The Instigator
trippycornflakes
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
blamonkey
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points

Is Black Lives Matter right about systemic racism in our police force?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
blamonkey
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 368 times Debate No: 92376
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

trippycornflakes

Con

There's absolutely no evidence that the US police force is out to get blacks. However, there is evidence that over 90% of black murders are in the hands of other blacks and white on black murders are only a small percentage. Most of the time, police brutality is caused by an instigation, such as a police officer asking someone to do something, but they instead fight the police officer, resulting in a justified use of force. Our police officers protect our nation and YOU. You'd probably be dead without them. So be grateful for their existence, don't fight those who put their lives on the line to protect you.
blamonkey

Pro


OBV


We are debating whether systemic racism exists within the police force, all opinions about the Black Lives Matter movement are not relevant.


Also, the BOP falls on me to prove that there is systemic racism within the police, while my opponent has to prove that it is untrue.


Contention 1: Drug crime


There is a disproportionate amount of black people arrested for drug crimes as opposed to white people. This can be shown from Human Rights Watch when it states that despite the fact that black people only represent about 14% of marijuana users, they represent over 30% of people arrested for marijuana crimes (1). This shows a disproportional amount of black people in jail. However, allow me to go further. According to the Huffington Post in 2014, we can see that despite the fact that white people use drugs more often, black people are still arrested for drug possession at a rate of three times as often as whites (2). This proves the fact that systemic racism exists in the status quo due to the fact that despite a divide between the amount of people who use drugs, blacks are still targeted more.


Contention 2: Shooter bias


In the status quo, police officers feel more threatened when encountering someone who is black. This is shown from a recent study done by the Major Cities Chiefs Police Association where it is shown through 990 police shootings in 2015 that police officers feel more threatened when encountering a black citizen as opposed to a white citizen (3). The study cited by the Philadelphia Tribune goes on to say that those who were fatally show who were black were less likely to have attacked a police officer (3). Mother Jones confirms this by showing the following graphic (4).



This shows the fact that when police officers were given the option, police members shot the person who was black.



  1. 1. (http://tinyurl.com...)

  2. 2. (http://tinyurl.com...)

  3. 3. (http://tinyurl.com...)

  4. 4. (http://tinyurl.com...)



Debate Round No. 1
trippycornflakes

Con

trippycornflakes forfeited this round.
blamonkey

Pro


I will now refute the argument made by my opponent.


Rebuttal 1: Stats


My opponent has, in his original post claimed that 90% of murders of black people were committed by black people. However, there is no link to the resolution of whether or not systemic racism exists, thus one must vote in the affirmation.


Rebuttal 2: Police brutality


My opponent has claimed that in most cases, police brutality is warranted due to the fact that the person involved started it. This is a bare assertion with no statistic backing it up. Regardless, this does not explain why a quarter of the people killed in police brutality cases were considered mentally ill (1), or why the same report by the Washington Post, (and cited from MIC) found that blacks were killed at a rate of three times as much as whites. Thus, we affirm because off the obvious racial bias in police.


Rebuttal 3: No evidence


My opponent is lacking in evidence. This is itself would not be bad, but there is a statistic that I would like to see, specifically the one about black on black murder.


1.( http://tinyurl.com...)



Debate Round No. 2
trippycornflakes

Con

trippycornflakes forfeited this round.
blamonkey

Pro

My opponent has forfeited the debate. Vote for the afffirmation.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: breaxxbaxx// Mod action: NOT Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: It seems Con said everything they had to say in Round 1, and it wasn't much. Pro was armed (no pun intended) with solid arguments and statistics to back them up.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Votes on full forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter votes for the forfeiting side.
************************************************************************
Posted by Wylted 11 months ago
Wylted
You're welcome
Posted by blamonkey 11 months ago
blamonkey
Thanks for the vote!
Posted by Wylted 11 months ago
Wylted
The picturevof the black and white shooter, the black shooter is down in a firing position. It is what many people are trained to do to steady their aim and makebthemselves a smaller target. The cop should shoot in both situations, but the black guy was in a more threatening position
Posted by mall 11 months ago
mall
short answer: no
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by parkerwil 11 months ago
parkerwil
trippycornflakesblamonkeyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro due to forfeit from con. Pro had more convincing arguments due to Con forfeit. Pro was the only one to use any sources
Vote Placed by breaxxbaxx 11 months ago
breaxxbaxx
trippycornflakesblamonkeyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: It seems Con said everything they had to say in Round 1, and it wasn't much. Pro was armed (no pun intended) with solid arguments and statistics to back them up.
Vote Placed by Sam7411 11 months ago
Sam7411
trippycornflakesblamonkeyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro won conduct because his opponent forfeited all of the first round. Pro wins reliable sources since he was the only to cite the statistics he used. Pro also had the more convincing argument by effectively demonstrating bias of the police in relation to drug crimes and police brutality. Even though I might not agree personally with Pro, he clearly wins this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 11 months ago
Wylted
trippycornflakesblamonkeyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeited all rounds, pro also proved some systematic racism with shooter bias and drug crimes conduct is enough for argument and clnduct point but pro also did well enough to win without the forfeits