CreateDebate


Debate Info

95
150
Yes, it would. No, it wouldn't.
Debate Score:245
Arguments:109
Total Votes:322
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, it would. (52)
 
 No, it wouldn't. (63)

Debate Creator

Enlightened1(200) pic



Would America be a safer place without African Americans?

 

 

Yes, it would.

Side Score: 95
VS.

No, it wouldn't.

Side Score: 150
2 points

The elminiation of African Americans from America, though considered an absolute biggotism by everyone AS IT SHOULD BE, would directly make the US a safer place in that you are eliminating a source of crime. NOT THE SOURCE OF CRIME, but sure, A source of Crime. Crime is not centered about a single race, the race in question being African-Americans, but to basically Humanity. Yes, it is true that the elimination of African-Americans would make America a safer place, but not nerely as much so as the elimintaion white people from the United States, particularly in the Southern half. but thats a different argument entirely, no?

3 years ago | Side: Yes, it would.
2 points

Sorry misclick. Voted myself down

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

3 years ago | Side: Yes, it would.
2 points

Number of white people in prison: 736 per 100,000

Number of black people in prison: 4,789 per 100,000

The numbers speak for themselves.

here's my source: Sabol, William J., PhD, Minton, Todd D., and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, June 2007

3 years ago | Side: Yes, it would.

I probably wasted time creating this debate. Everyone knows blacks commit more crime than other races. Who in their right mind is going to argue with that? Oh wait, Aveskde would argue with a sign post if it was crucial to holding his fantastical world-view together, maybe he'll bite. :)

3 years ago | Side: Yes, it would.
aveskde(1901) Disputed
4 points

I probably wasted time creating this debate. Everyone knows blacks commit more crime than other races. Who in their right mind is going to argue with that? Oh wait, Aveskde would argue with a sign post if it was crucial to holding his fantastical world-view together, maybe he'll bite. :)

You're projecting. You'll find that few things enrage me or emotionally motivate me.

3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
stmac10(59) Disputed
3 points

Most people do know that black people commit more crime per head of population, but that's not exactly what you asked. Crime is obviously linked to socio-economic status and if you just 'removed' every african american from the US, other ethnic groups would fill their low socio-economic standing and crime would very quickly rise within those groups.

Using the UK as an example, the further north you go the smaller the black community is. In Scotland there are much fewer black people but far higher crime and violence rates than anywhere else in the developed world. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article568214.ece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_British_communities#Black_British_ communities

Crime is a result of low societal status, not of increased eumelanin in skin.

3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
2 points

How do you know that the lower societal status is not due to crime? The white people of the Appalachian mountains are about as low on the socio-economic scale as you can get in the U.S. and they have nowhere near the crime rate. Your theory doesn't explain the black-on-white rape epidemic either. In fact, it sounds like a bullshit excuse.

3 years ago | Side: Yes, it would.
1 point

Considering most violent crime in the U.S. is caused by blacks regardless of the fact that they are a minority, then statistically speaking, the only answer is yes.

3 years ago | Side: Yes, it would.
Mahollinder(897) Disputed
2 points

Considering most violent crime in the U.S. is caused by blacks regardless of the fact that they are a minority, then statistically speaking, the only answer is yes.

According to the overview of the FBI Uniform Crime Report: Crime in the United States, 2009, "White individuals were more often arrested for violent crimes than individuals of any other race, accounting for 58.7 percent of those arrests."

3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
ryuukyuzo(594) Disputed
3 points

You're looking at non-lethal violent crime. I was talking about lethal violent crime (I should have specified this) where blacks come in at 36.5% vs. 32.8% for whites. This accounted with the fact that blacks only make up about 13% of the U.S. population doesn't paint a very nice picture.

Besides, when you breakdown non-lethal violent crime you see that blacks commit more robbery (56.7% vs 41.7%) whereas in rape and aggravated assault they only commit about a third of reported crime, though this is still shockingly high considering the size of the black demographic.

3 years ago | Side: Yes, it would.
1 point

You seem like you are smart enough to interpret statistics better than that. There are far more whites than blacks in America. Blacks are only 13% of the U.S. population. Go back and read those statistics with that in mind and you'll see that blacks are responsible for a largely disproportionate amount of crime.

