CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
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?
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.
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
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. :)
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.
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
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.
How do you know that the lower societal status is not due to crime?
Ridiculous question.
Are you suggesting that everyone of low societal status has committed a crime that has hindered their progression within society? Even if there was no crime in America there would still be people of low societal status.
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.
You're obviously clutching at straws here, it is pretty anecdotal to pull up a rural group with low socio-economic standing and claim that that supports your claim that 'black people will commit more crime than anyone else regardless of other factors like poverty/education/employment.' Crime in Appalachia is increasing faster than anywhere else in the US and the clearly defined correlation between poverty and crime that has been proven in urban areas may not be relevant in rural areas (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/189560.pdf)
The fact that poor white people in Scotland commit far more crime than poor black people in London completely disproves your theory...move on and create your next debate with a racist, antisemitic or bigoted agenda.
Your theory doesn't explain the black-on-white rape epidemic either.
For starters it's not really a theory, it's pretty much accepted fact that poverty and the effects of low social status increase crime within society.
Secondly I never said it did. If I drilled down into every point you made I'd be here all day, and frankly I think you're a lost cause. I don't know much about the demographics of sexual assault, but I would love to see you provide some evidence. Has it crossed your mind that maybe black males aren't specifically targeting white women but it has more to do with the opportunistic fact that 80% of potential victims are white.
In fact, it sounds like a bullshit excuse.
The fact that crime is higher within low socio-economic groups is not a "bullshit excuse". I'm not black and I don't really consider myself entirely politically correct so why would I be concocting these wild irrational 'excuses'. I just try to think analytically about things and to not let any agenda I may have cloud my judgement on topics...something you seem to struggle with.
Are you suggesting that everyone of low societal status has committed a crime that has hindered their progression within society? Even if there was no crime in America there would still be people of low societal status .
No. Of course not. I think people with low IQ's make up the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder. Research has been proven this. Much of the low IQ population is black. People with low IQ's commit more crime. They are not dumb because they are poor, they are poor because they are dumb, that goes for all races. Immigrants who barely speak English come to America and create successful lives for themselves, despite all of the cultural barriers. They don't sit around making excuses and counting all of the reasons they can't succeed and pointing fingers at everyone but themselves and ask for hand-outs. The liberals are the black's worst enemy because they exacerbate the victim consciousness within the blacks and sap them of the will to succeed with their welfare programs. I listed some rape statistics below. I invited everyone to rip them apart yesterday. No one has challenged them yet.
Uuurgh...it is painful trying to talk sense into you.
No. Of course not. I think people with low IQ's make up the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder.
Well why didn't you say so earlier when you implied it was a result of crime?! It's funny how every justification and answer you have is in some way a slight at an ethnic minority. Is that just a coincidence?
Research has been proven this
Research..has...been..proven...this.
...What is your IQ?
Do you not understand that IQ is related to education? Do you not understand that standard of education is linked to wealth? Do you not understand that crime is linked to poverty? Can you not comprehend that many of these things are interlinked and obviously a society that is still racist will make life hard for ethnic minorities to get out of that circle. Given enough generations the barrier will break down but there is still a culture whereby poor people cannot get a good education, which means they cannot get a good job, which means they are on the lower end of the socio-economic ladder, meaning their children are more likely to receive a poor education and they are more likely to commit crime. Is that too much for you or would you just prefer to think that "them dumb niggers are always robbin' an rapin"?
I listed some rape statistics below. I invited everyone to rip them apart yesterday. No one has challenged them yet.
The website you linked to is a 'White Nationalist Racial Library'...it offers an abundance of positive articles and references to Hitler and Nazism. With titles like "Enduring allure of Hitlerism" and "Demonizing Nationalism", I can see why it's your favourite.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think your website might have an agenda..?
Look, dumbass, I don't care how much you educate a dumbass, it's still a dumbass. I don't care how much money you give a dumbass, he/she will soon be broke. If education was the determining factor of intelligence, then a person's IQ should rise throughout their lifetime. If education was as much a factor as you claim, we should all be f*cking Einsteins by the time we reach retirement age, you dumb son of a bitch. Crime and low IQ go hand in hand, creating the lower class.
