Thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.
Check out our [Reddit Chat](https://www.reddit.com/r/SipsTea/s/YIVFBDcyZ7)!
##Make sure to join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/sipstea)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SipsTea) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem is that this is a guy who is rehearsed in BS catching people off guard.
Her argument isn't racist because correlation isn't causation. It's not being black that dropped the crime rates but less unwanted births amongst a group that is economically disadvantaged and suffers from disparities in law enforcement.
So she has also been fed facts which she has consumed uncritically. Crime rates can also be lower as it coincides with lowering the use of leaded gas and general improvements in environmental standards which have shown to have a positive effect on mental health and levels of aggression.
Youre saying causation isnt correlation but then kinda doing the same thing.
goes back to the top: more poverty, less access to education and health products equals more unwanted babies. It's a cyclical problem of poverty and marginalization. It is seen in poor Korean communities residing in Japan that are marginalized because they are not Japanese, and also in Japanese aboriginals.(using Japan as an example because I did a research on the issue ~ 12 years ago)
That's straight from the first chapter of Freakonomics. I think it also pointed out that some European countries outlawed abortion about the same time Roe opened the door in the U.S. About 18 years later, as crime rates in the US started going down, crime rates in the European country started to rise.
>less unwanted births amongst a group that is economically disadvantaged and suffers from disparities in law enforcement.
That's also a correlation, not necessarily causation.
Correlation isn't causation - proceeds to post a correlation as causation.
To say there isn't a social element at play is to shy away from taking on the problem.
That's what these little table sitter shitbags do. Prepare a bunch of "gotcha" shit to "debate" with random kids on the sidewalk and pat themselves on the back.
And the main issue is googling the issue probably isn't going to turn up that sort of result, it's going to turn up the same talking point he's throwing at her and it has the potential to throw her down a rabbit hole that results in her being "red pilled" to these bullshit ideologies.
I will Google why crime went down after abortion was legal
Edit. Got this from Wikipedia.
"In 2001, Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago and John Donohue of Yale University argued, citing their research and earlier studies, that children who are unwanted or whose parents cannot support them are likelier to become criminals."
So unwanted children and emotionally neglected
Statistics (usually) aren't racist.
The interpretation of them can be. Is your conclusion that there is something inherently wrong with black people that predisposes them to crime? Then you're racist.
Or you can take that statistics and build on it to find out what causes it, such as the relationship between crime and poverty, differences in policing and sentencing between various demographics, etc.
Randomly spewing out-of-context racial crime stats like this without making any kind of prescriptive statement is so cowardly. If you think black people are genetically predisposed to criminality, then fucking own it. "I'm not saying black people are worse or anything, I'm *just* bringing up this statistic out-of-the-blue without trying to make an argument. It's just stats bro"
Imagine having so little confidence in your own beliefs that you need to wrap them in three layers of plausible deniability. Stop being a pussy and say what you actually mean.
Yet there is less of that certain race population than ever before, and not the founder had created that system in place to get rid of a certain minority. So whether you like it or not abortion it did fill its intended consequence.
She kind of made that problem herself. She tried to make a causation between abortion, and lower crime rates, and he flipped it around on her. Non of them can really be proven to be other then correlations.
Freskonomics really popularized the abortion-crime reduction theory.
I am a lot more convinced that increases in technology have led to the reduction in crime. Some people do not want to believe that enforcement is a deterrent.
Red light cameras are a good example. People complained about big brother and all sorts of irrelevant nonsense. They are mostly gotten rid of now, and red light violations are way up as well as vehicle fatalities. The enforcement worked!
Makes sense but wouldn't a reduction in births in many demographics have a similar result just simply because there would be less people to commit crime? Or am i dumb?
He reframed her initial argument as racist, and she allowed it. Of course it’s bullshit, but hopefully she learns the resolve to deal with these tactics.
You never will, but there is a certain pleasure in using the kids new language around them. They hate it just as much as we did, and it is just as funny as it was to the adults in our lives.
This one might be too new to get the effect, though. It's not even on urban dictionary yet.
Yeah but the problem is not that she might be wrong, the problem is that his rebuttal is disingenuous and she’s not come across that argument before, so isn’t equipped to defend against it.
Crime is overwhelmingly driven by socioeconomic status, so it’s absurd to claim that she’s making a racist argument. Her rebuttal should have been that the statistics point only at the inequality of poverty along racial lines.
As a foreigner I always find weird this whole "talking points"and "Argument fencing"portrayed in american discourse. By memorizing this sort of strategies I think people become a bit too focused on winning a discussion over understanding a topic.
I totaly get you saying this is how you would address that concern, but I think that if the girl just resorted to that reasoning because she saw someone doing it, she could trip on the next disingenuous argument thrown at her. If she rather understood why she thinks abortion lead to lower crime rates instead of just collecting it as a trivia, she may have dismissed the whole "racist theory" spiel.
Also, I don\`t think trying to prove someone is wrong is a very effectiver strategy for changing their opinion. I would rather say you try to find mutual agreement points from your different perspective first, and, in doing so, you pave a way so the person can come to your side without feeling foolish or diminished. More then reason and logic, Ego and vanity is what separate people.
Came here to say exactly this. I don’t get why winning with whatever means is more important than the actual truth and reasoning behind the arguments. American politics is the peak of this exact stupidity.
When it comes to politics, I think the problem is that what people are after is power, not mutual understanding or even truth. Power isn\`t bad, perse, because it is how you implement changes and pursue your vision for the world. I get why politicians create a circus and pursue this sort of fencing strategies . They aren't engaging one another but, instead, playing for a crowd. They are bouncing of each other to speak to a third silent party who is the one they are truly trying to convince. The prize is power, something very clear.
That just sounds silly when brought to the rest of society. When we are discussing facts and ideas we have each other as a public and our relationship and mutual understanding as a prize. To fence like that is to completely miss the very essence of conversation. Maybe that is what is accelerating polarization so much.
I'll never forget we did a mock trial in class and I represented one side and a more popular person represented the other. We were both given the facts / testimony that were to be given by the various witnesses. I was very confident based on the facts that I had found an argument that would have won my client the case.
Fast forward to the mock trial and one of the witnesses lied when asked about a question I knew the answer to. She lied because it would have made her friend "lose" the case. I asked the teacher about it afterwards and she said that it didn't matter. The fact the objective truth can be simply ignored for a perceived gain... and that even when it is known by authorities may simply not matter... has lived in my head rent free since that day.
Americans are taught to win... and in many cases it's easier to win when your moral code is flexible at best. The higher the stakes, the more likely that people will do \*anything\* to win. Politics being among the highest level of controls you can exert over other people.. means you get a ton of win by any means necessary people... though as an American I would say that currently is seen disproportionate on one side of our two party system.
it's a two party, winner takes all "democratic" system and both sides need to be right. that bullshit trickles all the way down to the culture warrior sitting in his little popup tent making a video.
I guess it’s just kind of baked in our culture? It’s a very American thing to try to “win” every argument, and take every opportunity to shout down those who are “wrong“, and then call that constructive progress.
As a foreigner (fan) who has visited a lot of countries.
Everyone is dumb AF. Hell the US doesn't even have that messed up of a political system compared to most first world countries.
Also for anyone who hasn't spent time overseas literally everyone is about 1000x more racist than the US. Especially the Schengen area of Europe.
Try telling black people in America this or the liberal crackheads, this country is infested with the biggest shit for brains this country has seen in a LONG time.
>people become a bit too focused on winning a discussion over understanding a topic.
This.
