Instigator / Con
Points: 16

The Colin Kaepernick Movement

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
AIRhino
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
People
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Pro
Points: 13
Description
"It makes no sense on a variety of levels and is an insult to the troops that died to defend that flag and that anthem."
-Ben Shapiro
This guy is amazing and I love his work and what he's doing for this country.
Round 1
Published:
Hi there. In this argument, I'd like to reinforce 3 assertions.

1. The Colin Kaepernick movement is founded in a blanket statement.
2. What they're doing is not the right way to deal with this "problem".
(by "problem" I mean that I don't think there is a problem)
3.Racial equality already exists in this country.

Point #1: The Colin Kaepernick movement is founded in a blanket statement.

The blanket statement that the movement is founded in is this: The police are racist.

My argument is simple. Not ALL police are racist. In fact, I think the vast vast majority aren't. That statement is very unfair. That's like saying, "everyone who lives in Green Bay is a cheese head." Which isn't true. There is at least one person in Green Bay who isn't a cheese head, so it is unfair to categorize them as such.
And doing things such as making socks with pigs in police hats on them is just flat-out wrong and I think it is ridiculous that anyone would do that. I think it's fair to say that per capita, there are just as many racist black people as white people. I think it's foolish to say that the only racist race is whites.

Point #2: What they're doing is not the right way to deal with this "problem".

Things like profiling police officers as all being racist and making pig police socks to pigeonhole the police is wrong as well. I think that two wrongs don't make a right and to do that because of so called inequality in a country where no laws exist that discriminate is downright ignorant.

Point #3: Racial equality already exists in this country.

Name to me one law, one legislation that discriminates against blacks or any minority for that matter. In fact, most policies in place by employers and colleges look to give minorities a better chance at being enrolled in a college or hired at a job. Just because a group of people was discriminated in the past does not mean things are unequal now.

I appreciate my opponent's acceptance and the opportunity to debate on this topic. Rebuttals next round. Good luck!

Published:
1. Your first statement is false; the movement was not founded on the blanket statement that police are racist. It was founded as way to shed light on the issue of systematic oppression, but specifically in regard to the criminal justice system;

"Considering that criminal justice reform is at the top of the list of the issues for which players have risked their careers to illuminate"


Who said that ALL police are racists? I don't think that that is an argument that is being made by anyone. Also, racism isn't the best word to describe the problems related to police because racism is a belief that one race is superior to another. I don't think that that is a very common problem today. What's really at issue here is something called unconscious bias. Unconscious bias occurs when negative attributes are unconsciously associated with a specific group of people. African Americans are unconsciously stereotyped as dangerous and less competent by most people, including other black people;


So it's reasonable to assume that most police (regardless of race) have an implicit bias against people of color. This bias causes negative consequences for the blacks that the police interact with on the streets, where decisions between life and death are made in a split second.

Nobody said that only whites can be racist.  Are you triggered by cartoons on socks?

2. Again with the socks, lol. Discrimination occurs regardless of any laws in place.

3. A law does not have to explicitly mention race for it to have its intended negative consequences for people of color, America has a long history of this;


And it continues today;


It is a fact that job applicants with black sounding names are less likely to get a response, even with identical resumes. I see nothing wrong with policies that attempt to correct this problem.
Round 2
Published:
"1. Your first statement is false; the movement was not founded on the blanket statement that police are racist. It was founded as way to shed light on the issue of systematic oppression, but specifically in regard to the criminal justice system;"

The definition of systematic is as follows; "done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.".
According to a fixed plan or system, AKA laws. And you yourself said there are no laws that call out certain races and give them a disadvantage. You conceded that.

"Considering that criminal justice reform is at the top of the list of the issues for which players have risked their careers to illuminate."

Colin Kaepernick waited until he was no longer a starter and was playing badly to be an activist for anything. He sacrificed nothing. Especially since I'm sure he's making millions of dollars partnering with Nike.

"Who said that ALL police are racists? I don't think that that is an argument that is being made by anyone. Also, racism isn't the best word to describe the problems related to police because racism is a belief that one race is superior to another. I don't think that that is a very common problem today. What's really at issue here is something called unconscious bias. Unconscious bias occurs when negative attributes are unconsciously associated with a specific group of people. African Americans are unconsciously stereotyped as dangerous and less competent by most people, including other black people;"

It's implied with those socks. 
So you agree that racism isn't a problem? Thank you I guess.

