The Instigator
ViceVersa9
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DavidMancke
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

There is more racism towards white people than black people.

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...
DavidMancke
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 457 times Debate No: 87128
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (4)

 

ViceVersa9

Pro

I was curious about if this was true and what I found is that whenever a black person stubs his toe there is an outcry. but when literally the same thing happens to a white person there is not ANY outcry.
DavidMancke

Con

It is honestly surprising that someone would coin and publish this resolution. Its that rare kind of, "hit you in the face with a frying pan" offensive.

Given the attitude so heavily implied by the affirmative position, I have to come out the gate with a kritik.

Kritik; the affirmative position advocates ignorance, ignores robustly established harms and entrenches racism.

The initial description of the resolution offered by the Aff was a complaint about disproportionate public outcry when a crime, ostensibly a violent one, is committed against a racial minority.

The reality is that justice has historically been disproportionally dispensed in America on a basis of race. African Americans are statistically more likely to be unfairly targeted by police and processed in the criminal justice system. They are more likely to receive a harsh sentence than white Americans. They are more likely to receive the death penalty when capital punishment is on the table. They are also more likely to be mistreated by law enforcement, and harmed by them. All of this is robustly established and the affirmative seems to be in the dark, or has a massive misunderstanding of what racism means.

White people are more likely to receive lighter sentences for the same crime and less likely to be targeted by police. Conservative white Americans are the agents that circulate fiction regarding "Black-on-black crime," and spread the disgusting myth. A glaring, but sadly not singular example of white Americans deliberately devaluing black Americans and attempting to deprive them of justice. That's just sick!

Moreover accepting the analysis prescribed by the affirmative further entrenches the racism described above. The Aff would have us believe that the situation is not what is described above and draw your attention away from racism in our justice system, and society in general. Regardless of what they think, what they are advocating is a point of view that puts an inherent premium on the lives and circumstances of white folks while diminishing the significance of harms against African Americans. The affirmative should loose the ballgame right here.

Observations:

OB 1: Institutional injustice of the gavel and badge:
The is basically a restatement of the support/examples brought up in the K. What's more is that these facts are robustly established. White Americans are not institutionally disproportionately harmed by the criminal justice system. Black Americans are.

OB 2: Public outcry:
If the affirmative had a better appreciation for the realities of racism in America, they would likely see the public outcry under a very different light; justifiable and about damn time.

Because of the history of racism in America the process of ridding our country of it is slow going a best. There was a century between the 13th amendment and the civil rights act. And while the status quo today is better than the Jim Crow era, the problem has by no measure been thoroughly remedied.

What's more is that technology has made it easier than ever to illuminate examples of racial injustice than ever before. Consider the case of the dash camera that caught Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke brutally murdering Laquan McDonald. The truly disturbing aspect of this case is wondering what is worse, the murder itself or the entrenched practice of the Chicago police dept to try and cover it up. It took department leaks to the press and ultimately a court order to release the video footage that made clear Van Dyke had massively overstepped his authority, and in fact had arguably commit a hate crime. This was standard operating procedure for Chicago police. One has to wonder how many Laquan McDonald's have never been brought to public light.

Are we then surprised at the outcry? I'm not, in fact I join them in shouting out disgust and injustice. After all, this is not a case of one private citizen killing another and trying to dodge justice. This is our justice institution killing a civilian and trying to cover it up for the sake of the Chicago PD. It's despicable, and given the statistical facts of a racist justice system and the cruel reality of some whites devaluing black Americans and trying to deprive them of justice, we CANNOT divorce our observation of police misconduct like Van Dyke's from institutional racism. It's not merely a problem with bad cops. Its an entrenched reality that police treat black Americans worse than white Americans.

In order to offer anything worth considering the Affirmative would have to show that white Americans suffer MORE harms than described above specifically because they are white.

Vote your conscience, vote for egalitarianism, vote Negative!!
Debate Round No. 1
ViceVersa9

Pro

ViceVersa9 forfeited this round.
DavidMancke

Con

The affirmative forfeiture and advocacy should have them dropped. Vote your conscience, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceVersa9

Pro

ViceVersa9 forfeited this round.
DavidMancke

Con

ViceVersa forfiet twice and advocated racism. Vote Negative!
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
I'll give you this though Ariesx, you have provided more clash/rejoinder than my actual opponent, and the comments you solicited help codify my first constructive.

Tanx ;-)
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
Hey there again. If you want to debate this with me post the topic and I'll take it up. You will probably loose though.

To answer the stuff you mentioned in your two most recent comments:

Regarding my defense of public outcry, you forgot to remember that it's in connection to a disproportionate distribution of justice by our legal system. Links are kind of important in debate, just so you know.