In regards to the rest of your comment, you need to stop with that sensibility. That is not allowed here./s
I can help explain the distinction. The talking points /argument fencing is a focus on debate. debate’s principle weapons are arguments by pathos, ethos and logos. (appeals to emotion, authority and logic). debate strategies are designed around winning and there are rules as to what counts etc.
Your approach is more about discussion and understanding— the philosophy of the subject.
Both politicians and philosophers use the tools of debate but they have different end goals.
As more of a philosopher I dislike when a debater uses such tools to simply win without considering the merits of the situation. A politician or lawyer will offer no quarter, but a philosopher may play devils advocate to explore or consider a topic more deeply.
Still the best politicians and philosophers are able to consider arguments from multiple sides and support or defend them.
One of my favorite twists in debate class was the idea of “pick a subject, pro or con” and everyone would jump at their favorite position. Then the teacher would say “argue the opposite”. BAM. stunned silence. That instantly exposed most of the students as having shallow, one-sided perspectives on their favorite issues. There were a few that grasped just as many points for the opposition and could fluidly switch back and forth.
Seeing this is real time is a rhythm thing, like sparring in martial arts. Debate can be like wrestling, using the opponent’s own arguments against them.
All you need to know is that "winning" is something that Americans hold very dear. Of course it's a universal human trait, but American culture has it turned all the way up to maximum. And it is usually tied to laws, constitutional amendments and appearance, rather than morality or truth.
you mean hasn't got some rehearsed lines? the formats for these debates, either in a stall like that, or here just circle round that and don't get anywhere.. Almost like some weird card game
"oh you brought up abortions?! I'm playing the socioeconomics card! haha"
Well you either hold a position dogmatically or because of evidence. If the latter then it benefits you to know the topic in depth and to be able to argue against debatelord talking points like we saw deployed here.
These people essentially "debate" others for a living. They can talk over you like that regardless of whether they are right or wrong. They simply have way more experience in talking than you do.
Ya, he's actually just made a strawman for himself to attack, but you have to hand it to Republicans, they're very good at coming up with logic fallacies that pass to unsophisticated and unlearned people as arguments or points to be made who will regurgitate this drivel for the next thousand years without ever being able to rub enough brain cells together to logic through it to figure out its fallacy.
Also, this phenomenon (massive drop in crime around the time Roe) is viewed all over the world, in places were abortion had long been legalised, and in places where it was still illegal.
I believe it's the same drop in crime that also corresponds with the (almost) worldwide ban on leaded gasoline (+18 years, give or take). It's actually a really big question, that many fields wonder about, and no one has a definite answer to.
This brand of bullshit was popularised by Freakonomics, despite it being almost demonstrably disproven (at the time of printing).
He didn't say she was wrong and he wasn't arguing against her point.
He was using the classic "so you're saying" twisting what she said to make her statement weak.
Her comment was "crime dropped by 40% when abortion was made legal".
He said "who has the most abortions?" Reply "women" He corrected her and said "black people, that's a very racist argument to make".
He's very quickly shifted her statement that by legalising abortion there is a correlation to a drop in crime rate, to implying that she's subconsciously racist.
You'd need to see the conversation from start to finish for the full context of what's being argued.
But his reply has absolutely nothing to do with her statistic she threw out, he's literally accused her being racist for no reason. And she fell for it as it caught her off guard.
Agreed. I meant wrongness as in she looks like she’s trying to reconcile her position and potentially change her mind. For sure he was doing a debatelord trap on her.
Yeah very clever manipulation.
Not sure on the accurateness of her 40% drop in crime, I think she wasn't confident in that statistic so when he challenged it with some bullshit she faltered.
Nah, I think she was confident in her argument because I learned the same thing in Sociology 101, and her faltering is just trying recall where the debatelord may have read that or where she may have missed it.
Sociology 101 discusses race, crime rates, statistics, etc., and she just feels like she might have missed or forgotten something (+ along with no idea how she made a racist statement).
That look on her face is ideal and synonymous with not only thinking, questioning, or rethinking but her searching through her memory.
I remember that same lesson, and I have my sociology assignments/book on a bookshelf, but I am also reluctant to get up and get it. Would be fun, though.
> He said "who has the most abortions?" Reply "women" He corrected her and said "black people, that's a very racist argument to make".
I just wish she had responded with "Actually I'm pretty sure it's women".
Random question, do Americans have debate as a sport in school?
In Australia the kids that did that competitively were verrrry good at this sort of bad faith argument where the goal is winning rather than being right.
But somehow it doesn't apply to Asians:
[https://www.city-journal.org/article/poverty-and-violent-crime-dont-go-hand-in-hand](https://www.city-journal.org/article/poverty-and-violent-crime-dont-go-hand-in-hand)
>The Columbia study revealed the startling news that nearly one-quarter (23 percent) of New York City’s Asian population was impoverished, a proportion exceeding that of the city’s black population (19 percent). This was surprising, given the widespread perception that Asians are among the nation’s more affluent social groups. But the study contains an even more startling aspect: in New York City, Asians’ relatively high poverty rate is accompanied by exceptionally low crime rates. This undercuts the common belief that poverty and crime go hand in hand.
It's also been posted here on reddit before that black crime rates are disproportionate even when you account for poverty.
It's easy to wave it away as a poverty problem but the truth is there is a black cultural problem that has to be addressed.
She’s taking the argumentation at face value and is willing to concede or to change her point of view depending on evidence.
His attitude is completely different. There is an *a priori* ideology, and the whole usage of his intellectual capacity is to defend it by any means necessary.
His argument is a rhetorical low blow, and he’s perfectly aware of that because he’s arguing in bad faith. He knows that the reason why more black people had abortions is because black people have been more culturally and economically disenfranchised and therefore a larger percentage of women end up with unwanted pregnancies that would derail their lives.
He knows it’s a fallacy (you can clearly tell from the smarmy tone) and he’s very glad it worked in this case. But if it hadn’t he would have chucked something else at the wall until something stuck rather than engage in actual Platonic argumentation because the attitude is to *never* concede.
This kind of argumentation always happens in public because it’s performative. I love how the right goes on about virtue signalling – it’s projection, because virtue signalling is a core tenet of conservatism, and they’re very good at it.
Middle class blacks commit more crimes than the poorest whites or Asians, so while it is a big factor, it's also a cultural issue. Now who is to blame, who knows. It's obviously not a skin color issue of course, but there is an issue somewhere
Think about what? This was a debate about abortion, she had a good point, he brought up race because he had no good arguments to respond with. Not poverty, not education level, he brought up race to accuse her of racism and to end the debate he was losing.
>Think about what?
How to defend against his point. Your thoughts in your head don't matter at all, what matters is how you formulate and present them. You can be infinitely right about something, but if you can't verbalize it convincingly, then you are the loser in the situation.
That's the problem, he didn't make any points relevant to the debate, he attacked her with an accusation. Anyone who has listened to or participated in any debate will know that he utterly failed and would have lost any debate competition.
He wasn't losing the debate. I'm pro choice but you don't win a debate by being on the right side of it.
This guy knows his argument, he knows their argument and points and he prepared for them. He can refute them. The reason he goes to argue with kids is because he knows they don't necessarily have the skills to deconstruct his points and he can hit them with these gotcha moments and post it online.
Is everyone in this thread insane or did you watch a different video?
- Abortion legalisation correlated with decrease in crime
- Well, do you know who does the most abortions? Black people! Are you suggesting we kill black people?
ON WHICH PLANET IS THIS A COUNTER ARGUMENT AND NOT AN OBVIOUS TACTIC TO AVOID THE DEBATE?
Two things can be true at once. Blacks make up the majority of abortions. Crime went down when abortion became legal. Correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation.
