Instigator / Pro
6
1890
rating
98
debates
93.37%
won
Topic
#3576

THBT the majority of current policing racial disparities in the United States are a result of factors or variables outside of racism.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
0
1

After 1 vote and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Novice_II
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1487
rating
31
debates
35.48%
won
Description

Resolution: THBT the majority of current policing racial disparities in the United States are a result of factors or variables outside of racism.

A racial disparity is a disparity between two racial groups. The majority will be established as over 50% for this debate. Policing racial disparities are racial disparities that pertain only to the conduct of the police force in interaction with society and the community at large only.

The police are the civil force of a national or local government, responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order. No other system will be debated in this engagement. Attempting to do so will result in a conduct violation. As a default, sources may not be posed in the comments and doing so will result in an automatic loss.

Factors or variables outside of racism are factors that are not racism. Racism will be defined as prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
Conclusively, these definitions set the framework of our debate.

Additional Rules:
a. The burden of proof is shared. Thus in this debate, Con must argue that the majority of current policing racial disparities in the United States are a result of racism.

Well, i never claimed the independent police officers were racist. Just that their results were. I'm unsure where you get the information from that "if you ask 5 different sociologists you will get 5 conflicting answers."

-->
@Ehyeh

I think current dictionaries still have the correct definition usually, but redefining racism to include something like "people who benefit from systematic racism are automatically racist" and other such nonsense is dumb and actually waters down the term to the point of meaninglessness.

You can ask 5 different sociologists what they mean by terms like "systematic racism" and you will get 5 conflicting definitions.

The correct definition of systematic racism of course is actual systems that are created to intentionally harm certain groups or give certain racial groups preference.

But some stupid sociologist might define systematic racism as the results of disproportionate levels of criminality. Something that would only be systematic racism if there were extra laws on the books that were directed at overtly criminalizing being black.

Or they'll describe generational poverty as systematic racism, but the effects of generational poverty are the same on whites and blacks

I even heard sociologists try to claim banks doing credit checks is a form of systematic racism.

So of course when you define systematic racism like that, you are being dishonest. The American government, police and judges aren't all racists who are out to get non whites. It's silly. In order to prove actual systematic racism as properly defined you would need to show laws directed at blacks or racial discrepancies in policing that are a result of enforcing more laws or enforcing laws in an unequal manner.

And no, disproportionate sentencing as a result of blacks having more priors does not count, nor do more drug arrests because blacks more often do drugs in public instead of the privacy of their house.

You just can't prove any actual systematic racism. Sociologists know this, which is why they attempt to redefine the word. They can't be like "white man bad", if they used proper definitions.

-->
@Wylted

I feel like that is an appeal to vagueness. At what point in time are dictionaries most reliable? If so, why are they more reliable then and not now? Generally speaking, my definition should be the more fitting one, due to the continuous corrections made to dictionaries over time. Despite my definition existing, interpersonal racism still exists as its own category (which actually creates systemic racism). Although your problem isn't actually with the dictionary being outdated, you just think it's a retarded worldview, so your problem is not actually with the dictionary but with the philosophy itself.

-->
@Ehyeh

You guys were talking about 2 different things because you seemed to be using the wrong definition of racism. If your definition is in zero dictionary's from 10 years ago, than you are just making up definitions to defend the retarded worldview you have in your head

-->
@TWS1405

it doesnt suprise me either. I barely lost the debate, a debate never actually happened. We were talking about two different topics.

-->
@Ehyeh

You losing this debate does not surprise me.

-->
@Ehyeh

You have a plethora of links cited throughout your rebuttals.
Exactly which one(s) am I to look at, and why (as it relates to what I have put forth that you disagree with)?
I am not going on a fishing expedition to figure out which link and why. That's your burden, not mine.

-->
@TWS1405

Just open up my links and you will see why i disagree with you...

-->
@Ehyeh

Nope. You accused me of using common sense vs what I said was common knowledge. It is to you to refute my argument given within these comments.

-->
@TWS1405

The data disagrees with you until you show me it doesn't. I've already given all of my links in my round 1 debate argument.

-->
@Ehyeh

Common knowledge. Not common sense. Not the same thing. Try again.

-->
@TWS1405

Its not common sense. Many academic studies disagree with your common sense. Its common sense to most people women are worse drivers, yet if we google the statistics men are more likely to drive dangerously and to be in crashes. What is "common sense" can be skewed by your environment and own biases, the data disagrees with you until you can show me it doesnt. I have about 20 hyperlinks in my first round argument, I'm unsure why you think its uncontested truth.

-->
@Ehyeh

>>I said ok because it seems like you have said a bunch of stuff i agree with (such as black people having more run down homes) the issue is you linked no studies for why they have rundown homes more often, whilst i did in my debate. There's just nothing for me to comment on, as there's nothing to critique, its an emotional argument, you're saying stuff without evidence. You can say its untrue, but can you prove it? your own personal opinion doesn't hold light compared to the empirical studies i linked backing my view with the same resolution.<<

(deep breath)

To me the things I speak of is pure common and educated knowledge. I have studied black American history for more than two decades. This is the comment section, not the debate section. I am not going to invest my time and energy to give a full-on response in the comment section when all I can expect, based on your past retorts, is a mere "ok."

