This moderator is incredible. He kept the conversation in order and honed in on interesting points, seeking clarification and verification where it was due. I also couldn't spot that he would have been biased towards either side. He was incredibly respectful to all of the participants. I'm very, very impressed.
I hate to say it, but the woman arguing for the proposition was being completely anecdotal. I'm trying my best to be open-minded on this issue, but they aren't giving me anything to work with.
And now the man on the for side is saying that the scientific studies must be wrong because of his personal intuition. I'm wondering why this for side is taking such an anti-data defense. One might automatically assume malice on their parts, but I'm thinking that maybe they're used to having their argument dismissed immediately in some circles and automatically accepted in others, so they never needed to make a empirical argument. Whatever the cause is, they have made a thoroughly unimpressive argument built upon appeals to emotion and the occasional anecdote.
I hate making so many replies, but this is ridiculous. The woman on the for side is being incredibly rude to the woman against the motion because some information that it damning to the for side came up. That is horrible and her attitude is not fitting with the goal of Intelligence Squared debates: to have civil discourse even on controversial topics.
Same here...gave me nothing. Based on this, I’m now thinking that the focus in the black American community needs to be on better cultural assimilation into white American society, Better parenting and education and a sense of empowerment to solve their own problems.
Wow mark in his opening statement when he says the audience has to vote for the proposition because if they don't they're all rejecting his lived experience was a wildly innapropriate statement for a debate especially one that is being judged, and scored.
Sorry to be so off topic but does anybody know of a way to log back into an Instagram account? I was dumb lost the account password. I love any assistance you can give me
@Cairo Gibson Thanks for your reply. I got to the site on google and Im waiting for the hacking stuff now. Takes a while so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
It's ironic that this argument about bias, and the side arguing for it is arguing almost completely subjectively. They COULD be right, but their arguments are completely immeasurable. Is that not biased? And Gloria is influencing other minds with this bias.
Do you also see how the people arguing against are both white? Do you see how two white people are speaking for people of color in this debate while two black people are speaking for themselves?
I found this channel a few days ago. I love these videos. I listen to the whole debates. Unlike many other debate videos, I actually like both sides. They pick good people for the debates. The moderator is awesome. I feel like I learn something from both sides.
59:54 and the following seconds sums up this debate nicely. The against side says we have objective measures of where the violence is occurring, the for side simply rationalizes the data in a conspiracy theory-like manner. It's pretty clear which side is being guided by motivated reasoning. The for side just tries to explain the data away.
Found quite a few debating fallacies in this debate, particularly from the proponents of the motion. Some of these include: Call to authority, misleading vividness, faulty generalisations and cherry picking. It is quite sad because these tricks work on many people and are misleading.
This was a terrible debate. Heather was the only one making a coherent argument. Gloria trying to insinuate that the ghetto doesn't have more homicides? Cmon man.
I love these debates. It’s so important that they do this. The more emotional the debate is, the more important that it happens out in the open. Democracy dies in darkness.
I thought Gloria's opening statement was on point...until Heather started her opening statement. She and her facts put the smack down on the entire debate. Debate OVER!!!Also, please tell me why Harry Stern is there. He was not able to make a coherent argument the entire debate. Just a lot of rambling"I warn you not to use facts and data to come to your conclusion". What kind of garbage is that?
Chris Martin in a debate, always anticipate your opponents arguments, accept the truths in them and present your counter arguments and insist on pressing forward!
You could easily see that the audience was Skewed toward the racially biased side... there was no changing that... however... I believe that had you put this debate in front of people with zero biases whether they be because of media representation or things like that... the percentages would have easily been for the side of opposing the stance... they just argued better... I will concede that they missed many opportunities to turn the words of the people for the motion on their speakers because from what I saw the side for the motion spoke in circles and avoided answering the big questions...
Cops are overwhelmingly white people and they stop and arrest African-Americans more equals the biased statistics. Al Capone never served a day in jail for any of his murders.
2. The most recent DOJ crime stats on white American rural areas and towns showed there's *more* crime in these areas than in Detroit, Chicago and Baltimore(per capita of course). I do find it interesting how this stat isn't mentioned at all. So, you ask are crime stats racially biased? I'd have to say yes because I look at the police and judicial systems as a whole. Thank you.
Pulling things out of the air? How is it that the team for the motion didn’t uncover any of these 3 studies? You need to find the information that opposes yours and be ready to counter. Don’t start throwing dirt on a study you have not personally reviewed. I wanted to be with the proposing team, but the arguments in the modern world are just ...not satiating. This why debates are so vital, it’s never wise to choose positions based on popular assumptions.
One side had emotions and argued to ignore facts. The other side had facts. The winning side could have done a much better job IMHO. The black cop had a good point about those gunshot detectors only being in high crime areas. Of course, low crime areas don't have a lot of shots fired, so those detectors should not have been brought up in the first place. That 28% should have been higher. Glad some people in that audience woke up. That snarky black professor had a bitchy moment when she accused the white chick of pulling studies out of her ass.
