The Instigator
Pro (for)
9 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Stop and Frisk is Not Racist

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 817 times Debate No: 118651
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




I support the use of the stop and frisk technique because it's decreased crime in New York City by a LOT! I hope to have a civil discussion with anyone who is willing to debate on this topic. Round 2 I will post by arguments based on evidence.


Stop and Frisk has not reduced crime and it is racist.
Debate Round No. 1


According to Heather MacDonald, Murders decreased by 80%! And major felonies by about 75% from early 1990's to 2013 due to stop and frisk. In 2011, Stop and frisk found 800 guns and over 5, 000 other weapons. Critics like to focus on the race of the suspects that are stop and frisked. It is true that more blacks & Hispanics are stop and frisked by the police than whites but it is widely misunderstood because vast majority of citizens.

According to Heather MacDonald's 2011 data, Blacks were 53% of stop suspects, Represent 23% of the city's population. Whites were 9% of stop suspects, Represent 35% of the city's population. Racism right? No here's why: Blacks were 66% of all violent crime suspects, 70% of all robberies, And around 80% of all shootings in New York City. Blacks & hispanics combined accounted for 98% of all shootings in the city (2011). Whites were only 5% of all violent crimes, Over 1% of all shootings and less than 5% of all robberies the same year. You see similar stats in 2012, Blacks accounted for 78% of shooting perpetrators, 74% of all shooting victims. Even though they represent less than 23% of NYC population. In 2012, Police actually UNDERstopped stop and frisk blacks because blacks were 55% of all police stop subjects even though blacks represent 66% of violent criminals. If you take away the stop and frisk technique then crimes will increase a LOT! According to Heather MacDonald, By the first half of 2015 (NYC prohibits police from stopping and frisking because of "Biased" or "Racial biased") as a result homicides increase 20%.

Thank you for taking the time to read my argument.


The policy is racist because they are disproportionately selecting black and latino people to be searched. That is the definition of racial profiling. Members of these communities are not more likely to commit crimes so they should not be targeted.
Debate Round No. 2


The reason why they are selecting blacks and Hispanics disproportionately is because blacks and Hispanics commit a disproportionate amount of the crimes. As I provided in my previous argument it has in fact reduced crime. It is not racist to put criminals in jail. The disparities mean that the police can't deploy their resources where people most need protection from violence, In minority neighborhoods, Without producing racially disproportionate stops. The NYPD focuses its efforts where people most need protection, And the effort inevitably produces racially disproportionate enforcement data.

Police departments target areas that are "high crime" or "high risk" using carefully collected data. This data shows that the high crime in New York City have a disproportionate number of minorities. When police stop and frisk in areas occupied by minorities, It is no surprise that they come in contact with mostly minorities. It is unfair to claim "racial profiling" based on these criteria. Oh and by the way the vast majority of police on the NYPD are minorities.

I would agree that there should be some guidance in the discretion to prevent harassment that come from exceptional power practiced by police. But there should be analysis that indicate if an officer is stopping people without cause.


Blacks and hispanics do not commit a disproportionate amount of the crimes. There are certain crimes that white commit more often but they are not searched, This includes financial crimes. There is evidence that it does not reduce crime, Look to the example of Chicago, They stop doing it there but the crime rate continued to drop, Same with New York.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by gzitman 3 years ago
@AIRhino How did I not make any argument? I refuted everything they said, Your vote is completely bias.
Posted by gzitman 3 years ago
Heather MacDonald is far from an impartial source of evidence, And I wouldn't take anything she says seriously. According to the National Review, Which is the preeminent conservative magazine in the US, Crime in New York City fell even as the policing tactic was abandoned:

https://www. Nationalreview. Com/2018/01/new-york-city-stop-and-frisk-crime-decline-conservatives-wrong/

Again, Are violent crimes the only crimes that warrant a stop and frisk? Why aren't white collar bankers stop and frisked as they leave work? You can say that these communities are more violent but the reasons they are arrested after a stop and frisk almost never has to do with a violent crime. You'r saying people should be stopped and arrested for weed but not insider trading? The murder rate has decreased over the last decade in NYC partly because there are fewer violent altercations resulting in death, Which is a result of advances in medicine.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
but the police are
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by AIRhino 3 years ago
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: EJR925 made some reference to some assemblance of a source, while gzitman provided no statistics, even without citing the source. EJR925 made actual arguments, while gzitman did not.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 

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