Everything I said in my comment has been common knowledge for more than a decade. I need not cite anything to back it up.

Everything I said in my comment is objective based easily verifiable facts. If you disagree with them, prove me wrong. Otherwise, your continued wave of the dismissal "talk to the" hand maneuver is not proof of your argument, rebuttal, or loosely postured position here.

-->
@TWS1405

I said ok because it seems like you have said a bunch of stuff i agree with (such as black people having more run down homes) the issue is you linked no studies for why they have rundown homes more often, whilst i did in my debate. There's just nothing for me to comment on, as there's nothing to critique, its an emotional argument, you're saying stuff without evidence. You can say its untrue, but can you prove it? your own personal opinion doesn't hold light compared to the empirical studies i linked backing my view with the same resolution.

-->
@Ehyeh

>>Ok.<<

What an exceptionally insightful and well-educated response; so enlightening where those things discussed are concerned.
//sarcasm//

-->
@TWS1405

Ok.

-->
@Ehyeh

TWS1405 - " It is little to no academic integrity."

>>Yeah, ok. The vast majority of sociological studies show that systemic racism does affect the average outcomes of people based on race. Sowell is an economist. Systemic racism is not even his field of study. There are many experts who are in this field of sociological study who have conducted the studies and disagree with his assessment of their studies.<<

Sowell has studied far more than mere economics. And did you forget the obvious, he is black born into poverty in NC and grew up in Harlem FFS. He has augmented his scholarly knowledge beyond mere economics. He [is] a credible source for issues and matters affecting and afflicting the black community from historical to present day roots.

Also on systemic racism, that's a myth. There is no such thing. It is pure propaganda. Same for so-called white privilege (doesn't exist, a phrase coined to replace the bankrupt 'race card') and institutional racism. It's all BS designed to deflect from the true source of the problem: a lack of personal responsibility and accountability for the choices and actions made by many within the black community.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/thomas-sowell-systemic-racism-has-no-meaning

-->
@Ehyeh

>>It's pretty common knowledge that predominantly black schools are funded less and their properties are worth less (because they're black).<<

That's uneducated common knowledge, a false narrative sold to anyone so who willingly drinks that false narrative Kool-Aid.

What is actual true common knowledge is that schools get a 44-50% of their funding from property taxes, taxes that are entirely dependent on market value of the homes within that school's district. Those values have two factors that determine their value, what the comparative sales are in the area of the homes being valued, and the condition of the home. If the home is in disrepair, it cannot be sold at the prevailing market value. When that home and surrounding homes are in disrepair, the value of those properties go down. When those values go down, the amount of property taxes assessed go down. Which means less money doled out to schools within the district. So, when blacks ignore broken windows (theory) and allows their neighborhoods to decay, they have no one but themselves to blame for not only that poor condition of the "hood," but also their schools.

So, when you say low property values and underfunded schools is because they are black is factually inaccurate. It has nothing to do with their skin color and everything to do with their complacency and apathy.

>>When we study "policing racial disparities" factors which lead to more run ins with the police outside of simply bias on the police is always paramount and factored in, in sociology we don't leave racial policing disparities to only the police being racist, hence our missunderstanding.<<

That was a bunch of garbled nonsense. Police go where the crime is, not where it isn't. There is no bias. You're conflating offender profiling with bias, or racial profiling. That's not how it works anymore and hasn't for quite some time. Yeah yeah, there will be a few bad apples that still act out of bias, but overall, there is no malicious bias or racial profiling. The best law enforcement tool in their investigative arsenal is offender profiling.

>>Police disparities do exist on average, and the reason for it is because of past racist laws. <<

Cite no less than 5 actual racist laws that have impact on current "police disparities" that exist, "on average" today.

>>This has far more to do than with just the police, but to do with economics created through unfair laws. <<

And pray tell what unfair laws would those be that are economic based?

-->
@3RU7AL

Truly.

what a mess

-->
@Novice_II

"Policing racial disparities are racial disparities that pertain only to the conduct of the police force in interaction with society and the community at large only."

Who told you policing racial disparities are disparities that pertain only to the conduct of the police? that's why i accepted the debate, who in their right mind would think this was the condition of the debate? the condition itself is simply wrong on what policing racial disparities mean....you must of looked up some super bad definition. Its frustrating people are likely to vote against me in this debate when your premise condition itself is wrong, definitional.