I don't care about what's in someone's head as much as what they do. There's not a way to scientifically study something such as implicit bias, so we're swinging at ghosts effectively. Also, implicit bias isn't solid enough to hold up in a court room which is why it's never been used in a courtroom as evidence for any case. I don't care about what people think in their head so much as if they act on it because I'm not a mind reader.

To your source, how would they know that???
It still doesn't explain how the test works, it explains what the test does and how it is administered, but no hint to how it works. Granted I did scan the article, but if you want to explain to me exactly how it works, please do that. 

If there are no laws that are racist, what exactly are you fighting?

No, I'm not triggered by cartoons on socks, I disagree with how that group of people is handling the situation. To call cops pigs is obviously extremely disrespectful and it's obvious when you look at how Nike is making those socks, that it is because of the Colin Kaepernick movement. I don't need to explain the correlation there.

"It is a fact that job applicants with black sounding names are less likely to get a response, even with identical resumes. I see nothing wrong with policies that attempt to correct this problem."

"Black sounding names", that's racist. And maybe that has nothing to do with their race, and more to do with the fact that those names are harder to pronounce. The same reason support people from India make up white washed names so that people don't have to say the "indian sounding names". It's not to do with the names, but rather that their names are harder to pronounce, and when dealing with people, you don't want them struggling to say your name.


Published:
Just because a law doesn't explicitly mention a certain race does not mean that it wasn't written to oppress said race of people. This is how institutional racism operates in the United States, there doesn't have to be an overtly expressed intent of oppressing a minority group. It's just a fact that the way institutions are set up in this country results in disproportionately negative conditions for people of color. An example of this would be our education system, where inner city public schools that serve minority populations are drastically underfunded compared to those in white neighborhoods.
 
Colin Kaepernick is no longer in the NFL as a result of his activism, you seem to be discrediting his intentions for no apparent reason. Why would you assume he is motivated only by money? You failed to address my original point; Colin Kaepernick was not motivated by the idea that all police are racists.
 
It's not that hard to understand, laws can be racist without actually mentioning race, this is what Colin Kaepernick is fighting against, laws or practices that end up disproportionately negatively affecting people of color. There are many examples of this, including stop and frisk, and disparities in sentencing for crack vs coke, etc...
 
The fact that some people are born with names that prevent their career growth and hence social mobility is an injustice, whatever bias produced that reality should be addressed with policies like affirmative action.

Round 3
Published:
"Just because a law doesn't explicitly mention a certain race does not mean that it wasn't written to oppress said race of people. This is how institutional racism operates in the United States, there doesn't have to be an overtly expressed intent of oppressing a minority group. It's just a fact that the way institutions are set up in this country results in disproportionately negative conditions for people of color. An example of this would be our education system, where inner city public schools that serve minority populations are drastically underfunded compared to those in white neighborhoods."

Please give me an example of that. You can't just say "institutional racism". You have to tell me what institution/group of people is racist and if there is not reasonable doubt that it is racist, I'll fight it with you. I'm not a racist. I just genuinely don't think that this country's laws/justice system is racist.
What institutions are set up that result in bad conditions for black people? You have to be specific, you can't just say the justice system either, because that's too broad. That's like going into the doctor and saying, "I hurt". And expecting him to give you a detailed solution and diagnosis for your problem.

"First, increasing school spending has rarely led to better outcomes. Second, and more fundamentally, based on data from the U.S. Department of Education itself, the assumed funding disparities between racial and ethnic groups do not exist."
"The Education Trust, a non-profit advocacy group committed to closing the achievement gap, published a 2005 report on funding differences between the highest-minority and lowest-minority school districts in states and large cities.Leaving out the districts in the middle, however, can lead to misleading results."

"Colin Kaepernick is no longer in the NFL as a result of his activism, you seem to be discrediting his intentions for no apparent reason. Why would you assume he is motivated only by money? You failed to address my original point; Colin Kaepernick was not motivated by the idea that all police are racists."

Colin Kaepernick went 1-10 in his last year in the NFL and got taken off the starter position before advocating for anything like that. He got more money from Nike than he would have gotten from the 49ers.

"...Colin Kaepernick was rewarded with a "record" seven-year, $126 million contract in 2014."

"It's not that hard to understand, laws can be racist without actually mentioning race, this is what Colin Kaepernick is fighting against, laws or practices that end up disproportionately negatively affecting people of color. There are many examples of this, including stop and frisk, and disparities in sentencing for crack vs coke, etc..."

But still, no specifics, at all. Stop and frisk is not racist. Provide proof for the crack vs coke thing. Also,"variations in crime cause for variation in sentencing." Also, BAME offenders are less likely to plea guilty, which isn't taken into account.