3 years ago | Side: Yes, it would.
1 point

Yes, it would, but only in the technical sense that if you eliminated ANY particular race from America it would be safer, because naturally, people of every race commit crime. I think what you're trying to bait in this question is to what magnitude would America be a safer place? I don't think we can accurately guess that, but statistics show that African-Americans are convicted more per capita than any other race for crime in the US. This is more correlated to socioeconomics than it is to some innate "problem" with African-Americans. But if we're going to be honest and offensive here, there is a cultural of ignorance and anti-intellectualism that unfortunately exists in African-American communities in the US that contributes to this problem as well.

3 years ago | Side: Yes, it would.
1 point

It would be MUCH safer. Of corse, all the AA's will vote against me because the American government gives them whatever they want.

3 years ago | Side: Yes, it would.
1 point

Now, this may be radical but hear me out on this. Don't you really think that if we wouldn't have had slaves in the first place, or at least after the Civil War, sent all the African Americans taken as slaves back to where they came from, we could have avoided many of the race tensions and violence experienced throughout American history. Look at today, African American's don't cause violence, unemployed people do. They don't work and depend on wellfare to buy and sell dope. Since most of those living off wellfare are African American, it would be most beneficial if they were not here. This is not because African Americans are inferior, it is because after the Civil War, we set free millions of uneducated people into society and expected them to just fall in line. That is just stupid.

3 years ago | Side: Yes, it would.

Brycer2012 linked to FBI statistics which actually prove my point. I doubt anyone will question the authority of the FBI. Well, here are some statistics that come from another source that will doubtlessly be termed as biased because of the nature of the site I found them on. I invite the brighter among you to rip these statistics apart. I don't want to believe the information in this link, so if you can debunk this you'll be doing me a huge favor. I am too intellectually lazy to do so myself. Click on "supporting evidence" below.

Supporting Evidence: Interracial Rape Statistics. (library.flawlesslogic.com)
3 years ago | Side: Yes, it would.
Mahollinder(897) Disputed
5 points

Why would you need to "rip the statistics apart"? White Americans outnumber African Americans by nearly an order of magnitude. It would be almost impossible for any interracial crime statistic to look different (excepting in the degree). It's like pointing out an inter-dexterous statistic that shows more left-handed people commit crimes against right-handed people than right-handed people commit crimes against left-handed people. Up to 90% of the world is right-handed. But, in terms of the raw data, interracial rapes do not account for the majority of rapes. So, white women in general (accounting for the highest number of victims) are more likely to be raped by someone who is White (a family member or friend) than by someone who is Black.

3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
1 point

Here is a short excerpt from the link. Why was black-on-white rape such a rarity in the 50's, but for some reason explodes in the 70's?

The contrasts are even more stark in the case of interracial rape. Studies from the late 1950s showed that the vast majority of rapes were same-race offenses. Research in Philadelphia carried out in 1958 and 1960 indicated that of all rapes, only 3.2 percent were black-on-white assaults and 3.6 percent were white-on-black. Since that time, the proportion of black-on-white rapes has soared. In a 1974 study in Denver, 40 percent of all rapes were of whites by blacks, and not one case of white-on-black rape was found. In general, through the 1970s, black-on-white rape was at least ten times more common that white-on-black rape. [319]

Because interracial rape is now overwhelmingly black on white, it has become difficult to do research on it or to find relevant statistics. The FBI keeps very detailed national records on crime, but the way it presents rape data obscures the racial element rather than clarifies it. Dr. William Wilbanks, a criminologist at Florida International University, had to sift carefully through the data to find that in 1988 there were 9,406 cases of black-on-white rape and fewer than ten cases of white-on-black rape. [320] Another researcher concludes that in 1989, blacks were three or four times more likely to commit rape than whites, and that black men raped white women thirty times as often as white men raped black women. [321]

3 years ago | Side: Yes, it would.
1 point

Couldn't have explained it any better myself.

3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
7 points

Then maybe your ancestors shouldn't have kidnapped them, brought them here, and pissed them off, failchild.

3 years ago | Side: Me go to bank now
3 points

It's been some time, colleague. Good to see you've still got bark and bite.

3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
Sulith(507) Disputed
2 points

Hey you want to know something? Blacks sold BLACKS to the British who sold them to Americans. Nice try though.

3 years ago | Side: Yes, it would.
Ama_Deviant(271) Disputed
1 point

Blacks sold their own to arab nations, the british and others. You're right about that, but it holds little bearing on the current situation regarding African Americans. The issue is the purchase and eventual settling of black persons, not the routes they took to get here. Nice try though. Stay on point next time.

