, one rouge doesn’t speak for the entire group. The shooter in the 2011 Norway attacks; Anders Behring Breivik, didn’t represent northern Europeans even when he claimed to have acted on their behalf. . https://en.wikipedia.org... Vile tweets or comments from someone identifying with some of BLM’s sentiments doesn’t mean that person speaks for the BLM movement itself, or even correctly reflect BLM’s position on any issue. Again I point your attention to the published views of BLM, including the ones Pro was kind enough to list for us. It tells us BLM is concerned with not just extrajudicial homicide, but all examples of institutional injustice against people of color, and all people in general. It emphasizes the inclusion of women and LGBTQ people of color that have been historically left out of black civil rights struggles of the past. Not once does it prescribe violence against whites. It also bears mentioning that nothing listed actively encouraged (promoting) racism by any definition offered by either of us. Pro tries to compare BLM to the KKK, which is really offensive. The Klan was and remains a white supremacy group with a heritage of hate crimes. The Klan was never a civil rights movement, it was about denying people civil rights. The KKK did promote racism. BLM is not the KKK. Con resents the comparison. What this example does is demonstrate that one person tweeting about violence toward white people doesn't make them the spokesperson for BLM any more than the KKK represents whites or even everyone that has racist notions. We know black criminality, intra-racial crime and white morbidity during police encounters don’t themselves have anything to do with the views of BLM, and that these stats don’t show us BLM promotes racism. We looked at two syllogisms to see it. We know that criminality doesn't justify denial of justice, and Pro conceded it. We know that even if, “hands up dont shoot” is inaccurate, it doesn’t mean BLM’s wrong about institutional injustice as a whole. The DOJ report excusing Darren Wilson offered by Pro also proves the patterns of racism in our justice system. Pro agreed that BLM has a grievance in the shooting of Charles Kinsey. Pro tried to claim that police violence against whites never draws outcry. But the case of Otto Zehm dispels that, and suggests that a white victim sees a higher level of justice. Let’s address a few things from the last Pro constructive. 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'. For one, the DOJ has found patterns of racism in police practices in Ferguson and Newark, NJ. Pro says that complaining of racism is a promotion of racism. That’s absurd. Complaining of a thing is not encouragement of that thing, its the opposite. Perhaps Pro is again trying to tell us BLM is just spinning, “hands up dont shoot” as a marketing gimmick when the problem is imagined. .. Except Pro’s pet DOJ report shows us the gripes of BLM aren’t imaged, and using a gimmick to combat racism is not actively encouraging racism. Again, pro also agreed the example of Charles Kinsey shows BLM has a case. Pro again tries to challenge prositional logic, even calling it a deflection. I know, it’s absurd. I know. .. (shm)Nevertheless, pro said it, never offering to deconstruct the logic, he just calls it a defection and opinion. Prop logic is chapter two of Hurley’s logic, the best selling logic text book in the US. Informal fallacies are chapter three. All the logic supported by Con is modeled and supported in that text as well as the web sources offered. The topic is not that BLM is racist in and of itself, but that "Black lives matters is PROMOTING racism and black privilegeHere my opponent blatantly shifts, moving away from accusing BLM of racism, to claiming BLM promotes racism by simply speaking to the issue of racism. Pro told us BLM called for killings, and values lives of black criminals over others. What happened. .? 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. So he just means BLM claiming racism exists in our justice system promote racism, expect Pro’s DOJ report is proof of the racism BLM complains about. Pro says this despite already admitting BLM has a case in the instance of Kinsey.