Every time I link to a website that is REFERENCED MATERIAL some shit-for-brains bastard says the website is biased. Well, no shit, Sherlock, but does that make the referenced material BIASED TOO? IT WAS WRITTEN BY A FUCKING JEW YOU STUPID ASSHOLE! It's referenced, that means you can check the facts.
CreateDebate is populated with educated idiots...people with degrees but absolutely no common sense...just a bunch of spineless fools who've been completely brainwashed by liberal schmuck professors.
Wow. You'll be embarrassed when you sober up and read that drivel.
Look up the wikipedia page on 'Intelligence Quotient'. You talk about it so much I think you could do with knowing a bit about it. It takes certain things into account. One of them being 'age'.
You link to a website that gives vague references from the 1980's. Stuff like, "The Department of Justice - Victimization in the US 1987"...No page number, no direct quote, no way of validating the information presented. If whatever your Nazi website is saying is true (which it may well be), I'm sure you could find something to validate it online that doesn't happen to be a White Power indoctrination site.
dumbass
dumb son of a bitch
shit-for-brains bastard
STUPID ASSHOLE!
educated idiots
FUCKING JEW
spineless fools
liberal schmuck professors
All good points...
Is this your attempt at a rebuttal?
I can just see you sitting alone smashing that out on the keyboard in your grand mansion (as you're so intelligent you must be super rich, but not as rich as those pesky evil Jews! - who by the way must be really intelligent if, as you say, they control everything and have the majority of the worlds cash?!)
I've been on this website for about two weeks and so far you've said that Jews should be exterminated because they are clever, rich and powerful...while you say Blacks should be thrown out of America because they are too dumb and poor.
Do you see how you've contradicted yourself...accept that you have an agenda and you're not thinking straight. You don't seem that stupid to me. You use the odd big word now and then. We would all think a lot more of you if you came clean now and started over.
I never said anyone should be exterminated. I never said Blacks should be shipped back to Africa. You are lying. Show me the quote where I said those things. This is why I hate you faggots. You lie, twist and obfuscate to win the debates. You can't have a real debate here without someone pulling some bullshit tactic out of their little bag of tricks. If you guys are so righteous and so intelligent, why do you have to pull that shit? By the way, you asked my IQ earlier, it is 160, what is yours? I am so sure you'll give an honest answer...yep...lying faggot.
You started a debate entitled 'Is there any justification for antisemitism?' In which you argued Jews deserve their persecution. You claimed the Jews were "milking the holocaust", describing the holocaust as a "wildly exaggerated" and "tired, old story". You then also added "DOWN WITH JUUIIIIIICCCEE".
In another debate you stated that "Another holocaust is right around the corner". All this is not to mention repeatedly linking to Neo-Nazi websites with a white supremacist message as 'evidence'.
I never said Blacks should be shipped back to Africa.
You started this topic! You're the only one still arguing that the blacks are dumb criminals who are severely detrimental to life in America.
In the debate "Blacks are animals" You argue in support of the statement by saying "Niggers do not want to sing Kumbaya with you, dickhead, they want to kill you"
What are you implying should be done? I think we all know what you're getting at.
You asked my IQ earlier, it is 160, what is yours?
1 - I'm almost 100% certain it isn't.
2 - It's really pathetic to state your IQ in some kind of attempt to garner some approbation online.
3 - I don't even know my IQ. I don't feel inadequate enough to get involved in the self-absorbed, vain attempts at self aggrandisement.
4 - Even if I did know my exact IQ, and let's say it would be higher than yours (which it would be). I still wouldn't tell what it is, because comparing IQ's online is the saddest form of dick-measuring I've ever heard of.
While we're on the topic though, you said that IQ, wealth and power go hand in hand...please tell us about your amazing life! With an IQ of 160, you must have a great job and wealth that most of us can only dream of!
Out of all of the people on this site that I have "debated", you are by far the dumbest. You misconstrue everything I say and apparently are challenged at detecting sarcasm and have difficulty putting comments into proper context.