I hate one sided debates. The side for the motion did not do their homework. There biggest challenge was not to show the disparities in treatment, there biggest challenge was to counter and apply context to the data. I feel they were prepared for the wrong debate. It felt like they watched some Documentaries on the subject but didn't do any deep data and context mining. Finding the flaws in the data. There biggest issue I have is they didn't hit Home the the use of the word "crime." Saying black people commit the most crime and saying black people commit the most murders is two different things so when they say they're committing the most crime therefore we police them more is inaccurate because they say themselves that they mostly base it off murders. So to hit Home that they're being deceptive by saying crime as opposed to murders and catching them every time they do it even if it means interrupting them was key. Cause they were trying to make the argument that in terms of crime white commit the most drug crime so if your concern is crime and you're doing a war on drugs murder or no murder you should be where the crime is being commited so if white kids are doing all kinds of drugs whether violence is breaking out or not is irrelevant. They violated the law and they should be punished for it and statistically they are not. The last biggest issue I have is they didn't talk about the fact that the statistics were a function of desired results. The policing is based on policy. So the police aren't reacting to the data, the data was part of the plan. So even now with the school to prison pipeline they already rigged the game. They know how people are going to react to certain stimuli. They know they're gonna catch a certain amount of people at a young age doing something wrong and they're gonna criminalize them early knowing that they've psychologically set them up to become more problematic later on. They destroy their education through policy so by the time they're old enough to decide they want stuff and they have to work for it and they know they can make more money selling drugs than working at McDonald's as their first job, they got them in the system and they're now justified in doing whatever they want to do. And if they can criminalize enough of them they can criminalize whoever they want innocent or guilty. And they allowed him to tell the biggest lie that they started heavily policing black communities because of the crime that resulted from the Crack. False. They were already heavily policing black communities. Black Communities have always been under a police state. The heavy policing was already there so when they put crack in the community they already had the infrastructure set up lock them up and then they increased the enforcement after they got the desired results to justify increasing the policing. They increased restrictions on felony rights so when they got out they had no choice but to commit crime to live, so they created to conditions to get those statisitics.
@@smithnwesson990 Bullshit. Stop lying. Police can be violent just cause. Police have proven they can arrest hostile criminals like Dillon Roof and other mas shooters and they won't get so much as a scratch on them. But you can do far less and be complying with every order and cops will still beat your ass up just cause and get away with it. This is not a debate. You're full of shit.
@@teddybruscie - what's your source of information about the arrest of Dylann Roof? He was arrested in a traffic stop. How do you know how hostile he was during the arrest? The police found a weapon in his car. Had he drawn on the police he would have become a bag of bullet holes. In any case you can't do statistics with a sample of one. You need to show a broad pattern of behavior of police mistreating suspects of color more than they mistreat white suspects when all else is equal. With more police having to wear body cameras, and more camera phones in private hands, the actual data on which to base such a claim is becoming more available. Individual anecdotes are not data.
I thought it was laughable when Heather asserted, completely without any self awareness, that it was crazy that officers could be acting in a racist way. That's simply begging the question. Admittedly, those arguing for didn't cite studies to back up their position, but their position has been brought up in the peer reviewed literature (see Administrative Records Mask Racially Biased Policing, published in May 2020, and it's not the first one only the latest one).
“I wanna move away from the data and back to the proposition that policing is racially biased.” Just trust me. This is lazy. You can repeat this 1000 times. Still need evidence and data to back it up.
The mental gymnastics and flagrant emotional backflips people do try to falsify & evade the facts is astounding. The appeal to emotion, the emotional black mail … is the reality that hard to accept? How do fix problems if we refuse to look at them?
Pro side: You’re making this stuff up. Con side: Here’s the data. Pro side: You’re making up the data. Con side: [provides multiple studies from this year] Pro side: [completely changes the subject]
4th argument, very persuasive with the opening declarations and then the focus on present day thereafter. Love the statistics and consistency and cohesiveness of the points.
At about 113:40ish...Gloria actually says "I thinknyour making that up" after Heather bashed her ridiculously old and flawed crack vs powder sentencing ove the head. Heather McDonald is coming to a debate and making up #s?...Please banned Gloria from public display
While I think both sides make great points, it sounds in many parts like the debaters are really saying that police are targeting *young* people. Think about that for a minute: Very few adults in this country would say, "It's wrong to be agist against young people."
Though a majority of the audience, 60 percent, agreed with the motion that “policing is racially biased,” the team arguing against the motion was declared winner of the debate at the end of the night because they were able to improve their support among the audience from 16 percent to 28 percent. The team arguing for the motion only moved up three points from 57 percent.
Gloria Browne-Marshall, a playwright and not a student of the scientific method. She virtually NEVER answers the specific question being asked, but merely muddies the water with other seemingly random assertions.
There is not a yes or no answer I feel, but more shades of grey. The root issue is we pretty much know what we need to do but we are naive or politically bankrupt and most importantly economically hoodwinked into not doing anything; instead we pretend like we do for most social issues; mass killings, paedophilia, excessive destructive drug use, obesity, gender bending phenomena, homelessness, broken families...we pretend that we are not one family that actually needs support from time to time and rather than elect an administration (be it state or federal level) that provides that support Only a govt can provide, we allow these entities to inject us instead with fear and greed. Things Fall Apart as Achebe wrote once.
Hang the missing non violent crimes in the statistics! It’s a distraction from the issue. If there was less violent crime...then maybe the police would be off chasing whatever crime they could find.