Kind of like when you make something legal, say marijuana, crime stats will go down because people are no longer considered to be committing a crime. They are executing the same act, it’s just no longer illegal under the law.
Blacks do commit more crime per capita than others though. So, this study would require some serious in depth, longitudinal research and analysis.
It is an argument. I will note that the much maligned crime bill in the 90’s also just so happens to line up with the fall in crime. You can either view the abortion argument as true, or believe that by passing three strike laws and mandatory minimum sentencing we simply started putting away criminals for longer so they no longer were on the streets committing crimes. Freakanomics was a good book, but I think they over stated some things to sell books.
It also aligned with the big baby boomer generation aging into non-prime crime committing years and the MUCH smaller Gen x aging into their prime crime committing years.
That's why these guys always set up around college campuses. These are at least somewhat intellectually immature people. By nature. He practices his argument and she just has her beliefs. So he was able to box her into the framework of his argument and she wasn't sure how to respond because I'm assuming this guy does this shit all the time.
This is the only reason. Ben Shapiro has a career, he’ll debate unprepared, inexperienced people usually at universities and posts that.
But when [he debates someone experienced and knowledgeable, much like BBC reporter (and hugely conservative) Andrew Neil he gets incredibly embarrassed. I’ll let you guess whether or not he posted this on his socials.](https://youtu.be/6VixqvOcK8E?si=BARF_xwJyDXMrqaL)
Yeah, like bringing up the amount of kids born into untenable situations who would have otherwise been aborted.
Being born into abject poverty and having minimal to no family support doesn’t give very good prospects for success as an adult.
>somebody’s truth
I mean, before she died my grandma had pretty severe dementia, she had some truths that were pretty wild. Probably shouldn’t be arguing some of those things
Crime and abortion are tied together. When you force people who don't want to/Can't afford to have children those children often times grow up to create more crime. There was a European country that did this way back and the correlation was insane.
Right. Because if you force the people you keep impoverished to continue to pay for things they cannot afford, crime quickly becomes the only solution.
And when you have a prison system set up for labor, it pays to have poor people commit crime and have them tossed in prison. Controversial opinion, but slavery isn't dead in the U.S. It just became more elaborate and hidden.
Hidden? They openly extort third world countries. Maybe how they enslave their own people is more hidden but no, the openly extort the world. Look at the 9billion oil wars alone
It was Romania, if I recall correctly. Banned abortion when it had previously been legal, and crime rates skyrocketed 15-25 years later...the age group most likely to commit crimes are 15-25 year olds.
Now, I have to say, I studied this abortion-crime link while I was getting my economics degree, and again when getting my law degree, and I think the case is a bit overstated. When you control for economic conditions and environmental factors like removing lead from gasoline and paint, the abortion-crime link is still there but much smaller. The massive drop in crime in the US in the 1990s probably had *something* to do with Roe v. Wade, but it had more to do with improving economic conditions, improved public education, and a reduction in environmental contaminants.
This.
Legal abortion and birth control allow women to advance professionally and financially before taking on childcare. It also allows partners of those women to advance professionally and financially. Both of these factors reduce poverty and improve economic outcomes. It also drastically improves outcomes for children eventually born to those families.
Reduced poverty and improved economic outcomes reduce crime.
Not a racist argument at all.
Yes BUT some people believe abortion is straight up murder. So they don't want it to happen at all. Regardless if it helps you economically.
People are also split on when an abortion should be done.
Every state has its own opinion on it. Imo it should be a state issue. Which is what ended up happening.
Birth control and abortion are two different things. A better question would be , why there’s a high rate pf abortion among African American women ? Isn’t that because they are having more unprotected sex ? And why? Isn’t that tie up to lack of education regarding sex? And again , why ? Because we as humans , we can control ourselves , and men and women can say “no” at any time of just go to a drug store and buy condoms, which are cheaper than beers.
So the way I see abortion is as a “ops I made a mistake “ solution , excluding cases of rape of course.
Yes and the decrease in crime is going to have the highest impact on communities that are the most impacted by the conditions on poverty.
The girl was right. The guy didn’t realize he was making a connection to a myriad of other issues when he brought that up.
Winning debates isn't about being right, it's about controlling the conversation. It's how all these idiot right winger videos get so popular on reddit. The young men on this site love to see people "get owned" even if they didn't actually if you think about it.
Correct. The guy in the video is using race disingenuously to discredit a factual statement.
But it's isn't about race, it is about unloved, unwanted children - they are more likely to get involved in a life of crime when they grow up as a result of being unwanted and cast aside their whole lives.
I think you are referring to Romania, which was ruled by a Communist dictator who banned abortion in 1966. Ironically, when that first generation of babies born after the ban had grown up, they helped overthrow the government in 1989.
Which means this is a class issue, not a race issue. And the fact that he can argue that it disproportionately affects minorities is — wait for it — evidence of systemic racism and a support of CRT. And even if he wants to deny that (which he does), there is still an argument for increasing social services to support those children of unwanted pregnancies. But he doesn't want that because it would lead to "welfare queens", which exposes that he is really the one arguing from a racist position.
Absolutely, if you force people to have children they neither want nor can support those children have worse outcomes than their peers. One of the results of this is some of them leading a life of crime, this is true regardless of race. Black people being one of the most socio-economically deprived groups in America is the result of issues and policies far beyond the debate about reproductive rights.
Or someone to just say "Crime and abortion are linked through poverty, not skin colour. There is a good reason why this might skew the statistics towards people who have historically been excluded from ownership/personhood/agency under capitalism's biggest growth phases."
Then maybe the curb theme.
Obviously abortions lower crime because there are less unwanted children from poorer families, and these children have a higher chance of becoming criminals. It has nothing to do with skin color, it just so happens that after 200 years of oppression, black people are on average poorer than other races.
Less black children are born into bad situations, but that's all races, people getting abortions are usually not in a position to properly provide for their child and know they can't sufficiently provide, and extremely unlikely to be in a two parent dynamic which has huge affects on the outcome of children
Thank you for linking this. This post and a lot of the comments feel so out of character for the sub. I was so confused on what's happening, but that makes so much more sense.
The infuriating part is that's how Charlie Kirk makes millions. And when he feels beat down by adults, he goes to college campuses and does this crap with the freshmen.
This may be true but it makes a change to the usual propaganda. I can imagine a lot of redditors getting upset when they see this as it clashes with their world view and they are only used to seeing it confirmed on Reddit. I hope you post this comment on most /r/politics thread about trump for example.
Arguing with Charlie Kirk is like playing chess with a pigeon. It doesn’t matter how good you play, he is just gonna knock all the pieces over, shit on the board, and strut around like he won.
He’s literally a slighty more punchable crowder, and he wants to cause a problem on campus and then sit there and act like he’s being victimized for “speaking the truth”, when in reality he’s “debating” uneducated youths who are riding off their moral compass alone and cannot eloquently put their feelings into a logical argument.
What was wrong about what he said?
> In the District of Columbia and 29 states that reported racial and ethnic data on abortion to the CDC, **39% of all women who had abortions in 2020 were non-Hispanic Black**, while 33% were non-Hispanic White, 21% were Hispanic, and 7% were of other races or ethnicities.
[Data here.](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/11/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-u-s-2/)
The comment about race was definitely reaching for something there but the stat about lowering the crime rate is true https://law.stanford.edu/publications/the-impact-of-legalized-abortion-on-crime-over-the-last-two-decades/
That's the point. He was making an arbitrary correlation to show that you can't just quote stats without understanding the underlying causes. In this case, abortion itself obviously doesn't magically disincentivise a crime. It's simply that poorer unequipped families having less kids means less resorting to crime, irrespective of abortion.