I never said Blacks should be shipped back to Africa. You never asked what I thought the solution was, you only assumed. I would like to see Blacks provided with their own homeland, here in the U.S. I would like to see them run their own government and take care of their own affairs. I want to see them live their lives without the impediment of racism, which many claim is keeping them down. I am in agreement with Khalid Mohammed, an African American separatist who seeks a separate and sovereign government from whites. Every group of people have the right to self-determination. Black people are complaining about racism and discrimination from the whites, I say let's end it by separating. It would be mutually beneficial to do so. They won't have to put up with our racism and we won't have to put up with their animosity in the form of rape, muggings and murders. Let the Black man have a chance to stand on his own two legs, if he falls, he falls...if he stands, he stands.
You chastise me for answering your question about my IQ? If you don't want answers, don't ask questions. Are you sure you want me to answer the question about my amazing life or do you just ask such questions so that you can attack the answers?
I came to CreateDebate to talk about controversial issues. Instead of debates I have generated nothing but personal attacks. I quickly learned the people here are small-minded and vicious, with no real opinions of their own, just Politically Correct programming which they repeat like parrots. I have no respect for the boobs here and I will continue to shit on them until I am banned. They don't debate, they obfuscate. Fuck them and fuck you. It just gives me an excuse to blow off steam by acting like an asshole.
I was arrested in high school and went straight to jail/prison instead of college. I got an education about human nature there. I've always enjoyed the game of poker and I found upon my release that the game could be played in such a way as to generate a consistent profit. Since then I have won many tournaments and have appeared briefly in a televised tournament once which may have been aired in your country(I assume you are British). It is quite possible that you may have glimpsed me on your television. I am by no means the best, but I would make an educated guess that I am one of the top 200 best poker players on the planet. It affords me the lifestyle I desire. There's your answer, just remember, you asked.
I was arrested in high school and went straight to jail/prison instead of college.
That explains a lot.
I am by no means the best, but I would make an educated guess that I am one of the top 200 best poker players on the planet. It affords me the lifestyle I desire. There's your answer, just remember, you asked.
Part of your lifestyle includes concerted efforts to attack a teenager emotionally whom you cannot assault intellectually? I'd say you have way too much time.
Oh, teenagers should have free reign to insult adults without repercussion? I bet you have some spoiled rotten children. I do not take crap off anyone, especially teenagers. EnigmaticMan is a bright teen who wishes to play an adult role, allow him to reap what he sows. He is indeed a bright young man, let him make his way, he doesn't need your parental hovering.
Oh, teenagers should have free reign to insult adults without repercussion?
It's just the internet.
I bet you have some spoiled rotten children. I do not take crap off anyone, especially teenagers.
Forums are Serious Business.
EnigmaticMan is a bright teen who wishes to play an adult role, allow him to reap what he sows.
I'll try to be as clear as possible. When you sew seeds of discord academically or intellectually, you must be punished academically or intellectually. When you sew seeds of discord using male posturing or physical bluffing, then that is how you must be retaliated against.
Mixing these up suggests that you haven't the foggiest clue what you're doing.
He is indeed a bright young man, let him make his way, he doesn't need your parental hovering.
No he doesn't, I just like to argue with people who are easy targets sometimes. Call it junk food.
I came to CreateDebate to talk about controversial issues. Instead of debates I have generated nothing but personal attacks. I quickly learned the people here are small-minded and vicious, with no real opinions of their own, just Politically Correct programming which they repeat like parrots. I have no respect for the boobs here and I will continue to shit on them until I am banned. They don't debate, they obfuscate. Fuck them and fuck you. It just gives me an excuse to blow off steam by acting like an asshole.
You are projecting.
If you really wished to have interesting debate, you wouldn't bring up such dead topics like racial segregation. You wouldn't use the old racist canards of pretending to be a friend of blacks when you just want them to be out of your sight.
Your problem is that you are on a site with many progressives, and you are so thoroughly absorbed in hatred that you cannot see anything but conspiracies and enemies. I wasn't your enemy until you decided to resort to that lowest tactic of character assassination.
No. Of course not. I think people with low IQ's make up the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder. Research has been proven this. Much of the low IQ population is black. People with low IQ's commit more crime.
There is no strong difference between race and IQ. What you are witnessing is a difference in populations. This is why Sub-Saharan Africans are over thirty points lower on the IQ tests than Ashkenazi Jews.