Unsure. She might be representing clients who are the victims of actual discrimination. Lots of those could be civil cases, and winnable. Plus they probably don't hinge on statistics, a subject Gloria appears rather weak on.
Although she took the scientific approach to make her arguments, I kinda feel like some of the sources of Heather MacDonald's data could not be relied on or proven. There is much more to crime than just statistics. Perhaps sociologists, psychologists, and crime data experts should have been part of the panel too.
Sympathy for historical injustices done to communities of color, I would guess. There's little doubt that slave catchers in the past were racially biased. But that's not evidence for today's policing being the same. The vast disparities in who commits crimes are hard to get around. The proposition needs to be refined in light of that, such as: given that [one group] commits [x] times more violent crime than another group per capita, is the police response to that group a little greater than x times higher, or a little less? Before the debate started, the organizers should have gotten the sides to agree on what the crime rates are - that's something they can settle with simple fact checking. If the sides don't agree on what the data are, then that is a proposition that needs to be debated before we can talk about police bias. Only the against side seems prepared to accept numbers as useful tools for understanding reality. And while it's terrible that an innocent young black man gets stopped by the police a bunch of times, don't we have to measure the inconvenience against the decreased probability that the same young black man will be shot by another not so innocent black man? The more stops the police make, the greater their odds of stopping crimes. One might think the people most at risk from these high murder rates might welcome the personal inconvenience from more aggressive policing.
But statistics can themselves be the result of bias: if you police in such a way as to target one group over another, guess who you're going to catch most of the time? I don't know that this completely answers the "why do the stats stilt this way" question. For that (assuming the stats aren't themselves the result of bias), you have to get at root cause: Why do minorities commit most of the crimes? Are they genetically predisposed to steal, sell drugs and kill? If not (and I hope you answer that question in the negative), then why? As for the debate itself, highly useless. Just more of what we get on CNN in bite-size form.
Statistics themselves CAN be bias, but let's not be nihilistic bout these things all the time, because if we were to, it actually refutes any statistics that the 'for' side too. These statistics being presented are GOVERNMENT statistics, not no voting polls. But to tackle your policing effort argument, the thing I wanna know is, where do we start then? If we can't police it 'this' way then how would we go about policing a particular environment in the first place? You've trapped yourself in this idea that it somehow can't be done in a certain way yet gave no solution on how to go about it, instead you ask a question that doesn't even resolute the flawed premise. Besides CNN you watch that fake news station? Explains why you're brainwashed.
How will targeting one group over another group change the rate of murders in either group? The rate of reported crimes will remain the same. If the police spend all their time in a community where most of the murders are not happening, they will waste tax money and allow more victims to be killed. If you're talking about petty crimes then sure, the cops will find more of them if they look harder. But serious crimes like murder and armed robbery will always get priority from law enforcement.
Anyone not familiar with Fryer’s work has no business talking, in an academic setting, about race and policing. In music hips don’t lie, in social science numbers don’t lie.
I just think there's a lot of ambiguity here, and that the burden of proof is on the side arguing for the motion. Most of their argument is based on discrediting statistics rather than presenting their own.
Marq- I Disagree with Heather, the reason being is that I have never read that Data LOL And for Glorias students at John Jay, I’m sorry. Hopefully, she gives you more data, stats and information in the classroom then she did here. Debating with passion does not make you right, debating with facts and data supporting your stance does
claims policing is racially biased, heather brings evidence from works saying police take longer to shoot with blacks, since she hasn’t read said work she claims it doesn’t fit the topic of conversation. how tf? that’s directly correlates to the issue
As long as she works in an area of law that doesn't depend on statistics, it might not be too scary. Only a small percentage of people have read a statistics textbook. It's probably scarier that only a tiny percentage of people in Congress have studied statistics, when virtually every law they pass depends on statistics.
the panel was poorly chosen, in my opinion. you need to get cops who are recently serving and you need to get sociologists who actually study the problems, not quasi-politicians. I recommend whistleblowers Joseph Crystal and Michael Wood, or any of the 1800 sociologists who signed an open letter to the American public titled "Sociologists Issue Statement on Ferguson, A Demand for Justice and Change in Policing of Communities of Color. this panel was out of touch and off topic, in my opinon. not one person raised the issue of police going into poorer communities looking for crime to fulfill quota, which is a major reason for harassment
sociologists are just number crunchers. police statistics are based on the numbers provided by sociologists. so, no, they are not out of touch, just ignored
Uniform Crime Reports are filed by local police stations, but the data is interpreted by sociologists working for the FBI. Also, sociologists study society, of which policing and crimes are relevant factors. when you say the government amassing the stats, note that sociologists, statisticians, and police reports are how those stats are compiled.
everything they do is based on data that they collect either directly through their own studies, or compiled from various studies. sociologists study society, and are basically number crunchers. they do a lot of collecting of data themselves, but also study other numbers for accuracy, refutation, agreement purposed. that is why it is called social science, they follow scientific methods in their work
the panel that are on the 'for' side is as good as it will get, it's the same kind of argument that is being spouted day in and day out, except this time it's being put up to scrutiny and with a moderator there to help because we all see how these kind of argument go out of hand when talking bout them in public places without being labeled a racist and then they just hop out of sight without waiting for their accusations and claims to be rebutted. Now we clearly see how infantile the arguments are when it's being pressured in a correct and healthy environment to have a productive discourse. The arguments are nothing more than emotional arguments not rooted in facts and pseudo-science at best. As for the against side, the white guy can be replaced by someone better who isn't a jokester and can be as sharp as their crime in partner next to him, but I'd wager that it's not needed, the 'for' side has a shaky foundational argument in the first place rooted in emotion and not facts. One thing I want to happen but didn't happen during the discourse of this debate, they should've brought up the black culture during the early 90's to the late 2000's, evidence clearly show how the culture promotes drug, bitches/hoes, violence(gangster rap), all of these contributed to the black community at large but nobody pull up this argument.
