The majority of current policing racial disparities in the United States are a result of police racism.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 18 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 13,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Resolution: The majority of current policing racial disparities in the United States are a result of police racism.
A racial disparity is a statistical disparity between two racial groups that can be caused by a number of factors. The majority will be established as over 50% for this debate. Policing racial disparities are racial disparities that pertain only to the actions and conduct of the United States police force in interaction with society and the community at large. Police racism is racism committed by the United States police alone pertaining to their actions or conduct/interaction with society at large. With respect to "current," in this debate, police racism can be evaluated from the year 2000 and upwards. Pro argues that these disparities are majorly due to police racism, con argues against this.
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. Our debate places the burden of proof on pro. Conclusively, these definitions set the framework of our debate, and pro accepts all terms and definitions upon acceptance of this challenge.
Additional Rules:
b. Con waives round one, and pro waives round 4 subsequently.
- Waived.
- As per the rules, pro holds the burden of proof.
- Extend.
- The resolution defaults to con. Unfortunately, this one was a full forfeit.
https://www.ilfop.org/the-false-narrative-of-racism/
https://nypost.com/2021/04/15/media-pushes-false-narrative-of-racism/
https://www.police1.com/officer-safety/articles/how-broken-windows-policing-devolved-into-a-false-narrative-of-racism-ARrWqoKSx3KHdUFt/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/false-racist-cops-narrative-fuels-open-season-on-police
https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-495-the-racist-police-narrative-is-false
https://www.americaoutloud.com/systemic-racism-is-a-myth-a-false-narrative-a-big-fat-lie/
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/media-pushes-false-narrative-of-racism
https://nypost.com/2021/07/27/a-look-at-the-facts-shows-the-left-propagating-a-false-narrative/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/numbers-dont-lie-new-study-upends-racist-cop-narrative
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism
Oh we’ll see about that. You’d have to disprove a few thousand words and about a hundred different studies to disprove that…
There is no racism in policing. There is no institutional racism. There is NO systemic racism.
FACT: blacks just simply commit a hugely disproportionate amount of crime, and a sliver of the % of black males in this country commit over 50% of the entire nation's violent person crimes.
Cops go where the crime is, not where it is not.
Yeah, I will restart it.
will you restart this debate once the time expires? If no, can you copy paste the description to me? I want to start this as Pro when I get a chance.
Either way, can't wait to read this one since two really good debaters are doing it!
Maaaannn... sucks this one is taken already.
I actually wanted to argue this one as CON even though I don't actually disagree.
I just wanted to see how great my argument against racist policing would have held up. Or, rather, how a very intelligent research friend of mine's argument would have held up.
Unfortunately, I would never instigate a debate with longer than 3 days for arguments, so I will have to decline such a proposal.
if you make it a week I can accept now. I know I'll be busy on thurs/fri and my computer sucks without remote keyboard so I'd have to wait till next weekend.
I have done so.
please do, I'm excited to get back into debating after the long haitus.
Yes, I can.
can you make argument time 3 days or even a week? School's got me busy these days...
You mean Thomas Sowell, and yes, if the need arises.
are you going to use Thomas Howell?