Of course, if one wishes to take your argument at face value, then it would follow that the Ashkenazi Jews should form the upper crust of society, and all other races would be considered low-IQ. To take it even further, people like myself should reign over pompous people like yourself who form the lower base of society.
Bringing IQ into the discussion of who has merit severely retards your position.
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.
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."
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.
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.
You seem like you are smart enough to interpret statistics better than that.
The issue at the time of my response was not an issue of disproportionate criminality, but who committed most violent crimes. According to the statistics, my original response to ryuukyuzo's original post was correct. Blacks did/do not account for most violent crime. So your point, while taken, is immaterial to the original response I provided.
The your argument would make no sense. How does showing that whites commit more crimes in general prove that America wouldn't be safer without the blacks?
How does showing that whites commit more crimes in general prove that America wouldn't be safer without the blacks?
It doesn't. It wasn't meant to. It was a direct response to ryuukyuzo's assertion that Blacks committed most of the violent crime in the country. I simply showed a statistic that suggested otherwise.
It doesn't matter what the overall population is if your goal is eliminating crime. Indeed he is correct. Eliminating white people according exactly to those stats, and interpreted completely accurately, would eliminate more crime. 58.7% of it in fact, according to those statistics.
It seems then since your arguing with him about it, that your goal is not actually eliminating crime, but eliminating a group of people and justifying it however you can - in this case quoting crime rates.
But it hardly matters as someone above pointed out. It's not about the color of one's skin. Humans act by and large according to their environment or socio-economic status. So long as a system is in place whereby a large group of people have access to less education opportunities, and indeed in many instances in the inner cities are encouraged to pursue crime above academic achievement, crime rates will stay aproximately the same no matter who you eliminate.
I have recently had an epiphany. You are absolutely correct about everything, David. Everyone is exactly the same. There are no differences whatsoever. There are no differences in cultures, DNA, IQ, sports performance, academic performance...everyone is the same...no one is unique. Humanity is just one big blob. All cultures are based on ignorance and superstition and therefore should be destroyed, RIGHT? Let's destroy all boundaries and borders and form a New World Order, anyone who resists should be crushed because they are ignorant for wanting to preserve their culture. Everyone must bow down to your Scientific Dictatorship, Dave. Isn't that your spectacular goal?
Dave, what do you suppose the average Native American's views are on multiculturalism? Do you think they should have embraced the idea of multicultural immigration?
Good point. Actualy I imagine Native Americans percentage wise viewed it the same as any other group percentage wise. There were many as yourself I'm sure, who take a tribal view and completely lacked foresite or sense of responsibility to humanity as a whole. Who view the world in black and white and have no knowledge of or interest in the complexities that really comprise human nature. I see no reason that would not be the case with this group of people as it has been with every other group of people in the history of the world.
However, I have the sneaking suspicion you have been sorely misinformed, and taken that misinformation as a personal mantra, here as with seemingly the rest of your silly views.
I'm curious to know precisely what point you are trying to make here, as I've not had the misfortune of being taught history via talk radio or wherever you get yours.
Your confusing cultural differences with racial superiority.
One is perfectly capable of having a separate culture, and everyone at the same time being treated in equal terms.
You are also confusing race in general with culture. In the US, we have the US culture. Of which Africans are a part.
Any crime commited by individuals is neither due to culture nor race, it is due to circumstance and will.
One can no more say that crime is part of black culture than they can say serial murder is part of white culture - yet statistically nearly every serial killer in history has been white.
I would make the same argument had you spewed white racism concerning this fact.
I would have replied that it is not by virtue of being white that one is a serial killer, but that the social and economic (and religious in this case) circumstance of a handful of caucasions leads to this anomoly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
The excerpt is irrelevant to my post. I've discussed reasons for the disparity. To provide an excerpt that merely re-presents the disparity itself isn't to address my point.
And the [321] citation is incorrect. That section of Hacker's book has to do with Black college enrollment and segregated education (183, 185). So I can only surmise that "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." is, at least, partly pulled out of their asses, or needs to be re-cited.
But again, mostly irrelevant to the simple demographic reasons explaining the disparity between rape victims.
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?