Well that seemed incredibly unproductive, they both basically just claimed and argued that the other side's statistics and facts are objectively false or faulty. Which, yea, how the fuck is anything going to be resolved of you both believe in such fundamentally different truths. First you got to straighten out and agree on facts, objective facts, then you can argue about the effects of method and demeanor. If I say unicorns exist and you say they don't, there's no point whatsoever in trying to hold a argument in regards to if they're badly treated.
the two on the right really don't understand what systemic oppression is like just hang out with the two people on the left for a week and you'll get a good understanding of it must there be a reality show that showcases poorly managed communities and their mistreatment before people finally realise that love and help is the only thing that is going to change those damn statistics we can 'debate' these topics but unless community leaders and local government intervene with appropriate solutions then we're gonna have the school to prison pipeline, and all sorts of crime the police departments need reform and 3 party over site nowadays, compared to Australian police, our police officers typically come off as poorly trained and over aggressive, I don't hate cops I know there's a lot of good ones, but their bathing in a swamp culture that needs some real accountability measures and restructuring
Did you just learn that in your social justice class in college? It's easy to set up a scapegoat term but reality is something else. Maybe it's different in Australia but in the U.S. it's not systemic oppression unless you want to define systemic oppression so I get a better idea of what you mean.
Gerardo the indigenous Australians here argue the same shit as the blacks in America, our cops are so much better than the US but they still get whinged at. I'm a libertarian and I hate cops but they do a hard fuckin job and the least you can do is respect that when they pull you up. If I'm smokin weed, I tell the copper hey this is what I'm doing, here's my stash, then they confiscate it and send me on my way. Simple solution to the people whinging, learn how to not be a wanker to cops. I tested it, with cops I had seen around, not being tools, and I was an arse hole and they made me strip down in the street, it could have been worse if I didn't follow their instructions. They have authority and if you don't respect that then they will get the shits.
The moral of the story to this debate is that bias isn't quantifiable. It will always be left to the constituent that's being biased against to prove it.And Heather is showing her privilege...
Bias could be quantifiable, for example if the level of police response doesn't follow the level of crime in different locations. The "for" side based its whole argument on trying to ignore where the crime is. If we ignore that, then sure, the police response looks biased.
This moderator is incredible. He kept the conversation in order and honed in on interesting points, seeking clarification and verification where it was due. I also couldn't spot that he would have been biased towards either side. He was incredibly respectful to all of the participants. I'm very, very impressed.
I hate to say it, but the woman arguing for the proposition was being completely anecdotal. I'm trying my best to be open-minded on this issue, but they aren't giving me anything to work with.
And now the man on the for side is saying that the scientific studies must be wrong because of his personal intuition. I'm wondering why this for side is taking such an anti-data defense. One might automatically assume malice on their parts, but I'm thinking that maybe they're used to having their argument dismissed immediately in some circles and automatically accepted in others, so they never needed to make a empirical argument. Whatever the cause is, they have made a thoroughly unimpressive argument built upon appeals to emotion and the occasional anecdote.
I hate making so many replies, but this is ridiculous. The woman on the for side is being incredibly rude to the woman against the motion because some information that it damning to the for side came up. That is horrible and her attitude is not fitting with the goal of Intelligence Squared debates: to have civil discourse even on controversial topics.
Same here...gave me nothing. Based on this, I’m now thinking that the focus in the black American community needs to be on better cultural assimilation into white American society, Better parenting and education and a sense of empowerment to solve their own problems.
@@krystalccameron7689 Couldnt agree more.
@@krystalccameron7689 I agree with everything you said except white
This should have just been Gloria vs. Heather and about an hour long. Heather would obviously win but it would be much more interesting.
Agreed. The guys were dumb.
Wow mark in his opening statement when he says the audience has to vote for the proposition because if they don't they're all rejecting his lived experience was a wildly innapropriate statement for a debate especially one that is being judged, and scored.
Sorry to be so off topic but does anybody know of a way to log back into an Instagram account?
I was dumb lost the account password. I love any assistance you can give me
@Carl Kaiden Instablaster ;)
@Cairo Gibson Thanks for your reply. I got to the site on google and Im waiting for the hacking stuff now.
Takes a while so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
@Cairo Gibson it did the trick and I now got access to my account again. Im so happy!
Thank you so much you saved my account!
@Carl Kaiden Happy to help :D
It's ironic that this argument about bias, and the side arguing for it is arguing almost completely subjectively. They COULD be right, but their arguments are completely immeasurable. Is that not biased? And Gloria is influencing other minds with this bias.
Do you also see how the people arguing against are both white? Do you see how two white people are speaking for people of color in this debate while two black people are speaking for themselves?
