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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
93% of Black people in America are killed by other Blacks! WHERE'S THE FOCUS TO SAVE LIFE?
Let me get this right...... our Liberal media constanly plays up the 7% of White's killing Black people, while ignoring the 93% of Black people killing other Black people! Now I am no rocket scientist, but if I truly cared about Black lives, where would I focus my priorities to save Black lives?
Hmmmmmmm, let me think about this for a second......uhhhhhhhhhh........ OF COURSE! I will turn off my brain and allow the Democrat party and Liberal media to make it a race issue. I will focus all my resouces on saving the 7% of Black lives and say nothing about the 93% of Black lives.
So I want you to use your brain just once, rather than allowing the Big Brother media telling you how to think. I realize those on the Left hate hearing common sense and would rather condition Americans with their political agendas and PC rhetoric, but here goes.
If you lived in an area where 93% of teenage deaths from suicide, drug overdoses, murders, etc. happened while living in fatherless homes, while 7% of teen deaths happened while living in homes with fathers..... what conclusion would you make?
Would you focus on those 7% of homes with fathers? If you truly cared about saving the lives of teenagers, where would you most focus your attention?
If Democrats and the Left used the same rationale as they do with Cops killing Black people, they would would scream....IT'S OBVIOUSLY GOT SOMETHING TO DO WITH FATHERS THAT STAY HOME TO RAISE THEIR CHILDREN. THAT WILL BE OUR FOCUS TO SAVE TEEN LIVES!
72% of Black children live in broken homes. This is the main reason for the huge crime problem in the Black community. This is the main reason for so many murders of Black people.
For all the crime in the Black community, IT'S A MORAL PROBLEM! It's not a gun issue and it's not a racist cop issue!
If Black lives truly mean something to you, please stop electing these divisive politicians who focus on getting votes rather than addressing the core problems creating all these deaths.
USE YOUR BRAIN if you truly care for Black lives (which I don't believe for one second)! I believe you care about getting Democrats elected and will use Black people for their vote no matter how many will die in the process.
You have lost your moral compass if you ever possessed one to begin with.
He's not only right, but you are repeating a lie. As I have told you, I live in Chicago, where more black on black crime happens than just about anywhere else in the country. Politicians are talking about it non stop.
This idea that because you don't hear it, it therefore doesn't happen, simply does not make sense.
You like to debate with beliefs instead of facts. I have you exactly the beliefs that your post generated. Saying, "fix it yourself niggers" is the same thing as not focusing on any deaths.
They actually don't, for some pretty nuanced reasons (most related to gang territory), and Democratics are against police brutality and militarization, not police officers themselves or the concept of law enforcement.
If that was the case, "unreported homicide" wouldn't be a thing.
and focus their attention where violent crime rates are high.
Again, it's far more nuanced than that. There are several cities that have certain areas where gang activity is so high and volatile, it simply does not make practical sense to involve patrolmen in every shooting that occurs. Such involvement would only draw a violent reaction, leading to more dead cops.
You can see this in certain parts of Chicago's South Side, for example, as well as a couple areas on the West side.
All known homicides are investigated. Corpses from unreported murders, spark a report. It may be that the investigation is suspended when there are no leads and no one will talk, but an investigation is always opened. (Also, not all cops are patrolmen). Do you think coroners just go in and get corpses and no one mentions it?
I hardly think so. The point is that cops are there to help the public. The black public has a high rate of victimization which means cops have a high rate of working to help the black public. This means that a general stance against law enforcement (as some rhetoric, particularly on social media, promotes) is a general stance against those who would benefit from the enforcement of laws. Which would disproportionately be black people.
Do you think that will in any way, shape, or form cause them to ignore the amount of police brutality against their community? When a racial group has a long standing history (we are talking about centuries here) of conflict with law enforcement, do you honestly think you can just say "but guys, they are here for your own good" and they will forget people like Rodney King?
Some are, some aren't. Many Democratics are particularly against cops that kill people after the full story is known and especially when the "exonerations" are nonsensical.
