The Instigator
bigdave
Pro (for)
The Contender
Challenge Expired
Open Debate

The incidence of people being killed by police is lower than is the perceived magnitude of such .

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 bigdave, login to see your options.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2017 Category: News
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Challenge Declined
Viewed: 193 times Debate No: 104947
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

bigdave

Pro

The incidence of people being killed by police is lower than is the perceived magnitude of such events, The incidence will be determined by official reports ( police, FBI, news reports). The perceived magnitude will be established by polls ( Gallup etc,)
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
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by bigdave 1 month ago
bigdave
Why pick police killings? Because the common perception of the other incidents you cited ( car deaths and criminal homicides) are more accepted.

That is the point. We should not accept fear that is "out of whack" with reality. I want to show that the fear of police is delusional.
Posted by Coveny 1 month ago
Coveny
Around a thousand people get killed by police every year, around 10 thousand are intentionally killed with firearms, and around 30 thousand are killed by cars. Tell me between those 3 which do you see the most on TV? Which is "feared" the most? My point is, why would you pick police killings out of the pile?

Secondly it's completely normal for humans to fear things on an emotional level much more than on a rational level. (well except maybe insurance with their Mortality Tables...) As humans we have tons of opinions that are completely irrational. Our priorities are all screwed up.
Posted by bigdave 1 month ago
bigdave
That is the point. We should not accept fear that is "out of whack" with reality. I want to show that the fear of police is delusional.
Posted by Coveny 1 month ago
Coveny
Recency bias and the human tendency create a much larger fear of something than they should. (for instance death by sharks when 10 people a year worldwide = big fear, liver disease kills 100s of thousand a year in the US alone = no big deal) This is the reality of being human, we fear things more than we should, and inversely don't fear the things we should fear.

How do you gauge that fact to a perceived magnitude? Given that we don't prioritize threats effectively as a human? I mean over 6 billion people and 10 get killed a year sounds like the fear is perceived magnitude of the actual danger in public perception to me, but where is the line if we accept fears that out of whack as "normal"? If you allow comparison between whites and blacks in America then public perception is underwhelming, and I can debate that because white people set the bar for what should be considered normal.
Posted by bigdave 1 month ago
bigdave
My intention is to prove that the "public perception" regarding the danger presented by the police killing citizens is far out of line with reality. Hard numbers will be difficult to provide, but that is where the dialectic is useful.
Posted by Coveny 1 month ago
Coveny
My issue is the bar of "perceived magnitude". How do you define that into hard numbers? Are you looking for an equal ratio where 5% of the populations is being killed, and 5% of the population believes there is a problem? My assumption is there is some type of ratio or number you are looking for here because if say 20% of the population was being killed and only 20% of the population cared that would be very under what the magnitude of the problem is be in my opinion. Also are you just looking at raw numbers or for magnitude would I be allowed to compare per 100,000 on race?
Posted by bigdave 1 month ago
bigdave
Coveny.... how could it be made more clear? Perhaps if you were to put forth your perception as to the incidence, we could begin. Comment back and I will attempt to edit the debate parameters to suit you better.
Posted by Coveny 1 month ago
Coveny
I would accept this if it wasn't so vague...
This debate has 6 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.