The technology bit was to highlight the standard operating procedures in the Chicago PD; to cover up the murder.

You are going to have to explain your "Nazi Germany" claim, because there is no link for that whatsoever. None.

Regarding my three examples and the possibility of cops doing nothing wrong: Irrelevant!

The question raised is about instances of injustice, and the corresponding frequency when comparing white American narratives to those of black Americans.

All that matters in this debate is the instances where agents of the court and the court itself renders injustice. Even if cops usually do a good job, and perhaps they do; goodie. It has no bearing on the debate. We are talking about institutional injustice.

Anything else...?
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
I understand, but that is the burden of the other side to establish. What I have to do is show that black Americans are marginalized more then white Americans. If they drum something up that is persuasive I'll respond to it.

Are you questioning the statistical claims I am making. If there is serious doubt about them I will provide corroborating supports in my next constructive.

Nevertheless, the speech is pretty much analysis anyways. I don't think there is a whole lot of doubt about much of it either. That being said, in the interest of not folding an obvious win I will provide supports in my next constructive, since it seems like many folks on here prefer cards to analysis.

I come from a NPDA background, and we didn't use cards or sources. We also responded to arguments the minute the other constructive ended. We got all this stuff done in under an hr. The point was to be well rounded and good at debate on a wide variety of topics.

I can also tell you a resolution like this would never, in any circle of hell, pass muster in a collegiate environment. Suggesting things like this would get you dropped in a round, and probably result in your couch being asked to talk to you about "behavior issues" by the school hosting the event.
Posted by Ariesx 1 year ago
Ariesx
What's more is that technology has made it easier than ever to illuminate examples of racial injustice than ever before?
You have only listed little more than 3 examples. There could be multiple examples of cops encountering black people, and doing nothing wrong.
Posted by Ariesx 1 year ago
Ariesx
America, they would likely see the public outcry under a very different light; justifiable and about damn time.
So, the public outcry represents the reality of the society. In Germany, there was a German outcry for German superiority in Nazi Germany. Was Germans being superior to every race in the world true? By your logic, it is. http://history.co.uk...
Posted by Ariesx 1 year ago
Ariesx
White Americans are not institutionally disproportionately harmed by the criminal justice system
Do you know every single case where a white person has been judged. There could be a probability that there is one where White Americans are institutionally disproportionately harmed by the criminal justice system.
Posted by Ariesx 1 year ago
Ariesx
You did not source anything you said in the case
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
I am I really going to have to wait three days to win on a forfeiture..?
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
Well you never revised any content and I am going to get started.
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
Let me help you clarify your thesis/resolution, as well as demonstrate why it is still categorically flawed and offensive.

Your topic should be stated more along the lines of: "Resolved: News media prioritizes reporting of crimes against racial minorities."

Your last sentence below should be written, "...crime is committed against..." --not, "...committed to a..."

Moreover your initial topic did not deal with news media at all. You offered the topic of public outcry, ostensibly addressing cases like the conviction of Michael Dunn in FL (shot a black teenager over loud music) or Jason Van Dyke in Chicago who gun down an unarmed black male, emptying a magazine and reloading before other officers retrained him.

The increased outcry is linked to a long history of unequally dispensed justice both at the hands of police and the court in America. Consider that Zimmerman was acquitted (terrible injustice that one) shortly before the trial of Michael Dunn, who was convicted. Both defendants claimed "stand your ground"

A case of a black woman that fired a warning shot at an abusive ex boyfriend in the same FL county at the time of these cases was seeking a new trial under stand your ground. The prosecution was perversely proclaiming they would seek a harsher sentence if the case was revisited.

These are examples in a microcosm, only inasmuch as they were all within a relatively short, recent time in FL. Unfortunately these cases also are stock evidence of a pattern of injustice served to ethnic minorities and African Americans in particular.

The injustice is so extreme and patterned that swaths of self-actualized legal professionals as well as outrage citizens have lent skills and voices to a variety of efforts to bring this to greater public awareness and have spurred movements like "Black lives matter"

Since you replied to the comment I will give you the opportunity to lay out some parameters.

I was going start with a big red kritik! Guess wha
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
ViceVersa9DavidManckeTied
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: Pros outcry argument is very weak without a cited example. Con rebutted the outcry argument and went further in depth with his own arguments pointing out social injustices in sentencing and police brutality. Plus two forfeited turns by Pro.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
ViceVersa9DavidManckeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff,
Vote Placed by klaralein 1 year ago
klaralein
ViceVersa9DavidManckeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro offered no arguments, forfeited, and never backed up his opinion.
Vote Placed by JustAnotherFloridaGuy 1 year ago
JustAnotherFloridaGuy
ViceVersa9DavidManckeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.