A boatload of statistics. A truckload of data. A seven forty-seven of facts. A tank full of truth.
I found this channel a few days ago. I love these videos. I listen to the whole debates. Unlike many other debate videos, I actually like both sides. They pick good people for the debates. The moderator is awesome. I feel like I learn something from both sides.
59:54 and the following seconds sums up this debate nicely. The against side says we have objective measures of where the violence is occurring, the for side simply rationalizes the data in a conspiracy theory-like manner. It's pretty clear which side is being guided by motivated reasoning. The for side just tries to explain the data away.
Did not like Mr. Claxton's opening statement. He argued from authority and personal anecdotes, and against empirical evidence.
The question at 1:21:30 was also very crucial. I wonder why it was difficult to answer.
This was pretty cut and dry, one side wanted you to feel that it just must be that way. The other side had actual facts and statistics...
Found quite a few debating fallacies in this debate, particularly from the proponents of the motion. Some of these include: Call to authority, misleading vividness, faulty generalisations and cherry picking. It is quite sad because these tricks work on many people and are misleading.
This was a terrible debate. Heather was the only one making a coherent argument. Gloria trying to insinuate that the ghetto doesn't have more homicides? Cmon man.
Yes that was ridiculous, we all know the stats
Stern should have been replaced with Larry Elder..
I love these debates. It’s so important that they do this. The more emotional the debate is, the more important that it happens out in the open. Democracy dies in darkness.
Actually if you look at statistics and data, you won't be confused at all, rather a very clear picture will emerge of reality.
The team supporting the idea that police are racist lost the debate- they had nothing but emotion and no data..
I thought Gloria's opening statement was on point...until Heather started her opening statement. She and her facts put the smack down on the entire debate. Debate OVER!!!Also, please tell me why Harry Stern is there. He was not able to make a coherent argument the entire debate. Just a lot of rambling"I warn you not to use facts and data to come to your conclusion". What kind of garbage is that?
Chris Martin haven’t watched it yet but “don’t use facts and data” is pretty hilarious
Chris Martin in a debate, always anticipate your opponents arguments, accept the truths in them and present your counter arguments and insist on pressing forward!
Yes, I want to talk about violent crime.....that is the most destructive evil and injust type of crime.
I cannot believe that data/facts are not really relevant according to Marq Claxton closing arguments.
You could easily see that the audience was Skewed toward the racially biased side... there was no changing that... however... I believe that had you put this debate in front of people with zero biases whether they be because of media representation or things like that... the percentages would have easily been for the side of opposing the stance... they just argued better... I will concede that they missed many opportunities to turn the words of the people for the motion on their speakers because from what I saw the side for the motion spoke in circles and avoided answering the big questions...
I'm sorry, but Heather destroyed them. Based on the data we have to this point it is difficult to prove racial bias in policing.
The fact that the data skews towards one race so much is indicative of biases.
guys there is a dog in my photo
superdog797 nice
superdog797 yes mate
superdog797 is it a racially biased dog?
Omg best comment ever I screen shot this and sent it to so many people who all died laughing
1st argument is lacking any compelling evidence. Didn’t give me anything more than an overheard rant in a cafe.
I felt embarrassed for the lady from the audience who asked the first question. The moderator basically told her she didn’t pay attention. Ouch!
It's true though. She didn't. The perspective she was asking about was established in the first few words of the first speech.
Would you argue that crime statistics are racially biased??
o War Cloud o Why would anyone argue that?
chris Dejesus because Liberalism is a mental disorder
Cops are overwhelmingly white people and they stop and arrest African-Americans more equals the biased statistics. Al Capone never served a day in jail for any of his murders.
2. The most recent DOJ crime stats on white American rural areas and towns showed there's *more* crime in these areas than in Detroit, Chicago and Baltimore(per capita of course). I do find it interesting how this stat isn't mentioned at all. So, you ask are crime stats racially biased? I'd have to say yes because I look at the police and judicial systems as a whole. Thank you.
not true. site particular
source
Pulling things out of the air? How is it that the team for the motion didn’t uncover any of these 3 studies? You need to find the information that opposes yours and be ready to counter. Don’t start throwing dirt on a study you have not personally reviewed. I wanted to be with the proposing team, but the arguments in the modern world are just ...not satiating. This why debates are so vital, it’s never wise to choose positions based on popular assumptions.
One side had emotions and argued to ignore facts. The other side had facts. The winning side could have done a much better job IMHO. The black cop had a good point about those gunshot detectors only being in high crime areas. Of course, low crime areas don't have a lot of shots fired, so those detectors should not have been brought up in the first place. That 28% should have been higher. Glad some people in that audience woke up. That snarky black professor had a bitchy moment when she accused the white chick of pulling studies out of her ass.
Debates cannot be won with anecdotes and hypotheticals
Really interesting point from the against side on weather or not violence is associated with a particular drug.
I hate one sided debates. The side for the motion did not do their homework. There biggest challenge was not to show the disparities in treatment, there biggest challenge was to counter and apply context to the data. I feel they were prepared for the wrong debate. It felt like they watched some Documentaries on the subject but didn't do any deep data and context mining. Finding the flaws in the data.