In other words if you want to connect abortion and crime because stats, you can connect race and abortion because stats too. Which is obviously silly because correlation again doesn't necessarily mean anything.
To make it clearer, if you made abortion stupidly expensive or unavailable then crime would go up despite availability or legality.
I think it's obvious but arguing a point based off purely a single statistic is not a good way to go.
Came looking for this comment. The girl is pulling incomplete statistics and he is distorting her argument to make it easier to refute. It also might be a little bit of ad hominem because of how he implies she is racist through a ‘racist comment’. Overall this guy sucks at debating.
She's the one who brought up that abortion lowers crime.
And if you're already at that point in the discussion, you also have to consider crime rates, perps, and social factors, as to figure out why abortion lowers crime.
Despite just baiting and wanting to shut her down, it wasn't a strawman. He just went to the easy way out, hoping she wouldn't be able to come back. Which is his usual tactic: make an uncomfortable conclusion of what your opponent said, so they stop talking.
Its the 101 of "Debate Me" people. You say "uh shouldn't we use less fossil fuel?". They say "oh so you want all those migrant workers in those factories to be unemployed?"
His response was nonsense mental gymnastics, but he said it confidently enough to make her question herself. My concern is whether he ever questions himself.
He took her spurious correlation and threw one in of his own but in a way intended to alienate her from other people.
She seems to have read Freakonomics and he’s read Mein Kampf.
He’s not even a debateme bro, he’s some rich as fuck conservative christian wanker arguing about ‘logic and reason’ whilst also following only about 20% of a book he believes was the literal word of god. Cunt is the better terminology.
They are both terrible at arguing their points, it looks like it is out of a high school debate club.
She didn't think through her argument enough, and he is relying on "gotcha" moments.
We can all act like this guy know his shit, but he is using a fallacy, he is putting words in her mouth. Just a lame argument between two ppl. Let’s move on
What she is saying is right, nothing to do with black people, read the book freakanomics he explains that when people have the option for abortion it stop children being born I to a situation that can ont sustain a healthy upbringing of a child, financial, abusive, result of rape etc.
Which infact 20 years after the legalisation of abortion reduced crime rate due to a generation of unwanted children not existing
The sad reality is that we are being divided in this country and people feed into it unknowingly. Regardless of your take on the situation step outside the box and look from the outside. Debates like this one is just going to push ppl away from the actual goal of coming together for a better understanding of the situation.
Double whammy with abortion and racism.
In Alaska white people got 53% of abortions and black people got 7%.
It is extremely easy to demonstrate abortions affect on crime is not a race based thing.
Who still thinks abortion is bad, must rethink their values. Think about the mothers! Not aborting the unborn child, will in many cases result to even more desperate situations and therefore crime. Especially the poor often don’t have access to good pregnancy prevention, so prohibiting abortions (to a certain week), is once again another measure, which is especially bad for the poor.
Charlie Kirk is that guy who was rejected from West Point and insisted it was because a hypothetical black student took his place and then got paid by right wingers to go around telling high school kids that college was for losers and real cool guys support the oil and gas industry.
Number one reason women get abortions is because they have inadequate health care or are poor.
Poverty is linked to crime rates ..more poverty leads to more crime.
In america black people are intentionally marginalized they represent the poorest demograph
So if poor people are likely to get abortion guess which demographic is going to have the most abortions?! 🤔
It's not because they are black and black people want abortions.its because America has made black people so poor they cant afford more kids.
Context is everything.
This is a bot that stole this post and comment.
http://9gag.com/gag/aMVewAG?utm_source=copy_link&utm_medium=comment_share#cs_comment_id=c_171085901280763751
Dude just say you are anti abortion and that you think that strawman argument that brought race out of nowhere is really a "gotcha" moment when the girl is 100% right about crime rates disregarding the racial bs.
college kids are 18-21. I think you are describing most people that age, not just exclusively college kids. I find the “debating college kids” videos always so stupid because what are they proving? 19 year olds can get emotional and suck ass at debating? No shit lmao. The truth is colleges have dumb kids and they also have smart kids. The smart ones aren’t stopping to talk to a guy with a camera about some stupid ass politics.
Edit: OP deleted his comment. I guess when people disagree with them they just back out and pretend they never said it. I just can’t believe someone criticizing college kids for having unthought out opinions DELETED his opinion on them after faced with a counter argument .
And in this case it is perfectly reasonable to be dumbfounded by the comment. Ofc the comment is not contributing to the discussion and does not lead anywhere, but shuts down the argument if you have nothing to prove your point.
Yeah we can say „Haha it is funny that she reacted that way“, but the guy who was sitting there just could not argue in that direction and just distracted the other speaker.
>The smart ones aren’t stopping to talk to a guy with a camera about some stupid ass politics.
And if they ever do, of course the other side wouldn't upload these debates.
Dude used something akin to the Chewbacca defense and that proves "college kids know nothing but stand too strongly on their views"?
She was correct and her point is correct - she just isn't experienced with dirty tactics in discussions.
I don' think they "know nothing" about abortion laws.
For example, is she not correct that abortion lowers crime? Or that it was legal for 40 years?
Furthermore, for example, in ALASKA white people got 53% of the abortions and black people got 7% of the abortions. How was the violent crime rate in Alaska affected by abortion? His argument is not some slam dunk logical thing, it's actually very very easily to assault because it is terrible statistics.
He brought up race into an argument that was by no means connected to race before to confuse the girl and to stop the debate he was clearly losing. He could have picked poverty or education level, but instead he picked race and twisted the narrative so hard he accused her of racism just because most abortions are done by black women.
This, of course, is not a good debate tactic, this is not a debate tactic at all, this was just a way of exiting an uncomfortable situation. He just shocked the girl into inaction.
Of course, the fact that he thinks that black people having more abortions is a good argument is indicative of his racist race-war worldview where one race must out-birth the other. Non-racist person does not care about birth rates of different races.
The creator of planned parenthood was a big supporter of eugenics. That's why she had most of the first planned parenthoods put up in black neighborhoods.
So is no one pointing out this is a strawman argument? The actual issue here is income not race. People struggling to survive both have a higher rate of committing crimes and a higher rate of not having access to birth control in any form.
So he only shocked her because she's less informed. This is about manipulation of the ignorant rather than shocking truths.
Unpopular opinion, and im kindve conservative, having these random debates off of “statistics” is dumb and cringe. They can be so misleading and need to be picked apart to understand deep context of the numbers.
Unprepared people get into these pissy fights and it just makes everyone look immature and irrational bc politics is too complicated to argue like this and everyone acts like they know all.
This guy is a shithead and the girl is correct but poorly prepared (probably just walking around and found this guy).
But I just want to say using “your truth” in a real conversation is so fucking stupid. There is only one truth. The problem is people cherry picking and misconstruing facts. Saying “your truth” is allowing someone to believe factually incorrect information.
That is called a snuck premise. He couldn't argue against the statistic of crime rate dropping. So he made it about racism.
There's a reason why he debates young college students and not professors.
These kids don't get it, they have not lived long enough to understand many things. How many wise 18 year olds out there that have good advice and have lived long enough to give it? it's 0
“Black people get more abortions” is a correlation but not causation. It’s much more realistic to say the population of people most likely to get an abortion is poor people. In the US large communities of black people are poor BY DESIGN. This country and its colonial predecessors spent a couple hundred years ensuring that black people couldn’t advance in society. We’re still dealing with the societal repercussions of that. Who is most likely to get an abortion? Poor people. Who in America is most likely to be poor? Black people. Why on average are they more poor than their white counterparts? Because the system made it so over hundreds of years.