It's not like you to make such partisan generalizations.
My generalization is based on statements of more vocal Democrats. I know that plenty of Dems stand behind law enforcement.
Justice system exonerations appear nonsensical to some of the public for a couple of reasons: They don't understand the standard being used within the court, and they are looking for an outcome that fits the partial and biased information they are receiving through media outlets (including FB and YT). When the legal process concludes something other than expected, people get angry. Black Lives Matter is pushing a false narrative and some politicians are capitalizing on it.
My generalization is based on statements of more vocal Democrats. I know that plenty of Dems stand behind law enforcement.
So does that mean I can generalize Republicans into thinking that Obama is a Muslim Kenyan who wants to put whites in FEMA camps?
Justice system exonerations appear nonsensical to some of the public for a couple of reasons: They don't understand the standard being used within the court, and they are looking for an outcome that fits the partial and biased information they are receiving through media outlets (including FB and YT). When the legal process concludes something other than expected, people get angry. Black Lives Matter is pushing a false narrative and some politicians are capitalizing on it.
There are some huge problems with this. First, I am not talking about the cases where the evidence clearly points to the innocence of the officer by the legal standards used. I'm not ignorant of the justice system, and I am not referring to cases where those who are get angry just because a case doesn't end up the way they want. I am talking about the history of cases where legitimately guilty individuals have walked free in spite of sufficient evidence to convict, which disporortiontaely happens in favor of law enforcement officers in this context.
Additionally, the idea that they are pushing a false narrative is categorically false and impossible to prove. Their narrative is that they feel their lives are valued less than those of others, and they point to statistics that show they are treated more poorly than other racial groups. To claim that the narrative of their perceptions is false is absurd. If you want to claim that the evidence they use to support their narrative is false, then that's an entirely different discussion. But you are in effect accusing African Americans of lying about their own experiences and perceptions in order to achieve, what? Some political points for a few politicians?
You're making my point. You think there is clear evidence to convict for cases that you are not part of. Investigations that you are not part of. Where did you collect this clear evidence? Through media outlets. That's my point. Based on the public narrative people are quite sure of their opinion that there is clear evidence to convict when often there is not. The shooter of unarmed Michael brown was exonerated after a DOJ investigation but people still screamed hands up don't shoot.
I'm not accusing African Americans of anything. Ask a black cop what they think of the black lives matter movement. And you can generalize republicans however you want, but I don't know which couple of politicians actually fits that fringe rhetoric you're referencing. FromWithin?
You're making my point. You think there is clear evidence to convict for cases that you are not part of.
That is because after a case is done, one is able to look at the presented evidence via the docket number.
Where did you collect this clear evidence? Through media outlets. That's my point.
Nope. Keep your own words in your own mouth.
Based on the public narrative people are quite sure of their opinion that there is clear evidence to convict when often there is not. The shooter of unarmed Michael brown was exonerated after a DOJ investigation but people still screamed hands up don't shoot.
You might want to go back and re-read my comment. I fully acknowledge that there are people who ignored the evidence in some of these high profile cases. I also acknowledge that not all of these cases are tried correctly. The idea that our justice system is infallible (not one I'm claiming you are presenting) is objectively false, so the idea that you are criticzing me for ever daring to consider a ruling to be wrong is, itself, just silly. OJ was ruled to be innocent, yet I know he was guilty because of not only the evidence presented, but the later admission of guilt. Criminal prosecutors and defenders often fuck up and end up throwing cases. That does not mean the ruling correctly reflected the situation, just that the ruling correctly reflected the trial.
I'm not accusing African Americans of anything. Ask a black cop what they think of the black lives matter movement.
As a Chicago resident, I have done so on several occasions, and they are very supportive of it.
Ok, so you collect your own evidence based on the docket number to draw your conclusions about cases that happen over a wide span of time all across the country. I guess you are the statistical researcher who is finally tackling this issue so thanks. For almost everyone else my point stands.