3 years ago | Side: Me go to bank now
1 point

Is that your answer to the more than 20,000 white women that are raped every year by black males? If so, it's not only ridiculous, but calloused as well.

3 years ago | Side: Yes, it would.
MussinItUp(6) Disputed
5 points

What about every other group, are we just going to kick out every race based on some perceived behaviors of an entire group? Where would we be without Martin Luther King, or Rosa Parks? To say that a country would be better without a whole entire race is just what Hitler was doing, except he just killed every race besides the one he deemed pure. I am still honestly surprised that even in this day and age there is so much racism going on. Should we kick out all of the Asian's to because it mean's our road's would be safer? How about all those Mexican's who take away all of the job's we don't even want to do. Or better yet why don't we just send all of the Mob affiliated Italian's back to Italy? Yeah, because getting rid of a race would make America a more loving and caring country.

3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
Ama_Deviant(271) Disputed
4 points

Is that your argument to the 22,000,000 DEATH toll over the 386 years black people were enslaved? What fairytale world are you living in?

"'MERICA! FUK YEAH!"

3 years ago | Side: Me go to bank now
brycer2012(987) Disputed
4 points

Please look at this chart that comes directly from the FBI. Since you're so big on rape, look at how many more whites rape than blacks. Also look at almost every crime and you will see that blacks have lower arrests and percentages than whites. If you still feel like arguing I will be right here!

3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
5 points

Criminality in the Black population is a symptom of a preexisting and deeper rooted societal problem. And that problem won't disappear by discounting one of the symptoms. To borrow from Malcolm X's criticism of the larger society: I knew I wouldn't be back to see my mother again because it could make me a very vicious and dangerous person-knowing how they had looked at us as numbers and as a case in their book, not as human beings. And knowing that my mother in there was a statistic that didn't have to be, that existed because of a society's failure, hypocrisy, greed, and lack of mercy and compassion. Hence I have no mercy or compassion in me for a society that will crush people, and then penalize them for not being able to stand up under the weight.

3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
Mifune1423(17) Disputed
2 points

Actually you are one of the few that actually brought an argument to the table instead of acting all morally superior and calling names. That being said, I would like to pose some questions and ask you to expand on your argument.

1. Do you have any clear evidence that there are societal problems in the U.S specifically targeting blacks and pushing them toward a life of violence. I mean there are many cases of Blacks succeeding in society. Obama is an example. So many people voted for him that he became president. This doesn't seem to be a racist soceity to me.

2.I realize that the ancestors of the black were brought here by force and legally this is your country as much as ours but noone is forcing the blacks to stay here. If they feel the society here is unfair why not immigrate to africa where there cant be societal problems specifically targeting the blacks and holding them back since the whole population is black. There they can build their own civilization.

3. Why has the black ethnic group never historically developed a civilized society. Why do they have a history of tribal wars and violence. Is it still becasue of the white man who oppresses them

3 years ago | Side: Yes, it would.
Mahollinder(897) Disputed
5 points

Do you have any clear evidence that there are societal problems in the U.S specifically targeting blacks and pushing them toward a life of violence.

That's a difficult question to answer, especially in the way that it's phrased. I look at societal problems not as ones who have specific targets, but problems that effect or impact groups of people disproportionately, so as to highlight, for example, some kind of disfranchisement.

I mean there are many cases of Blacks succeeding in society.

There are many, and Black people in America are generally in a much better place than they were decades and centuries ago, but why should I or anyone else be satisfied with tokenism?

This doesn't seem to be a racist soceity to me.

The great reply of Whites throughout America's history has always been "we get along just fine with our negroes", in one shape or form. Gallup asked White Americans in 1962 if they believed that Black children had the same education opportunities that they had. 90% believed that Blacks did. In 1963, White Americans were asked "Do you think that racial minorities are treated equally in your community?" 80% answered 'yes'. 1950s, 1940s, and so on, a large (enough) part of the population of White Americans have historically believed that race has not been a social problem. And they have historically, always, been wrong.

For almost every generation, the level of racism in this country has been downplayed and outright denied. And I think that denialism is an example of one societal problem - one that continues today. 4 years ago, for example, saw the largest number of racial, housing discrimination reports in the nation's history. Not 1968, after the passing of the Fair Housing Act. Not 1950, not 1980, not even the 19th century. It was in 2006. That reflects some kind of problem that's happening in America today that's clearly not being properly addressed.

