Riots harm people and communities

The argument

Rioting is an irrational and unethical way of fighting injustice. Even if there is a genuine sense of anger in the hearts of many who participate in riots, the acts of violence, looting, and arson that characterize most riots are unjustifiable. These crimes seriously harm communities. Many of the riots that followed the murder of George Floyd ruined businesses, risked livelihoods, and destroyed some community centers. Many Korean immigrants in Los Angeles were robbed and randomly shot at. Many Somali immigrants who opened up new restaurants in Minneapolis lost them in one night. Their businesses will most likely never reopen. Such crimes generated by riots only bring harm to individuals and communities. They have nothing to do with bringing justice for black men and women who were unjustly killed. Several long-term studies show what negative consequences riots can have on communities. In the 1960s, American cities saw many fierce riots revolving around issues about race. An article measuring the riots' repercussions on the value of inner-city residential property shows that the riots lowered the median value of black-owned property between 1960 and 1970. Clearly, riots cause more harm than good.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Riots have negative consequences for the communities in which they take place. However, they are still powerful means of drawing attention to the sorrow and rage felt by members of deprived communities. Riots can encourage real reform and have done so in the past. When a community or people finally unleash their pent-up emotions and frustrations, the public and those in power are forced to institute real reforms to rectify whatever wrongs led to civilians' outrage. For example, riots in the 1960s resulted in the US government implementing the Kerner Commission. The Commission examined the cause of unrest and encouraged reforms in local police departments. Riots, with all the violence they inspire and harm they cause, tend to bring communities some significant benefits eventually. The disruption and destruction that takes place are what moves those in power to authorize real change.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The characterisation loads the question. Most protest, including most that follows a killing by police, involves no arson or looting, and folding protest and riot into one category settles by definition what the argument is meant to show. [Rejecting P2] The harms are real, but the comparison is drawn against an imagined alternative in which the grievance gets addressed without disruption — which is precisely what the opposing position says has not historically happened. [Rejecting P3] The claim that nothing follows is contradicted by the argument's own example. The unrest of the 1960s produced the Kerner Commission and its findings on policing and segregation. One may hold that the harm outweighs the gain, but the premise asserts there is no gain at all.