It's obviously appropriate to be upset when the justice system fails, regardless of your bias. The problem is that people let their bias determine whether or not they think the justice system failed.
I'm glad black cops in your community express a view that undermines the general narrative of cops vs black people. The black cops that I have talked to express frustration that the black lives matters movement gives ammo to black suspects who use the race card against them. The race card is played differently and harder against black officers. The point is that my comments were not against black people as you asserted, they were against the black lives matter movement.
Ok, so you collect your own evidence based on the docket number to draw your conclusions about cases that happen over a wide span of time all across the country.
I'm sorry, but do you have any idea what the docket number leads to? The actual case, proceedings, and evidence. I don't collect my own evidence, I look at the evidence that was actually presented in court.
It's obviously appropriate to be upset when the justice system fails, regardless of your bias. The problem is that people let their bias determine whether or not they think the justice system failed.
In some cases yes, in some cases no.
I'm glad black cops in your community express a view that undermines the general narrative of cops vs black people. The black cops that I have talked to express frustration that the black lives matters movement gives ammo to black suspects who use the race card against them. The race card is played differently and harder against black officers.
Yes, so we should ignore the divide until it goes away?
The point is that my comments were not against black people as you asserted, they were against the black lives matter movement.
Where did I ever assert your comments were against black people? I simply questioned what you were trying to imply when you say that BLM, a rather massive movement at this point, is pushing a "false narrative".
It's frustrating when you focus on one part of a larger statement to address a different point that I wasn't really making. For example, when I misspoke and referred to collecting evidence from docket numbers as opposed to raw information, I was talking about where people get there information about this issue. If you get your info before it goes through a media filter, that great. It's also extremely uncommon, which is my point.
People generally let their bias determine whether they think the justice system failed. Not in some cases, in many/perhaps most cases. IF you are not one of those people, it's uncommon.
What cases did you read through and independently determine were a miscarriage of justice?
Where did I ever assert your comments were against black people?
"you are in effect accusing African Americans of lying about their own experiences and perceptions"
The false narrative is that Law Enforcement or society thinks that black lives don't matter. The cases they use to support this narrative often fails to, unless your bias has determined, before you actually know, that the justice system has failed. Thinking of Haft-time dancers seeking justice for Mario Woods off the top of my head.
It's frustrating when you focus on one part of a larger statement to address a different point that I wasn't really making. For example, when I misspoke and referred to collecting evidence from docket numbers as opposed to raw information, I was talking about where people get there information about this issue. If you get your info before it goes through a media filter, that great. It's also extremely uncommon, which is my point.
Then say that instead of blatantly accusing me individually of something.
People generally let their bias determine whether they think the justice system failed. Not in some cases, in many/perhaps most cases. IF you are not one of those people, it's uncommon.
And I agree. I already previously agreed. But I was speaking only for myself, not for this perception of "others".
"you are in effect accusing African Americans of lying about their own experiences and perceptions"
The false narrative is that Law Enforcement or society thinks that black lives don't matter. The cases they use to support this narrative often fails to, unless your bias has determined, before you actually know, that the justice system has failed.
Except it isn't a narrative that focuses only on Law Enforcement. The narrative is that their lives are valued less by society as a whole in a variety of different ways, with Law Enforcement and the legal system being the most often glaring example. When they start with that narrative, then many become guilty of using individual cases as representations of their cause, which is why they get lost in their own rhetoric as opposed to focusing on the individual cases.
But when the legal standard involved for police brutality cases sets up a system where legitimate brutality is rarely ever prosecuted, then they are going to become more disenfranchised and radicalized.
We can either try to fix that problem (the productive idea), or sit around talking about how wrong their perspective is, which will accomplish nothing.
the legal standard involved for police brutality cases sets up a system where legitimate brutality is rarely ever prosecuted
Here's the flip side of your view. Anyone who feels they are being arrested unjustly, and resists, will have force used against them. When people have force used against them they are inclined to think it is excessive. When evidence shows the force was not excessive, people will think brutality goes un-prosecuted.
