The Instigator
Pro (for)
Anonymous
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
c0n720l
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Police Brutality on Blacks is a myth

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
c0n720l
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,526 times Debate No: 120722
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (62)
Votes (1)

 

Pro

My Position is above.
c0n720l

Con

Regardless of my opinion on this topic (devil's advocate), I have decided to accept the challenge of this debate, And will strive to prove that police brutality against blacks is not a myth, But is quite real.

This stance can be proven by both mere common sense, And I will attempt to do so in the following section.

Common Sense.

Unfortunately, Debates that cover this statement I am set to disprove so often delve into the field of emotion. There is no need for emotions, However. Merely looking at the situation logically will find the answer to our question.

Firstly, Let us define police brutality. As defined on TLD (1), Police brutality is an unnecessary use of force when dealing with civilians. Which begs the question. Is police brutality to blacks a myth? Or is it brutally real.

I would argue that, Regardless of the reason, There is certainly more brutality against black people than against whites. The reason is not quite what you would expect, But it makes perfect, Logical sense as an explanation of this brutality. It would seem to be perfectly logical, That, Because of the excess hatred that some black people have toward police officers, Some officers (especially ones who had shorter tempers), Would be more prone to violence toward black people, If only because of the threat they feel from them.

Let us set an example. Let us say that you and two other people were being held captive. One of the two people being held captive with you had always been kind to you. But the other person who was held captive had never liked you, And had sometimes even taunted you and threatened you. Let us propose that your captor, For his own pleasure, Forces you to choose which person he will kill, And which one he will let go. Who would you choose?

Although it is a sad fact, It still remains a fact. And the fact is that humans are, In the end, Creatures of emotion. We all claim that logic, For the most part, Dictates our decisions. But it is, For the majority, A lie. Think about it this way. Humans never do something they don't want to do. Although they may come to regret it later, In the moment whatever they chose was what they really wanted, At least out of all the options they could think of. The same fact applies to dogs, And every other creature on this earth. A beaten dog will turn and attack the master.

Because of protests and the hatred toward cops published on main stream media, I would argue that, Regardless if the police realize it, They are being hurt mentally. And when a time to strike back comes, Some of them will choose it, Even if they have no true hatred of black people. . . Through the law of association, They will strike out, As a dog who has been mistreated by only men will have a hatred of men for the rest of his days.

(1) https://thelawdictionary. Org/article/what-is-police-brutality/

(Also, As a side note: I have no idea how to debate, So. . . )
Debate Round No. 1

Pro

First, Welcome to Debate. Org

Blacks make up 13% of the U. S population, HALF of all violent crime and 24% of police shootings. Do those numbers add up? NO. Oh Unarmed statistics. SAME RATE between blacks and whites. Micheal Brown was armed and robbed a convenience store. The cop only did his job which was LEGAL in Arkansas. Police Brutality is real, BUT NOT A RACE ISSUE NOR AGAINST BLACKS ONLY.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2

Pro

https://www. Washingtonpost. Com/graphics/2018/national/police-shootings-2018/? Utm_term=. 3361acbb6abd

Its a really good interactive website.

https://www. Bjs. Gov/content/pub/pdf/VIOCRM. PDF

Chart at the end that shows that blacks commit more violent crime.

But look at what this myth caused:BLM

BLM shouts things like "What do we want, Dead cops, When do we want it, NOW". When cops are protecting them. They have divided the nation. Ban white people from their meetings. Top member is on a FBI watchlist. They hijack other peaceful protests and they say that All Lives Matter is a racial slur.
c0n720l

Con

Seeing as the first link is interactive, I decided to input some data and see the results I received. According to (1), In 2018, 994 total people have been shot and killed by police. However, Of all of those, Only 47 people were unarmed. Out of those 47 people, 23 were white, With 18 being black, And 6 Hispanic. This does not appear to further your argument, Although admittedly I might have misread.

Another statistic that I found interesting was (2), Which appears to show that 22. 4% of total crime was committed by blacks, Whilst 42. 9% was committed by whites. Although this study does point to the fact that black people are 27 times more likely to attack white people than vice versa, It does not show your earlier claimed statistic that black people make up half of all violent crime.

Admittedly, I do not see the point you are trying to make with your last argument. Certainly, I do not believe that BLM protesters, When insulting police and giving them as much hate as they do, Are furthering their case. As I mentioned in my first argument, I would argue that much of the police brutality against blacks takes place because the police are naturally more prone to attack them than white people because of the bad experiences they have had in the past. . . While a minority of the cases are actually inherently racist acts for no other reason than to kill black people. This does not, However, Effect our discussion in any way. We are not debating the cause of police brutality, But whether or not it exists.