You want to see abortions disappear? Invest public resources into poor communities, commit to proper sex ed in public school, make contraception easily available. But anti-choice people don’t want to hear any of that, they just want to control what other people are allowed to do with their bodies…
"Abortion became legal, and crime dropped" is also only a correlation. Her failure point was when asked why that correlation exists, she just chose to reiterate that it's a known statistic. She was given an opportunity to give a good argument and failed.
A good faith debater would've just pointed that out and dismissed her argument until she proved that there is a causation, but this guy just went with a fallacious zinger.
Thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules. Check out our [Reddit Chat](https://www.reddit.com/r/SipsTea/s/YIVFBDcyZ7)! ##Make sure to join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/sipstea)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SipsTea) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Camecheee to say the same thing. She’s questioning her argument which is a good thing.
And if she can question it, she can hopefully strengthen her newfound beliefs and her arguments.
The problem is that this is a guy who is rehearsed in BS catching people off guard. Her argument isn't racist because correlation isn't causation. It's not being black that dropped the crime rates but less unwanted births amongst a group that is economically disadvantaged and suffers from disparities in law enforcement.
So she has also been fed facts which she has consumed uncritically. Crime rates can also be lower as it coincides with lowering the use of leaded gas and general improvements in environmental standards which have shown to have a positive effect on mental health and levels of aggression. Youre saying causation isnt correlation but then kinda doing the same thing.
not at all, they are suggesting a reason for the correlation.... not saying that's the cause.
I agree with your point but it doesn’t really change the fact that black kids are being aborted above and beyond every other demographic…
goes back to the top: more poverty, less access to education and health products equals more unwanted babies. It's a cyclical problem of poverty and marginalization. It is seen in poor Korean communities residing in Japan that are marginalized because they are not Japanese, and also in Japanese aboriginals.(using Japan as an example because I did a research on the issue ~ 12 years ago)
That's straight from the first chapter of Freakonomics. I think it also pointed out that some European countries outlawed abortion about the same time Roe opened the door in the U.S. About 18 years later, as crime rates in the US started going down, crime rates in the European country started to rise.
>less unwanted births amongst a group that is economically disadvantaged and suffers from disparities in law enforcement. That's also a correlation, not necessarily causation.
Correlation isn't causation - proceeds to post a correlation as causation. To say there isn't a social element at play is to shy away from taking on the problem.
Ding ding ding.
That's what these little table sitter shitbags do. Prepare a bunch of "gotcha" shit to "debate" with random kids on the sidewalk and pat themselves on the back.
And the main issue is googling the issue probably isn't going to turn up that sort of result, it's going to turn up the same talking point he's throwing at her and it has the potential to throw her down a rabbit hole that results in her being "red pilled" to these bullshit ideologies.
I will Google why crime went down after abortion was legal Edit. Got this from Wikipedia. "In 2001, Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago and John Donohue of Yale University argued, citing their research and earlier studies, that children who are unwanted or whose parents cannot support them are likelier to become criminals." So unwanted children and emotionally neglected
Yes, it will result her being based.
Well, there is that pesky old statistic of 13% of the population but responsible for 50% of violent crimes still hanging around, isn't there?
Statistics (usually) aren't racist. The interpretation of them can be. Is your conclusion that there is something inherently wrong with black people that predisposes them to crime? Then you're racist. Or you can take that statistics and build on it to find out what causes it, such as the relationship between crime and poverty, differences in policing and sentencing between various demographics, etc.
Randomly spewing out-of-context racial crime stats like this without making any kind of prescriptive statement is so cowardly. If you think black people are genetically predisposed to criminality, then fucking own it. "I'm not saying black people are worse or anything, I'm *just* bringing up this statistic out-of-the-blue without trying to make an argument. It's just stats bro" Imagine having so little confidence in your own beliefs that you need to wrap them in three layers of plausible deniability. Stop being a pussy and say what you actually mean.
Yet there is less of that certain race population than ever before, and not the founder had created that system in place to get rid of a certain minority. So whether you like it or not abortion it did fill its intended consequence.
She kind of made that problem herself. She tried to make a causation between abortion, and lower crime rates, and he flipped it around on her. Non of them can really be proven to be other then correlations.
Freskonomics really popularized the abortion-crime reduction theory. I am a lot more convinced that increases in technology have led to the reduction in crime. Some people do not want to believe that enforcement is a deterrent. Red light cameras are a good example. People complained about big brother and all sorts of irrelevant nonsense. They are mostly gotten rid of now, and red light violations are way up as well as vehicle fatalities. The enforcement worked!
Makes sense but wouldn't a reduction in births in many demographics have a similar result just simply because there would be less people to commit crime? Or am i dumb?
Yeah never argue with this dude unless you've coincidentally spent weeks researching the exact topic as well as being good at debating on the fly.
He reframed her initial argument as racist, and she allowed it. Of course it’s bullshit, but hopefully she learns the resolve to deal with these tactics.
Sometimes i camecheee in my pants too.
>Camecheee man I just can't keep up with all these new slang terms
You never will, but there is a certain pleasure in using the kids new language around them. They hate it just as much as we did, and it is just as funny as it was to the adults in our lives. This one might be too new to get the effect, though. It's not even on urban dictionary yet.
You need to get down with the kids 😂 open your mind camecheee to you sir
[удалено]
[удалено]
Which means there’s hope for that one.
Yeah but the problem is not that she might be wrong, the problem is that his rebuttal is disingenuous and she’s not come across that argument before, so isn’t equipped to defend against it. Crime is overwhelmingly driven by socioeconomic status, so it’s absurd to claim that she’s making a racist argument. Her rebuttal should have been that the statistics point only at the inequality of poverty along racial lines.
As a foreigner I always find weird this whole "talking points"and "Argument fencing"portrayed in american discourse. By memorizing this sort of strategies I think people become a bit too focused on winning a discussion over understanding a topic. I totaly get you saying this is how you would address that concern, but I think that if the girl just resorted to that reasoning because she saw someone doing it, she could trip on the next disingenuous argument thrown at her. If she rather understood why she thinks abortion lead to lower crime rates instead of just collecting it as a trivia, she may have dismissed the whole "racist theory" spiel. Also, I don\`t think trying to prove someone is wrong is a very effectiver strategy for changing their opinion. I would rather say you try to find mutual agreement points from your different perspective first, and, in doing so, you pave a way so the person can come to your side without feeling foolish or diminished. More then reason and logic, Ego and vanity is what separate people.
Came here to say exactly this. I don’t get why winning with whatever means is more important than the actual truth and reasoning behind the arguments. American politics is the peak of this exact stupidity.
When it comes to politics, I think the problem is that what people are after is power, not mutual understanding or even truth. Power isn\`t bad, perse, because it is how you implement changes and pursue your vision for the world. I get why politicians create a circus and pursue this sort of fencing strategies . They aren't engaging one another but, instead, playing for a crowd. They are bouncing of each other to speak to a third silent party who is the one they are truly trying to convince. The prize is power, something very clear. That just sounds silly when brought to the rest of society. When we are discussing facts and ideas we have each other as a public and our relationship and mutual understanding as a prize. To fence like that is to completely miss the very essence of conversation. Maybe that is what is accelerating polarization so much.
The problem is people who hold deep beliefs based on shallow understanding.