There biggest issue I have is they didn't hit Home the the use of the word "crime." Saying black people commit the most crime and saying black people commit the most murders is two different things so when they say they're committing the most crime therefore we police them more is inaccurate because they say themselves that they mostly base it off murders. So to hit Home that they're being deceptive by saying crime as opposed to murders and catching them every time they do it even if it means interrupting them was key. Cause they were trying to make the argument that in terms of crime white commit the most drug crime so if your concern is crime and you're doing a war on drugs murder or no murder you should be where the crime is being commited so if white kids are doing all kinds of drugs whether violence is breaking out or not is irrelevant. They violated the law and they should be punished for it and statistically they are not.
The last biggest issue I have is they didn't talk about the fact that the statistics were a function of desired results. The policing is based on policy. So the police aren't reacting to the data, the data was part of the plan. So even now with the school to prison pipeline they already rigged the game. They know how people are going to react to certain stimuli. They know they're gonna catch a certain amount of people at a young age doing something wrong and they're gonna criminalize them early knowing that they've psychologically set them up to become more problematic later on. They destroy their education through policy so by the time they're old enough to decide they want stuff and they have to work for it and they know they can make more money selling drugs than working at McDonald's as their first job, they got them in the system and they're now justified in doing whatever they want to do. And if they can criminalize enough of them they can criminalize whoever they want innocent or guilty.
And they allowed him to tell the biggest lie that they started heavily policing black communities because of the crime that resulted from the Crack. False. They were already heavily policing black communities. Black Communities have always been under a police state. The heavy policing was already there so when they put crack in the community they already had the infrastructure set up lock them up and then they increased the enforcement after they got the desired results to justify increasing the policing. They increased restrictions on felony rights so when they got out they had no choice but to commit crime to live, so they created to conditions to get those statisitics.
Violent crime tends to lead to violent police encounters
@@smithnwesson990 Bullshit. Stop lying. Police can be violent just cause. Police have proven they can arrest hostile criminals like Dillon Roof and other mas shooters and they won't get so much as a scratch on them. But you can do far less and be complying with every order and cops will still beat your ass up just cause and get away with it.
This is not a debate. You're full of shit.
@@teddybruscie - what's your source of information about the arrest of Dylann Roof? He was arrested in a traffic stop. How do you know how hostile he was during the arrest? The police found a weapon in his car. Had he drawn on the police he would have become a bag of bullet holes. In any case you can't do statistics with a sample of one. You need to show a broad pattern of behavior of police mistreating suspects of color more than they mistreat white suspects when all else is equal. With more police having to wear body cameras, and more camera phones in private hands, the actual data on which to base such a claim is becoming more available. Individual anecdotes are not data.
I thought it was laughable when Heather asserted, completely without any self awareness, that it was crazy that officers could be acting in a racist way. That's simply begging the question. Admittedly, those arguing for didn't cite studies to back up their position, but their position has been brought up in the peer reviewed literature (see Administrative Records Mask Racially Biased Policing, published in May 2020, and it's not the first one only the latest one).
“I wanna move away from the data and back to the proposition that policing is racially biased.” Just trust me. This is lazy. You can repeat this 1000 times. Still need evidence and data to back it up.
Heather McDonald is an intellectual powerhouse.
3rd argument, very energetically delivered and elegant structure. Food historical overview. Not enough empirical evidence for the modern context.
The mental gymnastics and flagrant emotional backflips people do try to falsify & evade the facts is astounding. The appeal to emotion, the emotional black mail … is the reality that hard to accept? How do fix problems if we refuse to look at them?
Pro side: You’re making this stuff up.
Con side: Here’s the data.
Pro side: You’re making up the data.
Con side: [provides multiple studies from this year]
Pro side: [completely changes the subject]
Starts at 8:30
4th argument, very persuasive with the opening declarations and then the focus on present day thereafter. Love the statistics and consistency and cohesiveness of the points.
At about 113:40ish...Gloria actually says "I thinknyour making that up" after Heather bashed her ridiculously old and flawed crack vs powder sentencing ove the head. Heather McDonald is coming to a debate and making up #s?...Please banned Gloria from public display
argumentum ad passiones
While I think both sides make great points, it sounds in many parts like the debaters are really saying that police are targeting *young* people. Think about that for a minute: Very few adults in this country would say, "It's wrong to be agist against young people."
Can we get another one of these, in light of everything happening now? Maybe, Philip Atiba Goff, heather and 2 others ?
Policing is also criminally biased. Favor criminals over non criminal innocent civilians 😔
Interesting, the women in the panel are much better debaters than the guys.
Though a majority of the audience, 60 percent, agreed with the motion that “policing is racially biased,” the team arguing against the motion was declared winner of the debate at the end of the night because they were able to improve their support among the audience from 16 percent to 28 percent. The team arguing for the motion only moved up three points from 57 percent.
"You can have some data"
Gloria Browne-Marshall, a playwright and not a student of the scientific method. She virtually NEVER answers the specific question being asked, but merely muddies the water with other seemingly random assertions.
Body cams have basically settled this debate
There is not a yes or no answer I feel, but more shades of grey. The root issue is we pretty much know what we need to do but we are naive or politically bankrupt and most importantly economically hoodwinked into not doing anything; instead we pretend like we do for most social issues; mass killings, paedophilia, excessive destructive drug use, obesity, gender bending phenomena, homelessness, broken families...we pretend that we are not one family that actually needs support from time to time and rather than elect an administration (be it state or federal level) that provides that support Only a govt can provide, we allow these entities to inject us instead with fear and greed. Things Fall Apart as Achebe wrote once.
