BLM is NOT worse than the KKK

That should be my Pro's final round. The next round should be skipped by placing in a statement similar to this: "No round as agreed upon". I did notice pro made several new arguments in his final round. These should be ignored as the last round is too late to bring in new arguments, he should probably even lose a conduct point for creating new arguments in his final round. I once again am stunned by my opponent. I'm not sure if there is a reading comprehension problem on his part or not, judging by the way he interprets his sources and my arguments. I probably shouldn't respond to as much as I am going to respond to in hs argument, since so much is gibberish and quite frankly off topic, but I can't help myself.Impact Anaalysis Me and my opponent have both brought up the fact that both BLM and the KKK can turn out some lone gunman. I have used the guy in New York who hunted down and shot two oficers in broad daylight as an example, and he has used Dylan Roof. The difference between the 2 is that the lone nut I mentioned actally associates himself with BLM, while Dylan Roof merely mentioned that the KKK as well as other White Nationalist organizations are not going to help him do his evil deed. This would be no different than me saying Santa Clause is not going to write my arguments for me, and my opponent saying that because I don't want help from Santa Clause that I am clearly one of his elves. It makes no sense. Here is the Dylan Roof quote just to remind people why my opponent thinks he is connected to the KKK: "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."He also mentions no doing anything talking on the internet, it does not mean he is inspired by or associated with everyone who talks on the internet. Seeing as how pro has based this whole debate on which group is worse by making a case for a single lone nut that has been proven to not be associated or inspired by the KKK, but instead inspired by the white nationalist organization abbreviated the "CCC", he loses. His single argument is disproven. Let's say you believe that my opponent has proven that sometimes the KKK has created/inspired lone nuts, then he still loses. He loses not only because I have proven that the BLM movement has created some lone nuts also, but because I have proven the problems are systematic. Even if you buy the argument that a few hoodlums are making the BLM look bad, we still have stats showing the increase in crime in areas that BLM is extremely active in, an effect known as "The Ferguson effect". Even if you believe it is only a few deranged people rioting and causing problems, organized events are certainly a result of BLM. Organized events such as the shutting down of traffic which lead to how many babies not getting medical attention fast enough? They are certainly responsible for the organized events meant to disrupt political campaigns and inhibit freedom of speech such as at a few Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders rallies that have been highly publicized. But honestly you should believe every bit of evidence I have provided to show that BLM is worse. You should believe it because my opponent hasn't addressed it other than to say the folks who do not are not representative of BLM. (which does not address organized events mentioned or crime stats from ferguson effect). By the way I have provided citations for every claim, and my opponent has not explained how the citations are wrong. The only differentiation my opponent uses to seperate a true BLM person from a non true one, is whether he agrees with their actions or not. The people I mention proudly claim BLM, but my opponent does not want to count them. Dylan roof mentions the KKK offhand and has literally stated he does not associate with them, and my opponent links him to the KKK. How is my opponent's double standard fair? He is clearly cherry picking, as I have explained in the previous round. A major logical fallacy.This is a pretty easy decision for the judges, vote con (Wylted). Various ResponsesI've already won, my impact analysis explains why, but it is plainly obvious based on the fact that I have brought up more on the Con side of BLM than he has with the KKK, and this is even with him conflating all white nationalists and white nationalist organizations. "I believe my opponent forgot (or conveniently) skimmed through my argument because I was basing my previous argument based off the source that he used. "I am aware of that. I was wondering why you cited things from that article that have nothing to do with this debate as it was clearly stated in round 1 the debate takes place in the modern era. I was wondering why you actually cited things that really don't help your case and did not contradict anything I said. "I disagree. the current actions of a group does reflect the reason for a groups formation. Just as Frazier Glenn's actions of the Jewish Center killings, reflects his belief as a Klan member."First off the Frazier statement is a new argument and needs to be disregarded by the judges, second of all it is stupid to say a groups actions have to do with their formation. I am not sure if my opponent is trolling me or just dumb. If I form a group to play basketball, and then we decide basketball is dumb and start playing hockey, the fact we are laying hockey does not mean it was formed to play hockey. Why my opponent is busy making nonsensical statements that have nothing to do with which group is worse is beyond me. " The KKK is a white nationalist group. Regardless who or where he received his ideas, he mentioned the KKK and even if he remotely wanted them to act, the very mentioning of the Klan is important enough to mention in this debate."Not really, I mean Barack Obama might have mentioned he wanted the KKK to be less racist. He is requesting they act, it does not mean he was inspired by the KKK to become president. Not to mention Roof did not request they act, he also mentioned Nazis and people on the internet in the same sentence, and it was only to say those groups would not act. In a way it was an insult, because he caled them all talk, but if insulting the KKK makes somebody a part of the KKK, then my opponent should go get his white robe. This is why you are oing to lose the debate. You could have came up with good arguments and pointed out actual peope associated with the KKK who have done bad thins, but instead you go with an example that is irrelevant and never give up on it." My opponent is now quoting from the KKK website...Great idea considering no organization is outright going to tell people they influence people to hate, but I shall entertain this...."That is the whole point. You quoted the BLM site saying it's quote about not being anti-police should be taken at face value. I wonder why you want me to take the BLM's statements as fact, and yet you don't want to accept statements by the KKK as fact? This is special pleading, and it is a double standard. If we cannot accept the KKK message as fact, then the judges should disregard the BLM statement. I made it blatently clear that was the point I was making with those quotes, but amazingly it somehow went over my opponent's head. In the end my opponent bafflingly pulls up some facts on stop and frisk. I guess the point is to show that there are disproportionate amounts of blacks stopped, and this really has nothing to do with the debate but it is a policy to combat gang violence, and since a disproportionate amount of gang members are black, obviously a disproportionate amount of frisks will be on black people. It is not proof of any sort of racism, in fact it is proof of police trying to help black communities with their gang problem and BLM calling them racist for it. Anyway easy decision by judges.Vote Wylted