Do you just look for arguments with an ideology you disagree with (liberalism) or do you earnestly believe in the conclusions you are pushing? If you are just trying to pick a fight that's fine, this website is a debate website and disagreement adds life. If you earnestly believe in what you're pushing then it seems you have an acute lack of common sense when checking data.
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.
Stop crying. Not once in my statement did I blame white people. History is what it is. Wake-up-little-girl.net/JEW,%20LITTLEGIRLS%20AND%20STOPWHINING.htm
That kidnapped them like the British, larger African tribes, Arabs and I'm certain all sorts of 'Mericans were involved, from working on boats, to receiving shipments (where exactly do you relinquish involvement in the kidnapping smart one?)
All you've done is attempt to dismantle my argument based on a technicality, a weak position indeed.
As mentioned before, your incorrect argument relates to only a portion of my initial sentence, much like a child demanding "no it isn't brown, it's more of a red". It speaks nothing to the problem (or lack thereof) of americans of african heritage. Wouldn't your mother be proud at your contribution to race relations in the u.s. "Well I don't know about the topic of the debate, but they weren't TECHNICALLY nabbed by white people so white people aren't guilty".
To be involved in an affair is to take part in said affair. In this case, if Americans are involved in the transfer of captured slaves, they are captors. The fact that they weren't involved in the "bagging" doesn't exempt them, much like a gunman is still a bank robber even if his job is to subdue guards rather than fill bags with cash. You're still wrong and untill you bring more than just trolling to your arguments you're of no value to the resolution. Sorry for taking so long to respond, putting you in your place isn't a priority for me.
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.
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.
FYI Italy was in rank with the Nazis'. So I wouldn't put those two in a paragraph as being 'different'.
Furthermore, "Should we kick out all of the Asian's to because it mean's our road's would be safer?" Asians don't make safer drivers. Drivers are the causes of accidents not the car.
"Where would we be without Martin Luther King". We would have one less cocaine addicted and person that slept with their fans when he has his own family.
*"How about all those Mexican's who take away all of the job's we don't even want to do." The Mexican's. Honestly? We don't want them here because they are using our healthcare we are paying for them to live. Besides if they are doing the work wouldn't that just a person the excuse of "Oh, someone else is doing it so I don't have too"
The topic of this debate is "Would America be a safer place without African Americans?"
It doesn't say anything about kicking anyone out. It has absolutely nothing to do with Hitler, the Italian mafia or anything else you can pull out of your ass.
Great, another jackass burdened with white guilt. So...what should whites do to rectify the problem, sacrifice 22,000,000 of our fellow honkys to Al Sharpton? Would that do the trick and end the rampant crime on our streets? Would you bother explaining to me why I should be held accountable for the actions of some of my ancestors? I am a descendant of Charlemagne, should I be held accountable for war crimes too? You seem like a complete idiot.
- I'm not burdened by history because I'm not a soccer mom douche crying about fairness in the word (you are).
- I didn't swear at you once yet, but you have to me (you are a child).
- I won't stop arguing with you just because your arguments lack culture and substance (you are a fail child)
-I'm not a honkey, but since you said "we", you agree that you are (you are a honkey fail child).
On to your meager arguments:
what should whites do to rectify the problem
White people shouldn't do anything, slavery's over with. (Thought they shouldn't continue propping up slavery by discriminating against black people [since you asked "what should whites do" you're agreeing you're fine with this]).
why I should be held accountable
You shouldn't be held accountable, I didn't accuse you of anything, stop whining.
You seem like a complete idiot.
I will dismantle you like I did your arguments little girl. You're clearly expecting crybaby fanatics since you're guard is up this high. You assumed I cared about slavery OR black people raping white women. Why would you post a debate knowing you'd get flamed?
Because you're a fail child. Remember this little girl, I ripped up your best arguments (HAHAHAHAH) FAIL.
That's what you got? Of the things we discussed, ONE fail argument is what you got? What should I expect of a little girl posting a debate with her trigger finger on the cry button, waiting to whine the second someone actually posts.
You got taught little honkey, and just so it sticks, I'll give you one multiple choice question, review it.
Match the word "Obscene" with the best answer:
a)Little girl
b)Douche
c)Jackass
d)Idiot
e)Both c and d
I'll give you the answer too failure, it's "e".