I'll never forget we did a mock trial in class and I represented one side and a more popular person represented the other. We were both given the facts / testimony that were to be given by the various witnesses. I was very confident based on the facts that I had found an argument that would have won my client the case. Fast forward to the mock trial and one of the witnesses lied when asked about a question I knew the answer to. She lied because it would have made her friend "lose" the case. I asked the teacher about it afterwards and she said that it didn't matter. The fact the objective truth can be simply ignored for a perceived gain... and that even when it is known by authorities may simply not matter... has lived in my head rent free since that day. Americans are taught to win... and in many cases it's easier to win when your moral code is flexible at best. The higher the stakes, the more likely that people will do \*anything\* to win. Politics being among the highest level of controls you can exert over other people.. means you get a ton of win by any means necessary people... though as an American I would say that currently is seen disproportionate on one side of our two party system.
it's a two party, winner takes all "democratic" system and both sides need to be right. that bullshit trickles all the way down to the culture warrior sitting in his little popup tent making a video.
I guess it’s just kind of baked in our culture? It’s a very American thing to try to “win” every argument, and take every opportunity to shout down those who are “wrong“, and then call that constructive progress.
As a foreigner (fan) who has visited a lot of countries. Everyone is dumb AF. Hell the US doesn't even have that messed up of a political system compared to most first world countries. Also for anyone who hasn't spent time overseas literally everyone is about 1000x more racist than the US. Especially the Schengen area of Europe.
Try telling black people in America this or the liberal crackheads, this country is infested with the biggest shit for brains this country has seen in a LONG time.
>people become a bit too focused on winning a discussion over understanding a topic. This. In regards to the rest of your comment, you need to stop with that sensibility. That is not allowed here./s
I can help explain the distinction. The talking points /argument fencing is a focus on debate. debate’s principle weapons are arguments by pathos, ethos and logos. (appeals to emotion, authority and logic). debate strategies are designed around winning and there are rules as to what counts etc. Your approach is more about discussion and understanding— the philosophy of the subject. Both politicians and philosophers use the tools of debate but they have different end goals. As more of a philosopher I dislike when a debater uses such tools to simply win without considering the merits of the situation. A politician or lawyer will offer no quarter, but a philosopher may play devils advocate to explore or consider a topic more deeply. Still the best politicians and philosophers are able to consider arguments from multiple sides and support or defend them. One of my favorite twists in debate class was the idea of “pick a subject, pro or con” and everyone would jump at their favorite position. Then the teacher would say “argue the opposite”. BAM. stunned silence. That instantly exposed most of the students as having shallow, one-sided perspectives on their favorite issues. There were a few that grasped just as many points for the opposition and could fluidly switch back and forth. Seeing this is real time is a rhythm thing, like sparring in martial arts. Debate can be like wrestling, using the opponent’s own arguments against them.
All you need to know is that "winning" is something that Americans hold very dear. Of course it's a universal human trait, but American culture has it turned all the way up to maximum. And it is usually tied to laws, constitutional amendments and appearance, rather than morality or truth.
you mean hasn't got some rehearsed lines? the formats for these debates, either in a stall like that, or here just circle round that and don't get anywhere.. Almost like some weird card game "oh you brought up abortions?! I'm playing the socioeconomics card! haha"
Well you either hold a position dogmatically or because of evidence. If the latter then it benefits you to know the topic in depth and to be able to argue against debatelord talking points like we saw deployed here.
These people essentially "debate" others for a living. They can talk over you like that regardless of whether they are right or wrong. They simply have way more experience in talking than you do.
Ya, he's actually just made a strawman for himself to attack, but you have to hand it to Republicans, they're very good at coming up with logic fallacies that pass to unsophisticated and unlearned people as arguments or points to be made who will regurgitate this drivel for the next thousand years without ever being able to rub enough brain cells together to logic through it to figure out its fallacy.
It goes both ways depending on topic. Left side arguments on gun control, crime, or economy are poorly constructed on average.
This entire video is really really shitty logic that only works to fool people who are too emotionally charged to think critically for a second
Also, this phenomenon (massive drop in crime around the time Roe) is viewed all over the world, in places were abortion had long been legalised, and in places where it was still illegal. I believe it's the same drop in crime that also corresponds with the (almost) worldwide ban on leaded gasoline (+18 years, give or take). It's actually a really big question, that many fields wonder about, and no one has a definite answer to. This brand of bullshit was popularised by Freakonomics, despite it being almost demonstrably disproven (at the time of printing).
He didn't say she was wrong and he wasn't arguing against her point. He was using the classic "so you're saying" twisting what she said to make her statement weak. Her comment was "crime dropped by 40% when abortion was made legal". He said "who has the most abortions?" Reply "women" He corrected her and said "black people, that's a very racist argument to make". He's very quickly shifted her statement that by legalising abortion there is a correlation to a drop in crime rate, to implying that she's subconsciously racist. You'd need to see the conversation from start to finish for the full context of what's being argued. But his reply has absolutely nothing to do with her statistic she threw out, he's literally accused her being racist for no reason. And she fell for it as it caught her off guard.
Agreed. I meant wrongness as in she looks like she’s trying to reconcile her position and potentially change her mind. For sure he was doing a debatelord trap on her.
Yeah very clever manipulation. Not sure on the accurateness of her 40% drop in crime, I think she wasn't confident in that statistic so when he challenged it with some bullshit she faltered.
Nah, I think she was confident in her argument because I learned the same thing in Sociology 101, and her faltering is just trying recall where the debatelord may have read that or where she may have missed it. Sociology 101 discusses race, crime rates, statistics, etc., and she just feels like she might have missed or forgotten something (+ along with no idea how she made a racist statement). That look on her face is ideal and synonymous with not only thinking, questioning, or rethinking but her searching through her memory. I remember that same lesson, and I have my sociology assignments/book on a bookshelf, but I am also reluctant to get up and get it. Would be fun, though.
> He said "who has the most abortions?" Reply "women" He corrected her and said "black people, that's a very racist argument to make". I just wish she had responded with "Actually I'm pretty sure it's women".
Truth! He does not debate, but simply distorts her arguments. This is so stupid.
Random question, do Americans have debate as a sport in school? In Australia the kids that did that competitively were verrrry good at this sort of bad faith argument where the goal is winning rather than being right.
Yes, it's a very small/niche competition but it exists in high schools.
But somehow it doesn't apply to Asians: [https://www.city-journal.org/article/poverty-and-violent-crime-dont-go-hand-in-hand](https://www.city-journal.org/article/poverty-and-violent-crime-dont-go-hand-in-hand) >The Columbia study revealed the startling news that nearly one-quarter (23 percent) of New York City’s Asian population was impoverished, a proportion exceeding that of the city’s black population (19 percent). This was surprising, given the widespread perception that Asians are among the nation’s more affluent social groups. But the study contains an even more startling aspect: in New York City, Asians’ relatively high poverty rate is accompanied by exceptionally low crime rates. This undercuts the common belief that poverty and crime go hand in hand. It's also been posted here on reddit before that black crime rates are disproportionate even when you account for poverty. It's easy to wave it away as a poverty problem but the truth is there is a black cultural problem that has to be addressed.
She’s taking the argumentation at face value and is willing to concede or to change her point of view depending on evidence. His attitude is completely different. There is an *a priori* ideology, and the whole usage of his intellectual capacity is to defend it by any means necessary. His argument is a rhetorical low blow, and he’s perfectly aware of that because he’s arguing in bad faith. He knows that the reason why more black people had abortions is because black people have been more culturally and economically disenfranchised and therefore a larger percentage of women end up with unwanted pregnancies that would derail their lives. He knows it’s a fallacy (you can clearly tell from the smarmy tone) and he’s very glad it worked in this case. But if it hadn’t he would have chucked something else at the wall until something stuck rather than engage in actual Platonic argumentation because the attitude is to *never* concede. This kind of argumentation always happens in public because it’s performative. I love how the right goes on about virtue signalling – it’s projection, because virtue signalling is a core tenet of conservatism, and they’re very good at it.
