The Instigator
binkshimself
Con (against)
The Contender
Challenge Expired
Open Debate

The disparity in police shootings between blacks and whites necessarily implies racism among police

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  
Debate Challenge Expired
Nobody accepted the challenge for this debate. If you are binkshimself, login to see your options.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Challenge Declined
Viewed: 192 times Debate No: 97350
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

binkshimself

Con

The first round is for accepting the debate and clarifying any rules before we proceed. If you have any input, please feel free to include it.

Rounds 2 and 3 can be used to present new arguments and counter arguments, but I would like to save the last round for conclusions consisting of a summary of your key points, and perhaps addressing any of the new points presented in round 3 by the opposition.

If you make a statistical claim, or utilize some piece of data, please share said data and source.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Overnight 1 week ago
Overnight
Alright, c'mon. If @binshimslef and @death23 just gonna post page-long arguments in the comments, challenge each other to a debate.
Posted by binkshimself 1 week ago
binkshimself
Maybe I'm a coward? Wow. Maybe you should relax for second. I'm happy to debate the topic with a more appropriate resolution if you would like. Maybe I didn't get the wording down perfect? But now I'm a coward?

You said "No reasonable person believes that a mere disparity indicates with certainty that the impact of a specific factor is significant." As I stated in my follow up comment, your original contention with the debate topic STILL implies that racism IS a factor. You seem to be all hot and bothered as to the significance of that impact on the disparate outcome, which would still make the topic of the debate 100% accurate. If you'll kindly reread the resolution, you'll see that it says "The disparity in police shootings between blacks and whites necessarily implies racism among police", not "The disparity in police shootings between blacks and whites necessarily implies that racism among police is the number one, or only contributing factor."

Yes, I understand what "necessarily implies" means. However, your original comment didn't address this point. Again, your comment was centered around whether the disparity indicates "that the impact of a specific factor is significant", not whether said factor is exists at all, which is what the debate is about. Perhaps this is where you're getting yourself confused.

All I did here was kindly address your concern, but apparently you cannot do the same. To be honest, I can understand your issues with the topic, and maybe if you knew how to engage in a constructive conversation we could work on writing a better resolution. But why do that when you can completely misunderstand the debate topic, write a dumb criticism, and then call the other person a coward when they address you politely?
Posted by Death23 1 week ago
Death23
You wrote "necessarily implies", and that's the problem. "Necessarily implies" means something like "indicates with certainty". A mere disparity does not indicate with certainty that a specific factor exists or is significant. That assertion isn't anything new or interesting, and hardly anybody would disagree with it. You have set up this debate so that there's hardly a debate at all. Perhaps you're too much of a coward to debate a resolution that is reasonably subject to dispute.
Posted by binkshimself 1 week ago
binkshimself
Correct. I am disagreeing with this, and the other person would be agreeing with it (if someone decides to accept the debate).
Posted by Lavendera 1 week ago
Lavendera
Just to clarify, are you disagreeing with the claim? (I am new to this site)
Posted by binkshimself 1 week ago
binkshimself
I'd also point out that "obvious to any reasonable person" is a tall order in today's day and age, especially surrounding this topic. Much of the mainstream histeria over this subject is severely lacking in reason. The assertion implied by the resolution is a fairly common argument, which is why I chose it.
Posted by binkshimself 1 week ago
binkshimself
Well... If we're debating the "impact of specific factors", including racism among police, then this implies that this disparity necessitates SOME amount of racism by police. So the debate topic is still satisfactory, but the opposition is free to enter caveats to the argument if they wish.
Posted by Death23 1 week ago
Death23
It's obvious to any reasonable person familiar with the topic that there are multiple factors contributing to the disparity. No reasonable person believes that a mere disparity indicates with certainty that the impact of a specific factor is significant. This debate would be better if the resolution was an assertion as to the impact of specific factors, particularly racism among police. That's where the disagreement among reasonable people is on this issue.
This debate has 10 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.