I realize that the ancestors of the black were brought here by force and legally this is your country as much as ours but noone is forcing the blacks to stay here.

I'm not African American. But, this is somewhat of a disingenuous position to hold.

Why has the black ethnic group never historically developed a civilized society.

That's just not factual: Nubia, Kemet, Mali, Ehtiopia were all, by any definition, civilized societies.

Why do they have a history of tribal wars and violence.

Every people, every country, every city has a history of - and continue to have - tribal war and violence. This isn't something unique in any way to Black populations anywhere in the world.

Is it still becasue of the white man who oppresses them.

A great many of the problems that we see in Black communities, in America and globally, are directly and indirectly consequences of historical: physical or cultural violence perpetrated against Blacks by Whites. And it's not unique to Black populations either.

3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
4 points

You're right, it would be a safer place without African Americans. Oh wait, there are other groups that commit crimes? Let's kick them out too. Hold on, Caucasians also commit crimes? Let's remove them as well. Oh wait, there's no one in America now...

3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
2 points

If you agree with the debate heading, shouldn't your comment be on the other side of the page?

3 years ago | Side: Yes, it would.
4 points

no america would not be safer you dick head ass licking stank face................WHAT THE HELL DID YOU MAKE THIS TOPIC FOR BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS BLACK YOU LIL FUCKER SO WHAT THE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT

3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
4 points

I am also curious as to how you earned so many UP VOTES for your lame-ass comment which provided no substance whatsoever for your argument. You made no argument at all, just called me disparaging names. Somehow that carries weight with the Libtards on this site, who would've guessed?

3 years ago | Side: Yes, it would.
TheAnarchy(39) Disputed
2 points

You aren't capable of rational thinking are you?

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
2 points

The president is a mulatto, stank face, LOL. To describe him in his own words , he is a mutt. Do you have an actual argument or do you expect to win this debate with explosive emotion? I suspect you are black. I also suspect you are male. But, I doubt you would respond to my most recent debate "Men are responsible for more crime than women" with the same outrage. Why is that? There is very little difference between the two debates...other than one is politically correct and the other isn't. Think about it, stankface.

3 years ago | Side: Yes, it would.
PirateLord(89) Disputed
2 points

Stankface?

Mutt?

You're like a 10 year old Hitler. Nice display of bigoted, ignorant, irrational, racist, immaturity by the way.

3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
3 points

What are you stupid? Whites are just as dangerous as Blacks as is everyone else. In fact, Whites become the most accomplished serial killers and make up some of the worst extremist groups.

3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
3 points

Not to mention, they actually know the value of what it takes to gain equal rights/privileges to live in this country unlike the whites who just took it from the Native Americans.

3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
0 points

Tell me, kind sir, what do you suspect the Native Americans' sentiments are of multiculuralism...hmmm?

3 years ago | Side: Yes, it would.
Mifune1423(17) Disputed
1 point

Actually whites make up most serial killers because it takes a well above average intelligence to become a serial killer (a.k.a not get caught).

But the intelligence thing is another story altogether.

3 years ago | Side: Yes, it would.
0 points

You're lucky to get any response whatsoever from me. But, since you actually typed out 3 whole sentences this time, I'll honor your drivel with a response, here it is. Do you have any evidence that the average white person in America is just as dangerous as the average black person in America? Do you offer any evidence to support your conviction or is it a purely subjective, emotional response? I am curious to see your response on my latest debate, "Men are responsible for more crime than women".

3 years ago | Side: Yes, it would.
TheAnarchy(39) Disputed
2 points

"You're lucky to get any response whatsoever from me."

So you're suddenly superior to anyone? LOL Are you like 12 years old? You sure act like it. Trying to act all tough over the internet. You're pretty pathetic.

3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
TheHallow1(64) Disputed
1 point

So not only are you incredibly stupid, you're also a racist white supremacist?

"You're lucky to get any response whatsoever from me."

You're more idiotic than I thought. You call yourself enlightened? From all the narrow-minded bigotry I've seen you drool on this site, it's safe to say you're no better than Hitler. You're scared of anything that's different from you or your interests. Sad.

3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
2 points

of coerce not...................................................................................................

Supporting Evidence: rta kitchen cabinets (www.CabinetsDirectRTA.com)
3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
2 points

There are plenty of other people left in this country who would be more than happy to prove you wrong on that point.

3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
1 point

No, it wouldnt! Thats just a crazy question. It would not make a diffrence at all.