Holy hell you're a waste of time, learn from this.
before someone slaps that cigarette out of your mouth.
Congratulations now you're officially a troll. You have no business here, you are a failure. Care to be the one to slap it out of my mouth? I live in Victoria, Canada. Come visit.
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!
You know if you don't understand statistics you really shouldn't cite it. Stick with spewing out politically correct BS like the other people.
That being said if you look at the chart you cited you will see that it counts how many crimes are committed by blacks and how many by whites. IT then converts those 2 numbers into 2 percentages (out of 100) I am simplifying by leaving out the other races on that chart. Now to a simple mind that hasn't been exposed to statistics before that may seem like proof that a white man typically commits more crimes. I mean 70% of crimes are performed by whites and only 30% by blacks but when you factor in that blacks only make up 13% of the population to 80% of whites you realise that hey blacks commit much more crime per capita. I mean if 13% of your population commits 30% of the crime you know there is something wrong. Imagine if they have a higher percentage of the population (if you are curious you can calculate with simple math).
So in short you just proved his point with those statistics. And i do feel like arguing. Please respond.
oH woops didnt realise that enlightened said the same thing as me. Oh well I said it in more depth.
Those arrest statistics might have been supportive of your view if blacks were 50% of the population, but NEWSFLASH, they aren't. Blacks are only about 13% of the population. Now go back and look at the statistics with that in mind... thank you for proving my point, LOL! I like debating here because my opponents often make my point for me.
You score a touchdown for the wrong team and still get several up-votes from your supporters. Do you realize how retarded you guys look? This debate reminds me of the movie Idiocracy.
Do you know the percentage of how many whites there are in America compared to blacks? I think blacks are 18% of America and Whites are over 50%. See where I'm going?
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.
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
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.
To Mahollinder: My problem is you don't actually bring any evidence of this widespread racism against blacks. We elected a black man for president. Thats my evidence that there isn't widespread racism. Whats yours?
The fact that blacks don't get same education may be their fault. I have black people at my school and I have talked to them. They hate school.
Also the "civilised " societies you cited are nowhere close to the numerous western and eastern societies in both size and achievements.
My problem is you don't actually bring any evidence of this widespread racism against blacks.
You didn't ask for evidence of widespread racism. You asked me if I could identify societal problems that specifically target Black people, leading them towards a life of violence. To which, I provided an answer. Societal problems don't have specific targets, they simply effect groups of people. But, quite frankly, I never even mentioned "widespread racism". So why am I now obligated to provide evidence of it - out of the blue?
We elected a black man for president.
Right, the country has had many successful Black people. We both agree on that. But the existence of successful Black people in any given country has no bearing on whether there is racism in a society.
The fact that blacks don't get same education may be their fault.
I don't know what this is a response to.
I have black people at my school and I have talked to them. They hate school.
Okay, I wasn't aware of a dislike of school being unique to Black people.
Also the "civilised " societies you cited are nowhere close to the numerous western and eastern societies in both size and achievements.
You asserted that Blacks have never developed a civilized society. I named a handful. You are wrong. That they weren't as big or "accomplished" is irrelevant to that consideration.
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...
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
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?
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.
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.
Apparently, it is beyond your comprehension that I was only using the term stankface sarcastically because my opponent used it, but such humor is lost on the more simple-minded, like yourself. Why do the simple-minded always take the Libtard view of reality? Hey, that's an idea for a debate topic!
You can't just assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a Liberal or simple-minded. That's a pretty primitive black-and-white view and is, on any level, lacking any rational thought. You have some progress to make.
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.
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.
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".
"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.
Great argument. You totally destroyed my argument by calling me a 12-year-old. Damn, you are absolutely gifted at debate. By the way, I don't get into superiority or inferiority, since those sentiments are purely subjective.
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.
When logic, intelligence and facts are beyond your reach, just call your opponent "Hitler" and you'll automatically win every debate, whether you are right or wrong. Good move, Libtard.
It's a bit of an oxymoron that a conservative is claiming to use logic, facts or even intelligence. I would agree with you but you're simply not displaying any. You're only puting out a biased opinion. I'm not Liberal by the way ; )
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.