-->
@Novice_II

It's pretty common knowledge that predominantly black schools are funded less and their properties are worth less (because they're black). When we study "policing racial disparities" factors which lead to more run ins with the police outside of simply bias on the police is always paramount and factored in, in sociology we don't leave racial policing disparities to only the police being racist, hence our missunderstanding. Only extremely far left people believe the police itself is the main contributor to racist policing disparities. No sincere researcher nor someone who believes in systemic racism believes what you want to debate except blue-haired women who spend too much time reading propaganda on twitter. Police disparities do exist on average, and the reason for it is because of past racist laws. This has far more to do than with just the police, but to do with economics created through unfair laws. The title is extremely misleading, as people who have done research are aware most racial disparities come about due to racist laws not involving the police but leading black communities to inevitably be in more run-ins with the police because of said laws (hence my lead argument). The police are still slightly biased interpersonally against black people, but it's definitely not enough to account for more than 50%.

It seems like a sincere misunderstanding. So I understand. Outside of that, I never realised I only had a 24-argumentation time limit until I accepted the debate. Which would be fine if it were the weekend, but I work a job. And I actually don't disagree with you. I thought we were going to argue about overall racial disparities (based on the title, and the description just wasn't descriptive enough or ruled out other factors, as even in sociology we don't leave racial policing disparities to ONLY the police being racist).

Policing racial disparities are not created only due to the police, i never realised this was the condition but thought it was simply what you believed.

-->
@Ehyeh

I don't know if he did, be he isn't debating right? But the title is "THBT the majority of current policing racial disparities in the United States are a result of factors or variables outside of racism." Don't you think its rather obvious that this is referring to disparities that relate to policing: "the maintenance of law and order by a police force."

-->
@Novice_II

Even TWS didn't notice this ridiculousness. Policing racial disparities are not created only due to the police, pretty much ever. Why didn't you make the debate title, "the majority of police racial disparities are due to factors outside of just police racism?" at least then its congruent with your description.

-->
@Novice_II

Your title is extremely misleading. Your title is in direct contradiction to what you really want to argue about in the description. The average disparities in crime between black and white people are the result of systemically racist laws in the past. Policing and racial disparities within the police are due to the lingering effects of said laws. If you truly only wanted to talk about why police disparities exist and not talk about other factors outside of the police, it seems like you were just looking for a gotcha debate.

-->
@TWS1405

" It is little to no academic integrity."

Yeah, ok. The vast majority of sociological studies show that systemic racism does affect the average outcomes of people based on race. Sowell is an economist. Systemic racism is not even his field of study. There are many experts who are in this field of sociological study who have conducted the studies and disagree with his assessment of their studies.

-->
@TWS1405

"Black rednecks" are not legitimate. If he chooses to bring it up, I'll explain why.

-->
@Ehyeh

Your respect isn't a requisite where citing Sowell is concerned.
And it is black rednecks, and as far as I can surmise it is a valid perspective rooted in history. https://youtu.be/pls-Z0KOOgw
Modern day academics are liberal hacks pushing an agenda. It is little to no academic integrity.

-->
@Novice_II

Thomas Sowell? An interesting choice. I don't respect Thomas Sowell as a thinker. I'm more than ready for any "critiques" of what I presented he may have. He has some extremely bizarre views, such as his "red neck blacks" theory. Nothing he said back in the 1980's is going to stack up to the multitude of modern day academic studies which disagree with him and show how wrong he is. He's a typical conservative "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" kind of guy, and constantly appeals to the false correlation fallacy.

-->
@Novice_II

Shelby Steele?
Larry Elder?
Candace Owens?
John McWhorter?
I can list more....

"Why no citations to Thomas Sowell?"
The way I think this debate will go, I may have some citations for him in my round 2 rebuttal.

"Why no citations to Thomas Sowell?"
The way I think this debate will go, I may have some citations for him in my round 2 rebuttal.

-->
@TWS1405

"This house believes that"

What does THBT mean?

-->
@Novice_II

Why no citations to Thomas Sowell? He is by far the foremost authority on black culture, the history of slavery in America and abroad, and why a subset of black Americans fail compared to other blacks coming to America from other nations. That would be very strong and compelling evidence right there.

-->
@Ehyeh

That's fine

-->
@Novice_II

I'm not going to respond to anything you've said in your first round argument. I have my own statistics to share, which will take up my character limit. I'll only respond to what you presented in round two.

You pulled through! I'm happy, i was begging to think you weren't going to publish your argument in time.

“THBT the majority of current policing racial disparities in the United States are a result of factors or variables outside of racism.”

Lemme guess, 100% of it is caused by the big bang, an event unrelated to human races?

We'll see what happens, Christian.

Even if police were super racist, there's enough other factors to make this an easy win for Pro

-->
@Ehyeh

I don't believe you understand what I have said here. What do you think I was referring to?

You're going to get swept in this debate simply for that comment you made. I can assure you that much.

unchallenged? I'll try not to let you down then sir.

-->
@Ehyeh

I am not against you accepting, I was hoping that one of the more unchallenged folks would however.

-->
@Novice_II

I think you can make a distinction between interpersonal racism and systemic racism. I'd probably accept this debate.

I posit that the following individuals who most likely disagree with me (in no particular order) should accept this debate.
1. Ramshutu
2. Barney
3. Oromagi
4. Theweakeredge