"The fact that some people are born with names that prevent their career growth and hence social mobility is an injustice, whatever bias produced that reality should be addressed with policies like affirmative action."

Your name is as hard to control as your economic status. You should hire based on merit. I agree with you there. I don't think affirmative action is a justifiable way to solve that problem, but yes I agree that employers shouldn't refrain from hiring someone based on their name. We can agree on that.

Thanks for the civility, I hope this debate is productive for you as it is for me! :D


Published:
Again, the institution I am talking about, and the one Colin Kaepernick is addressing in his movement is the police. The practices of police officers racially profiling black and Latino people is an example of institutional racism. Stop and frisk data shows that only 3% of those stopped are actually convicted of a crime. What this means is that 97% of these people, who are mostly minorities are being stopped and harassed simply because of their race. Because of this discrepancy, black and Latino people are incarcerated at higher rates than white people even though the crimes are committed at the same rate, this results in a disproportionate number of prisoners being black.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/14/stop-and-frisk-new-york-conviction-rate
 
Despite being nearly identical to cocaine, crack is treated as a considerably worse drug when it comes to sentencing for possession. There is currently an 18:1 sentencing disparity, which means crack users (who are mostly black) are being unfairly targeted with these laws.
 
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/08/03/data-show-racial-disparity-in-crack-sentencing
 
So you acknowledge that a problem exists with names and hiring but you don't think we should do anything to address the problem.

Round 4
Published:

"Again, the institution I am talking about, and the one Colin Kaepernick is addressing in his movement is the police. The practices of police officers racially profiling black and Latino people is an example of institutional racism. Stop and frisk data shows that only 3% of those stopped are actually convicted of a crime. What this means is that 97% of these people, who are mostly minorities are being stopped and harassed simply because of their race. Because of this discrepancy, black and Latino people are incarcerated at higher rates than white people even though the crimes are committed at the same rate, this results in a disproportionate number of prisoners being black."

So you can provide percentages for conviction rates, but not what percentage of these frisks are actually minorities? You claim that a majority are minorities but you provide no evidence or statistics to back you up. The conviction rate alone doesn't prove your point.

"Despite being nearly identical to cocaine, crack is treated as a considerably worse drug when it comes to sentencing for possession. There is currently an 18:1 sentencing disparity, which means crack users (who are mostly black) are being unfairly targeted with these laws."

The Fair Sentencing Act removed the 5-year minimum sentence just for general possession of crack. But a big reason for this is because of the trends of violence that came with crack use, especially in urban areas. That came from your own source.

"The disparity in cocaine penalties grew out of the skyrocketing use of crack in the 1980s and the trends in violence that accompanied it, especially in urban areas. Indeed, there appears to be more violence associated with crack offenses. U.S. Sentencing Commission statistics show that 29 percent of all crack cases from October 1, 2008, through September 30,2009, involved a weapon, compared to 16 percent for powder cocaine."

"So you acknowledge that a problem exists with names and hiring but you don't think we should do anything to address the problem."
No, I'm saying that that isn't a race thing. Not relevant.

Again, thanks for your civility. Back to you!


Published:
It's just a fact that African Americans are more likely to be killed by the police than whites, I don't see why Colin Kaepernick is wrong for drawing attention to this. Why is it that white people are not being killed by the police at such high numbers? Do you think it would be better if everyone ignored the inequalities in this country? How else could these disparities be explained other than a bias on the part of the police?

Round 5
Published:

"It's just a fact that African Americans are more likely to be killed by the police than whites, I don't see why Colin Kaepernick is wrong for drawing attention to this. Why is it that white people are not being killed by the police at such high numbers? Do you think it would be better if everyone ignored the inequalities in this country? How else could these disparities be explained other than a bias on the part of the police?"

According to the Washington Post, mind you this is the Washington Post, not a right winged source. Grand total of people shot and killed by the police this year, 798. Grand total of black people shot and killed by the police this year, 158. Grand total of white people shot and killed by the police this year, 318. It is not statistical fact that more blacks are shot and killed by the police. In fact, whites have around double the deaths by police this year.

Thank you for your participation in this debate and your civility, vote con!


Published:
It is still true that African Americans are many times more likely to be murdered by police than white Americans. Just looking at the raw numbers does not provide the most accurate picture of the situation because of the differences in population between blacks and whites. This fact is significant and is reason enough to justify Colin Kaepernick's NFL protest.