3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
1 point

wtf you bastards black people are awesome the person who made this is a homo

3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
1 point

It's not fair to pin America's problems on African Americans. Are you implying that white people are perfect and never commit crimes? Are we not all human? We are the EXACT same on the inside and a white person is just as likely to kill as a black person is, depending on how they're raised. Point being, such a thing can't be pinned to race as a whole. I realize it's like a joke that all black people are thugs because it really is a legit stereotype and unfortunately there are people out there who really believe that that is the case. But with the African Americans gone, I think more white people would simply take over the vacant spots of the African Americans and thus nothing would change.

3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
1 point

seems like america WAS a safer place without white americans. before whitey landed, american was a very peaceful place. come to think of it, it seems like every place that whitey lands, turns into chaos. the white americans killed most of the native population. whitey killed most of the australian aborigines. killed most of the new zealand maoris. robbed india, turning it from the richest country to the poorest. has made africa poor, even til today, even though africa has a lot of natural resources. white euros have also opened up sweat shops accross the globe and exploited slave labour. whitey also creates some of the most vicious and dangerous weapons that kill massive amounts of people including nuclear bombs, and chemical weapons.

3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
1 point

I CAN'T Believe that people are contributing to the racist side! Seriously people, MORALITY!!!

2 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
0 points

There are a number of logical problems with the racism in this question.

For starters, if Africans are genetically violent people, as you attempt to imply, then why isn't every other race equally violent? I assume you missed the Human Genome Project and similar efforts to unravel our point of origin, because it is plain fact that humanity is African (as in, it was at one point all black, but due to divergence in populations gained superficial differences due to evolution).

Secondly, if Africans are the root of violence, or a major contributor towards it, then historical societies which had few if any black immigrants should have been markedly docile. For example, the Europeans through the middle ages should have had little turmoil, but did not. The Chinese dynasties should have been crime-free. There was much fighting between Native American tribes before Africans arrived.

If it isn't social and economic status which causes violence, which you argued, then poor whites, Latinos, and immigrants besides blacks should have a quantity of crime that is proportional to the middle class and the wealthy.

The most likely explanation is that blacks stand out in a society where they are a minority, and so they are more likely to catch the attention of police. A white murderer or drug lord is inconspicuous, but if he has black or brown skin he will stand out and be introduced to questioning. In other words a selection bias brought on by our evolved animal brains.

3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.
Mifune1423(17) Disputed
3 points

to avedske: There are so many things wrong with your argument I don't know where to start. First of all, just because there is a theory that we evolved from Africans doesn't mean that we are all the same. For thousands of years we have had a radically different environment and culture that may have lead whites to develop and evolve differently. Evolutionists don't know anything for sure. They keep changing their theories. How do you know that all the changes over these years are superficial. Maybe there are severe changes to personality and temperament that cant be physically seen or quantified easily. How come different races of dogs are so different. I mean they are all dogs and probably had a common ancestor. Oh wait there are huge physical and mental differences between different races of dogs.

Now onto your second point. This is a quite bad argument. No-one said blacks are the sole cause of violence. I just argue that blacks are generally more violent than whites. I will use an example to make this easier to understand. Smoking is a major cause of lung cancer. If you eradicate smoking you won't eradicate lung cancer. Now why would you compare our society to the middle ages. It is completely different society with different definitions for crimes, different law enforcement capabilities, people lived differently(farms)and ultimately different people. These factors make it a wholly different environment and the comparison is worthless not to mention you don't have any actual statistics of the time.

IF you were to try to use that argument you would have to find a society today which is very similar to U.S in every way(impossible) and then have hard statistics showing that the crime-rate is similar to the of the U.S with blacks and even that wouldn't explain why blacks commit more crimes in the U.S.

I never said social economic status doesn't have any effect on crime. A poor white man may be desperate for quick cash so he steals. I am just saying that it may be the same black mentality that causes them to be both violent and poor. He decides to do illegal things and steal for immediate gratification instead of working slowly toward a better life. The ratio of poor white men to rich white men men is a lot smaller then that of poor black men to rich black men(in this case I group medium with rich). I argue that this is because of the black mentality that causes them to be violent and ultimately lazy.

Your last paragraph is kind of a joke. I mean common. You think the police randomly roams the streets and pick up dudes that stand out to take them in for questioning. The way it works usually is a crime is committed. Police analyze evidence and look for suspects that fit the evidence. The they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect is guilty. They dont look for the guy taht stands out they look for a suspect that fits a description. Not to mention that poor blacks tend to clump together into black neighborhoods where its the white man that stands out.

