I'm not quite sure why you posted all this. It's not exactly a stellar performance on your part. Although it's well-stated, the arguments, if they are meant to be arguments, are almost entirely presented without evidence, and the logical form is also in most cases not what you would need to make a solid case rather than give an example.

I'll explain in more detail if you want, but here's one item for flavor. You mentioned that there is no evidence that George Floyd was killed because of his race. Quite true, because we can't read people's thoughts. But if 99% of people who were killed by police were black, we still couldn't tell, because we still can't read people's thoughts and it's not the only reason. So the whole "there is no evidence" line of reasoning is completely useless. Racism could be intense and ubiquitous and you still couldn't tell! You could ask instead if it is a particularly egregious action (yes) and if it's consistent with a statistical pattern that is indicative of unequal treatment based on race (yes), and those two alone seem perfectly adequate to prompt outcry even if this happened not to be a racially-motivated incident. You can't always know. So, bad luck, suppose you picked one that wasn't as your rallying cry. Since you can't know anyway, who cares as long as the underlying phenomenon is real?

It's also not a stellar performance on Mia's part (sorry, Mia--I'll explain with select examples, or in detail, if you wish), but that's beside the point.

Rather than going through sentence by sentence, let me just suggest an alternative approach. Tackle the big questions that have data head-on.

You should know very well by now that most of the claims of racism involve (1) implicit bias, or (2) institutional racism. If you think claims of racism are overblown, then the fair thing to do is tackle the actual well-researched problems. For a good but incomplete list, see https://erik-engheim.medium.com/proof-of-systemic-racism-in-america-b8b93c0091d2--you need to add in, for instance, the papers that demonstrate a roughly 50% lower chance to invite people for an interview on the basis of a black-sounding name alone (resumes were sent out that were identical save for name).

At that point, if you still think that the only thing we need to do to solve racism is to ignore it, you'll be much better situated to make a persuasive argument. And if not, but you still think that overhyping racism causes more problems than it solves, you'll be much better situated to direct people's energy towards something productive.