Added:
--> @Alec
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments, 2 points to Pro for sources
>Reason for Decision: Pro looked to be giving up near the end of the debate. His arguments were shorter and he did not cite at the end. He failed to counter most of the votes made by Con. Pro used a .edu source whereas Con did not. I hope this vote does not get deleted by bsh1 or anyone else because I'm trying not to make it a troll vote.
>Reason for Mod Action: I feel for the voter, because I understand how frustrating it is to have one's votes removed, and I don't feel that they are not trying to troll. That said, the vote remains insufficient. The voter fails to "survey specific arguments and counterarguments from both sides which impacted their voting decision" and fails to weigh the arguments in the debate. To awards sources points, the voter must "explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source." The voter fails to do this.
************************************************************************
#16
Added:
In fact, a few of those crimes, you don't even have to say per capita.
Instigator
#15
Added:
--> @Cowscreen
The reason more black people per capita are dying at the hands of the police is because black people commit more crime per capita than white people. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-21
Instigator
#14
Added:
The USA protects freedom worldwide with our strong military. If it wasn't for the USA, 180 million South Koreans and Japanese would be living under communist rule.
#13
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
Not everyone has a good reason to be proud of America, it's important to view this countries history from other perspectives, not just from the winners of war.
Contender
#12
Added:
--> @Cowscreen
no, it is also a symbol for pride in America, but mostly veterans because the song is written about the war and how we got our freedom
and people are now disrespecting that like nothing, and u know it
#11
Added:
--> @Cowscreen
no, it is also a symbol for pride in America, but mostly veterans because the song is written about the war and how we got our freedom
and people are now disrespecting that like nothing, and u know it
#10
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
Is the American flag only a symbol for dead veterans? I want to know what the symbol is for the dead slaves who laid the bricks of the Capitol Building under the whip.
Contender
#9
Added:
--> @Cowscreen
who cares? they prolly didnt even know kneeling was gonna be a thing
ur supposed to stand cuz its respectful
its against nfl policy but y does that matter it is still super disrespectful
#8
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
Not according to the US Flag Code, kneeling isn't even mentioned.
Contender
#7
Added:
--> @Cowscreen
since forever lol
you are not showing respect for the national anthem, and the men and women who died and fought for your freedom
military people are very offended by it
#6
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
Since when is kneeling a sign of disrespect?
Contender
#5
Added:
--> @Cowscreen
im just saying he is trash anyway
as freedom of speech/peaceful protest it is protected, but personally it is very disrespectful to the flag, and he honestly probably doesn't even know the hard facts of what he is protesting, whether it be pro or con.
#4
Added:
--> @Our_Boat_is_Right
Does that make his movement unjustified? Thats a deflection from the issue.
Contender
#3
Added:
--> @Cowscreen
kapernick is trash anyway he would lose any game in a heartbeat
#2
#3
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Cons first part of his argument is that CKM is arguing all police are racist.
Pro destroyed this argument with his rebuttal: 1.) unconscious bias more than racism plays a factor, 2.) CKM wasn’t accusing all police of being racist, 3.) its more the criminal justice system as a wile. Both are important but pro really explains what the problem is well explained.
Cons third point, was equally well destroyed. Claiming that racial equality has been achieved was 100% refuted by pro citing examples of systematic and ongoing inequality.
Cons second argument was an amalgamation of the first and third.
As a result, pro clearly takes out all 3 points raised by con.
Con claims multiple times, that there are no laws that enshrine discrimination or mention race. Pro demolishes this too: by explaining that laws don’t have to do that to be discriminatory. He cited examples of cocaine laws, and pointed out his previous examples where it doesn’t even have to be a law. Pros reasoned rebuttal makes cons position seem like deliberately moving the goalposts. Con even objected that there were no specifics - in answer to the specifics that pro gave.
Con appeared to discredit CK motivations raising the money made and CKs specific performance, con doesn’t seem to make any actual point or makes any specific rebuttable claim here for me to assess here, and simply appears to be throwing it out to discredit CK - as pro points out.
In this respect, the primary arguments made on each side all went in pros favor.
Even in the final arguments raised, pro stated “blacks are more likely to be killed by the police than white”, con misrepresented this as pro stating that the absolute numbers shot are higher. Pro clearly corrects this misinterpretation.
Sources: clearly go to pro. Cons Washington post source in his final argument supports pro, con uses the heritage foundation (a highly biased source), half as many sources as pro, and almost all related to the largely irrelevant argument con made concerning CKM motivations.
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro decided to barely respond to Con args near the end, causing me to outweigh any of the Pro advantages and contentions left unresponded
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
AIRhino made the more convincing arguments and provided more reliable sources, while gzitman failed to counter most of the points made by AlRhino.