Heather is so hot in this debate. Sorry for the crude remark.
Not necessarily related but, was there a debate where all of the panelist are women?
Hang the missing non violent crimes in the statistics! It’s a distraction from the issue. If there was less violent crime...then maybe the police would be off chasing whatever crime they could find.
That white woman came prepared
She truly was
Personally I am more worried about the couple shown in the thumbnail, as they are CLEARLY vampires.
Gloria as a civil rights attorney must be losing a lot of cases!
Unsure. She might be representing clients who are the victims of actual discrimination. Lots of those could be civil cases, and winnable. Plus they probably don't hinge on statistics, a subject Gloria appears rather weak on.
Although she took the scientific approach to make her arguments, I kinda feel like some of the sources of Heather MacDonald's data could not be relied on or proven. There is much more to crime than just statistics. Perhaps sociologists, psychologists, and crime data experts should have been part of the panel too.
2nd argument, I get the framework. Need some numbers and energy.
Mac Donald is devastating. I love her!
Heather wins
all the side for the motion have are excuses. how can anyone side with them?
Sympathy for historical injustices done to communities of color, I would guess. There's little doubt that slave catchers in the past were racially biased. But that's not evidence for today's policing being the same. The vast disparities in who commits crimes are hard to get around. The proposition needs to be refined in light of that, such as: given that [one group] commits [x] times more violent crime than another group per capita, is the police response to that group a little greater than x times higher, or a little less? Before the debate started, the organizers should have gotten the sides to agree on what the crime rates are - that's something they can settle with simple fact checking. If the sides don't agree on what the data are, then that is a proposition that needs to be debated before we can talk about police bias. Only the against side seems prepared to accept numbers as useful tools for understanding reality. And while it's terrible that an innocent young black man gets stopped by the police a bunch of times, don't we have to measure the inconvenience against the decreased probability that the same young black man will be shot by another not so innocent black man? The more stops the police make, the greater their odds of stopping crimes. One might think the people most at risk from these high murder rates might welcome the personal inconvenience from more aggressive policing.
Why do they care about the color of the person committing the crime? The statistics are the statistics
But statistics can themselves be the result of bias: if you police in such a way as to target one group over another, guess who you're going to catch most of the time? I don't know that this completely answers the "why do the stats stilt this way" question. For that (assuming the stats aren't themselves the result of bias), you have to get at root cause: Why do minorities commit most of the crimes? Are they genetically predisposed to steal, sell drugs and kill? If not (and I hope you answer that question in the negative), then why?
As for the debate itself, highly useless. Just more of what we get on CNN in bite-size form.
Statistics themselves CAN be bias, but let's not be nihilistic bout these things all the time, because if we were to, it actually refutes any statistics that the 'for' side too. These statistics being presented are GOVERNMENT statistics, not no voting polls. But to tackle your policing effort argument, the thing I wanna know is, where do we start then? If we can't police it 'this' way then how would we go about policing a particular environment in the first place? You've trapped yourself in this idea that it somehow can't be done in a certain way yet gave no solution on how to go about it, instead you ask a question that doesn't even resolute the flawed premise. Besides CNN you watch that fake news station? Explains why you're brainwashed.
How will targeting one group over another group change the rate of murders in either group? The rate of reported crimes will remain the same. If the police spend all their time in a community where most of the murders are not happening, they will waste tax money and allow more victims to be killed. If you're talking about petty crimes then sure, the cops will find more of them if they look harder. But serious crimes like murder and armed robbery will always get priority from law enforcement.
Heather MacDonald is brilliant
Anyone not familiar with Fryer’s work has no business talking, in an academic setting, about race and policing.
In music hips don’t lie, in social science numbers don’t lie.
Haha wow well I've watched this several times but never noticed the mans hilarious face @ 1:08:47 while a lady is lagging on asking a question.
I just think there's a lot of ambiguity here, and that the burden of proof is on the side arguing for the motion. Most of their argument is based on discrediting statistics rather than presenting their own.
All I seen were 2 people crying victim vs facts
Facts always win but nobody wants to accept the truth
Marq- I Disagree with Heather, the reason being is that I have never read that Data LOL
And for Glorias students at John Jay, I’m sorry. Hopefully, she gives you more data, stats and information in the classroom then she did here. Debating with passion does not make you right, debating with facts and data supporting your stance does
claims policing is racially biased, heather brings evidence from works saying police take longer to shoot with blacks, since she hasn’t read said work she claims it doesn’t fit the topic of conversation. how tf? that’s directly correlates to the issue
1:31:10 "how to ensure I can't possibly be proven wrong"
You don't hear about methods? What planet is she on?
What about black-on-black racism in South Africa NOWADAYS!
What does that have to do with the American policing ?
Everyone has biases so I would say yes they can be optimal work "can" be
How scary is it that Gloria is a law professor? Jesus.
As long as she works in an area of law that doesn't depend on statistics, it might not be too scary. Only a small percentage of people have read a statistics textbook. It's probably scarier that only a tiny percentage of people in Congress have studied statistics, when virtually every law they pass depends on statistics.