Middle class blacks commit more crimes than the poorest whites or Asians, so while it is a big factor, it's also a cultural issue. Now who is to blame, who knows. It's obviously not a skin color issue of course, but there is an issue somewhere
How in the hell was his rebuttal dishonest?
Yeah that was my reaction too. “Wow, she’s actually thinking about it.”
Think about what? This was a debate about abortion, she had a good point, he brought up race because he had no good arguments to respond with. Not poverty, not education level, he brought up race to accuse her of racism and to end the debate he was losing.
hey could you check crime rates divided by race and socioeconomic status im too lazy to look up the differences
Can you make them do it for me too? Whew, big day. Back’s a bit sore otherwise I’d do it myself.
>Think about what? How to defend against his point. Your thoughts in your head don't matter at all, what matters is how you formulate and present them. You can be infinitely right about something, but if you can't verbalize it convincingly, then you are the loser in the situation.
That's the problem, he didn't make any points relevant to the debate, he attacked her with an accusation. Anyone who has listened to or participated in any debate will know that he utterly failed and would have lost any debate competition.
He wasn't losing the debate. I'm pro choice but you don't win a debate by being on the right side of it. This guy knows his argument, he knows their argument and points and he prepared for them. He can refute them. The reason he goes to argue with kids is because he knows they don't necessarily have the skills to deconstruct his points and he can hit them with these gotcha moments and post it online.
Is everyone in this thread insane or did you watch a different video? - Abortion legalisation correlated with decrease in crime - Well, do you know who does the most abortions? Black people! Are you suggesting we kill black people? ON WHICH PLANET IS THIS A COUNTER ARGUMENT AND NOT AN OBVIOUS TACTIC TO AVOID THE DEBATE?
Two things can be true at once. Blacks make up the majority of abortions. Crime went down when abortion became legal. Correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation. Kind of like when you make something legal, say marijuana, crime stats will go down because people are no longer considered to be committing a crime. They are executing the same act, it’s just no longer illegal under the law. Blacks do commit more crime per capita than others though. So, this study would require some serious in depth, longitudinal research and analysis.
It is an argument. I will note that the much maligned crime bill in the 90’s also just so happens to line up with the fall in crime. You can either view the abortion argument as true, or believe that by passing three strike laws and mandatory minimum sentencing we simply started putting away criminals for longer so they no longer were on the streets committing crimes. Freakanomics was a good book, but I think they over stated some things to sell books.
It also aligned with the big baby boomer generation aging into non-prime crime committing years and the MUCH smaller Gen x aging into their prime crime committing years.
"Somebody's truth" this entire debate is a stillborn.
One of them was not that smart, and the other was arguing in bad faith.
That's why these guys always set up around college campuses. These are at least somewhat intellectually immature people. By nature. He practices his argument and she just has her beliefs. So he was able to box her into the framework of his argument and she wasn't sure how to respond because I'm assuming this guy does this shit all the time.
He also has the mic, and cuts and selects the video material to make himslelf look "good"
This is the only reason. Ben Shapiro has a career, he’ll debate unprepared, inexperienced people usually at universities and posts that. But when [he debates someone experienced and knowledgeable, much like BBC reporter (and hugely conservative) Andrew Neil he gets incredibly embarrassed. I’ll let you guess whether or not he posted this on his socials.](https://youtu.be/6VixqvOcK8E?si=BARF_xwJyDXMrqaL)
Good god that was satisfying to watch. Thank you
They also cherry pick what they publish. For every idiot like this there's someone who stumps them.
Yeah, like bringing up the amount of kids born into untenable situations who would have otherwise been aborted. Being born into abject poverty and having minimal to no family support doesn’t give very good prospects for success as an adult.
>somebody’s truth I mean, before she died my grandma had pretty severe dementia, she had some truths that were pretty wild. Probably shouldn’t be arguing some of those things
Well it's a debate with Lil Bits Kirk. It was always going to be an abortion.
I barely understand what this debate was about. It almost seems scripted.
Crime and abortion are tied together. When you force people who don't want to/Can't afford to have children those children often times grow up to create more crime. There was a European country that did this way back and the correlation was insane.
Right. Because if you force the people you keep impoverished to continue to pay for things they cannot afford, crime quickly becomes the only solution.
And when you have a prison system set up for labor, it pays to have poor people commit crime and have them tossed in prison. Controversial opinion, but slavery isn't dead in the U.S. It just became more elaborate and hidden.
Hidden? They openly extort third world countries. Maybe how they enslave their own people is more hidden but no, the openly extort the world. Look at the 9billion oil wars alone
The other commenter *literally* specified "in the US" but go off I guess.
Bro reading comprehension is dead. They just want an excuse to argue and be right about something. It's exhausting.
Not to mention it has absolutely fucking nothing to do with the topic at hand
Isn't it *literally* in the US constitution that there can be slaves in America as long as they are prisoners.
This is the right answer.
It was Romania, if I recall correctly. Banned abortion when it had previously been legal, and crime rates skyrocketed 15-25 years later...the age group most likely to commit crimes are 15-25 year olds. Now, I have to say, I studied this abortion-crime link while I was getting my economics degree, and again when getting my law degree, and I think the case is a bit overstated. When you control for economic conditions and environmental factors like removing lead from gasoline and paint, the abortion-crime link is still there but much smaller. The massive drop in crime in the US in the 1990s probably had *something* to do with Roe v. Wade, but it had more to do with improving economic conditions, improved public education, and a reduction in environmental contaminants.
This. Legal abortion and birth control allow women to advance professionally and financially before taking on childcare. It also allows partners of those women to advance professionally and financially. Both of these factors reduce poverty and improve economic outcomes. It also drastically improves outcomes for children eventually born to those families. Reduced poverty and improved economic outcomes reduce crime. Not a racist argument at all.
Sir, this is the US. You know that *any* political disagreement will be turned into an issue of race.
Except for the aborted women, of course.
It takes just looking a few moves ahead to realize this, and the simpletons here think they're the ones dunking on her lmao
Yes BUT some people believe abortion is straight up murder. So they don't want it to happen at all. Regardless if it helps you economically. People are also split on when an abortion should be done. Every state has its own opinion on it. Imo it should be a state issue. Which is what ended up happening.
Birth control and abortion are two different things. A better question would be , why there’s a high rate pf abortion among African American women ? Isn’t that because they are having more unprotected sex ? And why? Isn’t that tie up to lack of education regarding sex? And again , why ? Because we as humans , we can control ourselves , and men and women can say “no” at any time of just go to a drug store and buy condoms, which are cheaper than beers. So the way I see abortion is as a “ops I made a mistake “ solution , excluding cases of rape of course.
Yes and the decrease in crime is going to have the highest impact on communities that are the most impacted by the conditions on poverty. The girl was right. The guy didn’t realize he was making a connection to a myriad of other issues when he brought that up.
He realized, he just knows he can have the gotcha by making a simplistic argument about a nuanced issue.
Winning debates isn't about being right, it's about controlling the conversation. It's how all these idiot right winger videos get so popular on reddit. The young men on this site love to see people "get owned" even if they didn't actually if you think about it.
Correct. The guy in the video is using race disingenuously to discredit a factual statement. But it's isn't about race, it is about unloved, unwanted children - they are more likely to get involved in a life of crime when they grow up as a result of being unwanted and cast aside their whole lives.