If the problem is in peoples perspective, then talking about how wrong their perspective is, is part of fixing the problem.
What about the standard do you specifically find fault with?
What cases did you read through and independently determine were a miscarriage of justice?
which disporortiontaely happens in favor of law enforcement officers in this context.
This is because of the legal metric involved. In these kind of cases, the mens rea rests upon the perceptions of the officer accused. More precisely the proceedings of the court will follow not whether an officer acted unjustly, but whether the officer believed he/she was in danger. Emphasis placed on "believed". In court cases police officers are generally treated as credible witnesses, unless they have a proven record of deception (and most don't), and given that danger is not an unusual part of an officer's duty the jury will nearly always find plausible an officer's claim that he FELT he was in danger (whether or not he actually was). This is why it is extremely difficult to prosecute police officers.
I am fully aware of the legal metric involved in these cases. It's why I stated earlier that these trials are being decided upon correctly, but tried incorrectly. In other words, they are often found innocent in accordance with the legal standard in question, but that legal standard can often lead to a failure of "justice".
Police actions are judged by what a reasonable officer would have thought in the same situation, at the time and without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
The "reasonableness standard" is not unique to law enforcement and does not rely solely on an officers testimony of his beliefs.
No, I am pretty sure they continue to hate cops that kill people even after the facts are known and the cop has been exonerated. Of course, exonerated is probable not an accurate word. All these cops aren't even considered for blame since charges are never brought against them. It is kind of different from absolving someone of blame if you never consider placing blame on them at all.
However, there are definitely still the "OJ was always innocent" types out there who let prejudice overcome facts. The thing is, there are people like that for just about any issue. Their existence in relation to law enforcement isn't particularly unique in that sense.
Most murders, rapes, stalkings and assaults are committed by among people of the same race. It is usually by someone close to the victim. Statistically speaking. However, black people have a history of being wrongly attacked and convicted due to biases.
Since there are more blacks in Chicago, there are more blacks dying. Exactly, like I said. Wherever there is a majority of whites, the majority of murders will be of whites by whites.
''Black Lives Matter'' demonstrations should be focused mainly in black areas where the vast majority of the black killings occur. Apart from life threatening situations the police shouldn't give the blacks and the media ammunition, ( no pun intended ) with which to vilify them. Individual police officers are ruining their career by occasionally over reacting to black aggression and antisocial conduct. More training on how to handle the violent blacks needs to be given to those involved in law enforcement.
The issue is when GOOD black people get killed. I personally do not care if a bad black person or anyone who is bad gets killed (regardless of race). Some people have it coming. Some criminals cannot be reasoned with, and they have such a big criminal support structure, that they use to defend themselves. You have to kill key people, without all the litigation getting involved that these bad men use to defend themselves.
They lie, and leave everyone confused. Get rid of these people, be the bad guy in order to reduce the amount of confusion and work surrounding these highly probable bad people.
You can know that these bad men are bad, half the time, but can't do anything about it. The law gets in the way. This is the point where the law clearly breaks down.
Some examples are:
1) Paul Bernardo
2) El Chapo
3) Charles Manson
4) Dave Berkowicz
5) Wayne Williams
6) Maxim Petrov
7) Beverley Allitt
Syndicates use these rules, to protect themselves, they always have.
I'm sorry I'm new to this site but I feel I have to point out the fact that this whole argument is fundamental flawed. I'm not sure where you got your statistics but you can't present them in that way and expect them to make sense or perhaps that was your intention? That 93% represents the actions of individuals something that is completely out of the control of any government. The 7% represent a problem in our society that needs to be addressed.
Since you are new here, you should be educated to the fact that we have an idiot on this site that copies other's debates. He lacks the intelligence to create his own debates so he copies others to get points. His copied debate will always be up higher on the list of new debates and therefore will get the first responses. The main people who respond to his debates are people who I have banned for being very deceptive liars, or childish morons.