3 years ago | Side: Yes, it would.
aveskde(1901) Disputed
3 points

First of all, just because there is a theory that we evolved from Africans doesn't mean that we are all the same. For thousands of years we have had a radically different environment and culture that may have lead whites to develop and evolve differently.

It implies that we share our genetic traits with a tribe in Africa from which all of humanity descends.

Any further evolution worked with our African genes. You cannot outgrow your ancestry. We are still African now, we just look different.

If you are arguing that Africans are racially (IE genetically) prone to violence then it must follow that all races have this violence, because all races descend from Africa. You cannot argue that Africans became violent after we evolved separately, because at that point the tribes of Africa moved along the continent and evolved along separate paths, meaning that any violence on the genetic level would not be spread to all Africans.

Evolutionists don't know anything for sure. They keep changing their theories.

Evolution is a fact, and I don't care to debate it here. If you're entering a serious debate about genetics, then you must accept biology. It does no good to enter a discussion on astronomy while questioning the premise that the Earth is not the centre of the universe.

How do you know that all the changes over these years are superficial. Maybe there are severe changes to personality and temperament that cant be physically seen or quantified easily.

We left Africa some 70000 years ago. The environment, while different, was not fundamentally different in the sense that it required more intelligence, or more docility. It was a wild land, like Africa, but with new plants and animal life. When you wish to evolve severely different traits, you want to provide an environment that values the trait you're seeking.

How come different races of dogs are so different. I mean they are all dogs and probably had a common ancestor. Oh wait there are huge physical and mental differences between different races of dogs.

Excellent example. With dogs we specifically provided an environment that favoured aggression, or hunting, or playfulness, etc. If we merely took the dogs and moved them to different parts of the world, they may have different hair styles and body shapes, but the personalities would be very similar because they all had the same lack of personality selection.

Now onto your second point. This is a quite bad argument. No-one said blacks are the sole cause of violence. I just argue that blacks are generally more violent than whites. I will use an example to make this easier to understand. Smoking is a major cause of lung cancer. If you eradicate smoking you won't eradicate lung cancer.

If your argument isn't that blacks are the only aggressive ones, but whites are too, then what is your argument exactly? If you're going to argue that blacks should be removed because they are prone to violence, and whites are violent too, then it follows that whites must be removed as well. Otherwise you're just picking an arbitrary threshold to complain.

Now why would you compare our society to the middle ages. It is completely different society with different definitions for crimes, different law enforcement capabilities, people lived differently(farms)and ultimately different people. These factors make it a wholly different environment and the comparison is worthless not to mention you don't have any actual statistics of the time.

Different social environment produces different levels of violence.

IF you were to try to use that argument you would have to find a society today which is very similar to U.S in every way(impossible) and then have hard statistics showing that the crime-rate is similar to the of the U.S with blacks and even that wouldn't explain why blacks commit more crimes in the U.S.

I already offered an explanation: selection bias.

Why are black moths picked on by predators more in forests with white trees?

I never said social economic status doesn't have any effect on crime. A poor white man may be desperate for quick cash so he steals. I am just saying that it may be the same black mentality that causes them to be both violent and poor. He decides to do illegal things and steal for immediate gratification instead of working slowly toward a better life. The ratio of poor white men to rich white men men is a lot smaller then that of poor black men to rich black men(in this case I group medium with rich). I argue that this is because of the black mentality that causes them to be violent and ultimately lazy.

Any traits you try to argue are racial, must be inherited onto whites and every other race. Are blacks lazy? Then whites are too. This is because we evolved out of Africa.

Your last paragraph is kind of a joke. I mean common. You think the police randomly roams the streets and pick up dudes that stand out to take them in for questioning. The way it works usually is a crime is committed. Police analyze evidence and look for suspects that fit the evidence. The they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect is guilty. They dont look for the guy taht stands out they look for a suspect that fits a description. Not to mention that poor blacks tend to clump together into black neighborhoods where its the white man that stands out.

There is a subconscious mechanism in animal minds that causes them to pick out that which is different. We are often unaware of it. This is why police will associate a person who is physically different with a greater propensity for crime.

http://factsanddetails.com/japan.php?itemid=632&catid;=18#06

3 years ago | Side: No, it wouldn't.


About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.