Black lives matter is promoting racism and black privilage

I’ll begin by providing a basic resolution analysis to clarify the topic of the debate and the burden(s) of each side. Next we deconstruct the Affirmative case and provide impact analysis of how the Aff case fails to support the resolution. Lastly, we will look at the negative counter analysis of the topic, the need the topic addresses and how the BLM movement relates to the issue; excessive use of force by police, and the consistent failure to prosecute it. Resolutional analysis: So to start, the topic, “The BLM movement is promoting racism and 'black privilege'” is a truth claim; to be shown either true or false. The debator that best supports their side of the topic, and provides the most significant examples should win the debate. Aff case deconstructed; To win the debate my opponent must show that BLM is promoting racism and black privilege. The case put forward in round two by my opponent does nothing to support this claim. All, everything that was offered by the affirmative was just a litany of superfluous claims regarding black crime statistics provide by Breitbart. These do nothing, not a thing, to support the resolution. This can be demonstrated with simple logic. The Aff case fundamentally claims; Premise 1: More black men are killed by other black men than anything else. Premise 2: Black people commit more crimes than other racial groups. Conclusion: BLM promotes racism and black privilege. False; the conclusion is not at all supported by these premises. This is the textbook example of a deductive fallacy, having premises that may be true without supporting the conclusion. Here is a link to the definition with examples on wikipedia. It’s also in chapter three of most college logic textbooks (Hurley’s Logic 2006 ed) https://en.wikipedia.org... You can vote for the negative without any doubt. The Aff has provided no support of the truth claim. Even if you believe the premises of the Aff case, those premises do not support the claim that BLM promotes racism or "black privilege." They offered nothing, not one thing, to support that conclusion. The Aff has not carried any portion of their burdens, they already lose the debate. The Affirmative has offered nothing else, let alone anything to suggest that BLM is promoting racism. For one, the Aff failed to even define these concepts, but if we use the most pedestrian understanding of those terms, racism is defined as, “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) The Aff has given us nothing at all to show that BLM promotes this idea in any form. The same goes for, “Black privilege,” though it is important to point out that this very term tends to typify a new brand of racist vitriol, and was coined by ultra-right mouthpieces as counter to the term, “white privilege” Below is an entertaining HuffPost article that clarifies the grievances many have with this dubious term. Please draw your own conclusions as to whether or not the term itself is racist, but it is patently obvious that the Aff provided nothing to support the claim that BLM promotes, “black privilege.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Suffice to say we could bury the affirmative and call it a day right now, but convention holds that we should thoroughly address the issues a topic touches on and some of the more dubious claims and implications of what the Aff tries to imply. Though my opponent offered nothing to support the resolution, they impart a sentiment of something rather vile; excessive use of force and unjustified violence by police, particularly towards people of color, is not significant. My opponet tries to imply that BLM doesn’t have a case because, “black on black crime,” has not been fixed first. This is a total error in logic as well, here’s why. Let’s consider two prisms of analysis to expose just how foolish this idea is; first, law and order and second, justice for all. In the case of law and order my opponent’s error is obvious here as well. The reality is that crimes which our justice system cannot punish are a greater threat to law and order than those we can punish. In the case of crime of one civilian upon another, regardless of race; there is not a demonstrated pattern of impunity; those guilty do not typically escape justice. In the case of the many shootings and killings that inspired BLM, there is a clear pattern of impunity. The movement started with the acquittal of George Zimmerman in FL, who was a vigilante that gunned down an unarmed black teenager with impunity. His acquittal became a referendum on our justice system that has since seen a string of questionable killings of black citizens, mostly by police, that have all escaped justice. The aquittal of Trayvon Martin's killer also inspired the initial use of #blacklivematter Any authority figure operating above the law is cuase for pause, but this pattern is far worse when examined though the lens of justice. This pattern of impunity is all the more disturbing when we consider its police that operate with impunity. This strongly suggests that officers of the court are not subject to the law they enforce. Moreover, trying to characterize black people as criminals does nothing to excuse this disturbing pattern or balance justice. Black on black crime is no excuse for excssive use of force by police. The murder of a bully is still murder. The rape of a promiscous person is still rape. Questioning the character of a victim or their community does not exucse the crime. No degree of black criminality excuses a police officer misusing authority or a firearm. No amount of black on black crime should allow agents of the law to operate above the law. No degree of entrenched poverty justifies tacit denial of justice to communities of color. In conclusion the Affirmative would have miles, perhaps light years to go before getting their case back on track. They have provided nothing to support the claim(s) that the resolution makes. They have tried to unload notions onto us regarding black criminality to excuse institutional denial of justice to people of color and obfuscate the memory of young black men and women killed by cops with the understanding that such behavior by police never leads to jailtime. Oficers of the law cannot be above the law they enforce. When we consider that the Aff so provided no support whatsoever of the thesis, and they leaned on questionable material all to excuse institutional injustice, this should be the easiest negative ballot you will ever complete. Yet unfortunately, the real issues this question turns our attention to may require a generation of tough questions and increased standards both of our policing practices and the government agencies that supposesly police the police.