God Bless the Blue
That dude with the colorful sweater has attended more than one event and asked a question at that event as well. I think he is a plant. #FakeDebate
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Gloria Browne-Marshall uses everything but logic and provable evidence to make her case.
We need a fact checker cuz I've never heard of these studies. They are from xxx and by xxx. Oh well that is counterintuitive to how I feel.
the panel was poorly chosen, in my opinion. you need to get cops who are recently serving and you need to get sociologists who actually study the problems, not quasi-politicians. I recommend whistleblowers Joseph Crystal and Michael Wood, or any of the 1800 sociologists who signed an open letter to the American public titled "Sociologists Issue Statement on Ferguson, A Demand for Justice and Change in Policing of Communities of Color. this panel was out of touch and off topic, in my opinon. not one person raised the issue of police going into poorer communities looking for crime to fulfill quota, which is a major reason for harassment
sociologists are just number crunchers. police statistics are based on the numbers provided by sociologists. so, no, they are not out of touch, just ignored
Uniform Crime Reports are filed by local police stations, but the data is interpreted by sociologists working for the FBI. Also, sociologists study society, of which policing and crimes are relevant factors. when you say the government amassing the stats, note that sociologists, statisticians, and police reports are how those stats are compiled.
everything they do is based on data that they collect either directly through their own studies, or compiled from various studies. sociologists study society, and are basically number crunchers. they do a lot of collecting of data themselves, but also study other numbers for accuracy, refutation, agreement purposed. that is why it is called social science, they follow scientific methods in their work
Sam Harris.
the panel that are on the 'for' side is as good as it will get, it's the same kind of argument that is being spouted day in and day out, except this time it's being put up to scrutiny and with a moderator there to help because we all see how these kind of argument go out of hand when talking bout them in public places without being labeled a racist and then they just hop out of sight without waiting for their accusations and claims to be rebutted. Now we clearly see how infantile the arguments are when it's being pressured in a correct and healthy environment to have a productive discourse. The arguments are nothing more than emotional arguments not rooted in facts and pseudo-science at best. As for the against side, the white guy can be replaced by someone better who isn't a jokester and can be as sharp as their crime in partner next to him, but I'd wager that it's not needed, the 'for' side has a shaky foundational argument in the first place rooted in emotion and not facts. One thing I want to happen but didn't happen during the discourse of this debate, they should've brought up the black culture during the early 90's to the late 2000's, evidence clearly show how the culture promotes drug, bitches/hoes, violence(gangster rap), all of these contributed to the black community at large but nobody pull up this argument.
Heather can't be slowed down
Well that seemed incredibly unproductive, they both basically just claimed and argued that the other side's statistics and facts are objectively false or faulty. Which, yea, how the fuck is anything going to be resolved of you both believe in such fundamentally different truths. First you got to straighten out and agree on facts, objective facts, then you can argue about the effects of method and demeanor.
If I say unicorns exist and you say they don't, there's no point whatsoever in trying to hold a argument in regards to if they're badly treated.
F....…. her Identity politics
Speak to my friends
the two on the right really don't understand what systemic oppression is
like just hang out with the two people on the left for a week and you'll get a good understanding of it
must there be a reality show that showcases poorly managed communities and their mistreatment before people finally realise that love and help is the only thing that is going to change those damn statistics
we can 'debate' these topics but unless community leaders and local government intervene with appropriate solutions then we're gonna have the school to prison pipeline, and all sorts of crime
the police departments need reform and 3 party over site nowadays, compared to Australian police, our police officers typically come off as poorly trained and over aggressive, I don't hate cops I know there's a lot of good ones, but their bathing in a swamp culture that needs some real accountability measures and restructuring
Did you just learn that in your social justice class in college? It's easy to set up a scapegoat term but reality is something else. Maybe it's different in Australia but in the U.S. it's not systemic oppression unless you want to define systemic oppression so I get a better idea of what you mean.
Gerardo the indigenous Australians here argue the same shit as the blacks in America, our cops are so much better than the US but they still get whinged at. I'm a libertarian and I hate cops but they do a hard fuckin job and the least you can do is respect that when they pull you up. If I'm smokin weed, I tell the copper hey this is what I'm doing, here's my stash, then they confiscate it and send me on my way. Simple solution to the people whinging, learn how to not be a wanker to cops. I tested it, with cops I had seen around, not being tools, and I was an arse hole and they made me strip down in the street, it could have been worse if I didn't follow their instructions. They have authority and if you don't respect that then they will get the shits.
Love how the argument for are two people of color and the argument against are two white people. /sarcasm
I know a racist when I hear one, Heather 🧐
I know a race hustler when I hear one
This BS! is not even close to the TRUTH
IntelligenceSquared Debates?
Who these clowns think they are fooling?
Jesus christ could they have a more impartial moderator? He was basically a 3rd opponent.
What about bias against WHITES
Lol.!!!
The moral of the story to this debate is that bias isn't quantifiable. It will always be left to the constituent that's being biased against to prove it.And Heather is showing her privilege...
Bias could be quantifiable, for example if the level of police response doesn't follow the level of crime in different locations. The "for" side based its whole argument on trying to ignore where the crime is. If we ignore that, then sure, the police response looks biased.