(1) https://www. Washingtonpost. Com/graphics/2018/national/police-shootings-2018/
(2) https://www. Amren. Com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/
Debate Round No. 3
c0n720l

Con

c0n720l forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
62 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kvng_8 3 years ago
Kvng_8
@TheCounterArgument

Understood!
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"I think quite a bit since poor today isn't like poor a couple decades ago because of how we constantly make money and everyone get richer. "
Yes but you do know when people get richer. It doesn't mean people above them don't also get richer. Meaning poor people might be able to be in the working class but they will still be at a disadvantage due to the socio-economic disadvantage.
Posted by TheCounterArgument 3 years ago
TheCounterArgument
@omar2345 I think quite a bit since poor today isn't like poor a couple decades ago because of how we constantly make money and everyone get richer.
Posted by TheCounterArgument 3 years ago
TheCounterArgument
I honestly was just asking a question of what they meant

http://www. Yourhormones. Info/endocrine-conditions/gender-identity-disorder/
It says found in animals but more research is needed for humans but since it is a main cause for mammals it could also be a main cause for it in humans.

I can see what you mean I honestly poorly phrased my statement.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"2. I actually believe perosn B might have a slightly higher chance. "
Problem here is that he spent half the time on becoming a software engineer. Will can't bring that time back to you and B is required to work to even have the funds to become a software engineer.

"Seeing that person B had past job experience and person A didn't"
A will have job experience but not the ones required to pay for the becoming the engineer instead for experience.

"Take Oprah Winfrey for example, She grew up without running water and electricity and now she has a net worth of over 3 billion dollars. "
How many people can do what Oprah Winfrey can?
Posted by TheCounterArgument 3 years ago
TheCounterArgument
2. I actually believe perosn B might have a slightly higher chance. He has more will than person A. Instead of having his parents pay for it, He has to work for it himself. Seeing that person B had past job experience and person A didn't, The employer might schooce person B. Take Oprah Winfrey for example, She grew up without running water and electricity and now she has a net worth of over 3 billion dollars.
Posted by Kvng_8 3 years ago
Kvng_8
@TheCounterArgument

Don't think you seen my response to you on the Transgender debate. Here it is. If you're unable to respond, Then nevermind.

That very first question you asked Pro says a lot and you aren't even aware how you debunked yourself + this topic. "look like that sex". A man can look like a woman, But he's not a woman whenever you get through, He just looks like one.

How has this been fully backed by science?

"It is all based on how much testosterone/estrogen you were born with"
This actually plays more so on sexuality, Rather than transgenderism. When a male is born and he happens to be gay and accepts that fact about himself, Then that doesn't mean he would want to transition into the opposite sex, He would still stay a man. Lesbian women, For example, Ellen Degeneres, She stayed a woman. She didn't transition into a man just because she liked women. The point I'm trying to paint is that is the result of how a man has more estrogen levels and a woman has more testosterone levels.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"1. Yes somewhat. "
I argue most of what we are is because of the environment we are in. There is little for agency. I very much doubt agency will be enough to take someone out of the poverty cycle. They require an external influence.

"2. If a rich person has a successful mindset, I believe he would be just as successful as a poor person with a successful mindset. If a rich person had a nihilist mindset he would be just as unsuccessful as a poor person with a nihilist mindset. "
I think you put too much emphasis on mindset, I think we both agree that the rich person is much better off and I will say so much so that the poor person I think will have to work twice as hard to get to the place the rich person is at.

Example:
A is a rich child. B is a poor child.
A started off with a family household of 300k.
B started off with a family household of 30k.

Both want to become a software engineer.
A can rely on parents to pay for items requires to be an engineer.
B will have to work in order to get the essentials to become one.

A focuses heavily on software engineering.
B has his time split on a job and his long term goal of software engineer.

Both now apply for the software engineer job.
Do you think both will be valued the same if both of them have the same mindset?
Posted by TheCounterArgument 3 years ago
TheCounterArgument
1. Yes somewhat.

2. If a rich person has a successful mindset, I believe he would be just as successful as a poor person with a successful mindset. If a rich person had a nihilist mindset he would be just as unsuccessful as a poor person with a nihilist mindset.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"1. I mean that being surrounded by failure eventually develops into thinking that it is impossible to not fail. "
So are we a product of our environment?

"2. That isn't what I really meant. I meant that if you think you can be successful you have a higher chance of becoming successful and if you think you won't become successful you have a higher chance of not becoming successful. I meant it like it is a state of mind. "
That has a role but do you think the rich child and the poor child with the same mindset have the same opportunities in life to reach their goals?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Anonymousc0n720lTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made the better points while also providing better sources to back up his/her claims. Pro also used anecdotes which Con did refrain from. Pro also bring in BLM as if they are the one's who provide facts. Instead of bringing in BLM. Pro should have provided better evidence for his/her side and explained it. Con barely mentioned BLM in the Con's Round which make sure the debate was more centred around police brutality not groups which Pro was doing when Pro's arguments weren't really that good.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.