When you see Cuaroc debates, you will probably see my original debate with the identical title a few debates down the list of new debates from his. Simple rule of thumb, if the creator of the debate's name is Cuaroc, you can bet it is most times a copy. He's a childish fool trying to bring attention to himself on a debate site because he lacks the ability to create his own debates. You will notice he hardly ever responds to the people who address the actual argument. He uses these copied debates purely to insult my debate no matter what the topic.
If you want the person who actully created the debate to respond to you, you will have to post your responses to the original debate.
You ask why would any site allow other's to copy each other's debates? GREAT QUESTION!
You cant forget me. i exibit similar behaviors. we all know that progressives (Cuaroc and I) are the best people on the planet and must be treated with respect.
Since you are new here, you should be educated to the fact that we have an idiot on this site that copies other's debates. He lacks the intelligence to create his own debates so he copies others to get points.
Wrong. He copies them specifically because you have banned so many people who want to respond to the mental diarrhea you spew in the descriptions of each of them. He also CREDITS you with coming up with the debate. He quotes your words and gives you the credit. He never claimed that he was coming up with them himself, you did that.
His copied debate will always be up higher on the list of new debates and therefore will get the first responses.
But theres been plenty of times that ive seen your debate go up and then 3, 4, 5 days will pass before Cuaroc copies it. So for large stretches of time you have the debate topic all to yourself and STILL nobody posts on them. Even if he never copied a single debate you wouldnt get SHIT for points because you fucking banned everyone! And everyone you haven banned knows youre an asshole and doesnt want to deal with your bullshit!
The main people who respond to his debates are people who I have banned for being very deceptive liars, or childish morons.
Translation: "The main people who respond to his debates are people who actually want to respond to me but I have banned them for disagreeing with me."
When you see Cuaroc debates, you will probably see my original debate with the identical title a few debates down the list of new debates from his. Simple rule of thumb, if the creator of the debate's name is Cuaroc, you can bet it is most times a copy. He's a childish fool trying to bring attention to himself on a debate site because he lacks the ability to create his own debates.
Thats why he cites you and gives you all the credit every time he copies your debate. Also he knows it pisses you off which it does and its very funny.
You will notice he hardly ever responds to the people who address the actual argument. He uses these copied debates purely to insult my debate no matter what the topic.
He uses it to insult your debate? All he does is quote you verbatim and then not respond any further. How is he insulting your debate by quoting you, giving you all the credit for coming up with it, and then not responding any further? That makes literally no fucking sense.
Also you admit here that some people go to his debates to address your arguments. Meaning that you know people respond to you and still you keep them banned. Why then would you not expect them to go to his debates? They want to respond to your bullshit and you dont let them. WHY ARE YOU SURPRISED BY THIS??
If you want the person who actully created the debate to respond to you, you will have to post your responses to the original debate.
And then be promptly banned for disagreeing with you or "decieving others" which also just means disagreeing with you. Or you cant because youre already pre-banned.
You ask why would any site allow other's to copy each other's debates? GREAT QUESTION!
Because theres this thing called freedom of speech. Dont know if youre familiar with it. Also, dude, copy + paste exists. How the hell would this site even be able to prevent copying? That isnt even mechanically possible. And if cuaroc never copied them its not like your debates would suddenly spring to life with so many people responding. Most everyone is banned from them and most everyone else knows youre an asshole and wont bother responding anyways. Cuaroc is the only way any of your debates survive on here. Be a little grateful you fuck. Also he doesnt ban you from his copies. So how come you never go to them and respond to the people who are responding to your original debate? Ive responded to many of cuarocs copies and i have yet to ever have you come and challenge my response to you. But its obvious why. If you could respond to me and defeat me in a debate you wouldve never banned me in the first place. you dont respond to me because you know you cant put up any decent defense of any of the stupid shit you say.
Alive and well. The focus has always been there, it's just that the irrational 'KILLINGS' of innocents gets, and SHOULD get, first attention, especially when there is NO accountability for these deadly "mistakes". Especially when these "deadly mistakes" are twisted to be "justifiable". We can save face, over and over again .... IF we like putting up with riots!