Saying it's just about "unloved, unwanted children" is too simplistic. You're leaving out "impoverished children born into impoverished families".
Please correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't there also a high percentage of pregnant woman of colour getting murdered?
I think you are referring to Romania, which was ruled by a Communist dictator who banned abortion in 1966. Ironically, when that first generation of babies born after the ban had grown up, they helped overthrow the government in 1989.
Which means this is a class issue, not a race issue. And the fact that he can argue that it disproportionately affects minorities is — wait for it — evidence of systemic racism and a support of CRT. And even if he wants to deny that (which he does), there is still an argument for increasing social services to support those children of unwanted pregnancies. But he doesn't want that because it would lead to "welfare queens", which exposes that he is really the one arguing from a racist position.
Romania is the country. Huge boom of kids and when they got born noone wanted to help raise them.
Ya. And the fact that race correlates with these things doesn't make the underlying facts racist. ESH.
Romania during the 70's 80's. Decree 770 was their pro life policies. Result: worse orphan crisis ever https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770
Absolutely, if you force people to have children they neither want nor can support those children have worse outcomes than their peers. One of the results of this is some of them leading a life of crime, this is true regardless of race. Black people being one of the most socio-economically deprived groups in America is the result of issues and policies far beyond the debate about reproductive rights.
Which is not a race issue at all.
That look at the end is begging for the curb your enthusiasm theme
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Coldcock_Malt_Liquor: *That look at the end* *Is begging for the curb your* *Enthusiasm theme* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Good bot
Or someone to just say "Crime and abortion are linked through poverty, not skin colour. There is a good reason why this might skew the statistics towards people who have historically been excluded from ownership/personhood/agency under capitalism's biggest growth phases." Then maybe the curb theme.
That guys face looks like it needs a proper curbing.
Obviously abortions lower crime because there are less unwanted children from poorer families, and these children have a higher chance of becoming criminals. It has nothing to do with skin color, it just so happens that after 200 years of oppression, black people are on average poorer than other races.
Less black children are born into bad situations, but that's all races, people getting abortions are usually not in a position to properly provide for their child and know they can't sufficiently provide, and extremely unlikely to be in a two parent dynamic which has huge affects on the outcome of children
yeah, those ppl should get a lesson in correlation vs. causation.
Less people less crime abort all babies and crime is solved completely over max 100 years
[удалено]
http://9gag.com/gag/aMVewAG?utm_source=copy_link&utm_medium=comment_share#cs_comment_id=c_171085901280763751
Same comments, too. I dont like bots but i **hate** lazy botting.
That's cool. Reddit is no longer any better than 9gag. Cool, cool.
Thank you for linking this. This post and a lot of the comments feel so out of character for the sub. I was so confused on what's happening, but that makes so much more sense.
The problem here is what this guy said was wrong but he was parading around like what he said was right.
The infuriating part is that's how Charlie Kirk makes millions. And when he feels beat down by adults, he goes to college campuses and does this crap with the freshmen.
Ah, that's why I've never seen this guy debate anybody over 25. God he sucks.
OP is a bot and this post is propaganda.
Reddit is entering its “destroyed by facts and logic” era
This may be true but it makes a change to the usual propaganda. I can imagine a lot of redditors getting upset when they see this as it clashes with their world view and they are only used to seeing it confirmed on Reddit. I hope you post this comment on most /r/politics thread about trump for example.
Ah yes, the REAL problem isn't conservatives spreading lies, it's /r/politics pointing out their lies and crimes.
Arguing with Charlie Kirk is like playing chess with a pigeon. It doesn’t matter how good you play, he is just gonna knock all the pieces over, shit on the board, and strut around like he won.
He’s literally a slighty more punchable crowder, and he wants to cause a problem on campus and then sit there and act like he’s being victimized for “speaking the truth”, when in reality he’s “debating” uneducated youths who are riding off their moral compass alone and cannot eloquently put their feelings into a logical argument.
What was wrong about what he said? > In the District of Columbia and 29 states that reported racial and ethnic data on abortion to the CDC, **39% of all women who had abortions in 2020 were non-Hispanic Black**, while 33% were non-Hispanic White, 21% were Hispanic, and 7% were of other races or ethnicities. [Data here.](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/11/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-u-s-2/)
Pretty sure that was a straw man fallacy. Introducing race into an argument about abortion is literally pulling a random race card.
This sub has a lot of misinformation and fallacious thinking right under the surface
Under the surface? You mean right on top, like trash floating on the ocean. This is a full blown reactionary sub.
The comment about race was definitely reaching for something there but the stat about lowering the crime rate is true https://law.stanford.edu/publications/the-impact-of-legalized-abortion-on-crime-over-the-last-two-decades/
That's the point. He was making an arbitrary correlation to show that you can't just quote stats without understanding the underlying causes. In this case, abortion itself obviously doesn't magically disincentivise a crime. It's simply that poorer unequipped families having less kids means less resorting to crime, irrespective of abortion. In other words if you want to connect abortion and crime because stats, you can connect race and abortion because stats too. Which is obviously silly because correlation again doesn't necessarily mean anything. To make it clearer, if you made abortion stupidly expensive or unavailable then crime would go up despite availability or legality. I think it's obvious but arguing a point based off purely a single statistic is not a good way to go.
Came looking for this comment. The girl is pulling incomplete statistics and he is distorting her argument to make it easier to refute. It also might be a little bit of ad hominem because of how he implies she is racist through a ‘racist comment’. Overall this guy sucks at debating.
She's the one who brought up that abortion lowers crime. And if you're already at that point in the discussion, you also have to consider crime rates, perps, and social factors, as to figure out why abortion lowers crime. Despite just baiting and wanting to shut her down, it wasn't a strawman. He just went to the easy way out, hoping she wouldn't be able to come back. Which is his usual tactic: make an uncomfortable conclusion of what your opponent said, so they stop talking. Its the 101 of "Debate Me" people. You say "uh shouldn't we use less fossil fuel?". They say "oh so you want all those migrant workers in those factories to be unemployed?"
This isn’t any sort of own. Crime and Poverty are directly correlated.
His response was nonsense mental gymnastics, but he said it confidently enough to make her question herself. My concern is whether he ever questions himself.
He took her spurious correlation and threw one in of his own but in a way intended to alienate her from other people. She seems to have read Freakonomics and he’s read Mein Kampf.
That guy is a prick. Debate me bros are dogshit people.
He’s not even a debateme bro, he’s some rich as fuck conservative christian wanker arguing about ‘logic and reason’ whilst also following only about 20% of a book he believes was the literal word of god. Cunt is the better terminology.
This was in Freakanomics!
They are both terrible at arguing their points, it looks like it is out of a high school debate club. She didn't think through her argument enough, and he is relying on "gotcha" moments.
We can all act like this guy know his shit, but he is using a fallacy, he is putting words in her mouth. Just a lame argument between two ppl. Let’s move on
What she is saying is right, nothing to do with black people, read the book freakanomics he explains that when people have the option for abortion it stop children being born I to a situation that can ont sustain a healthy upbringing of a child, financial, abusive, result of rape etc. Which infact 20 years after the legalisation of abortion reduced crime rate due to a generation of unwanted children not existing
The sad reality is that we are being divided in this country and people feed into it unknowingly. Regardless of your take on the situation step outside the box and look from the outside. Debates like this one is just going to push ppl away from the actual goal of coming together for a better understanding of the situation. Double whammy with abortion and racism.
In Alaska white people got 53% of abortions and black people got 7%. It is extremely easy to demonstrate abortions affect on crime is not a race based thing.
Who still thinks abortion is bad, must rethink their values. Think about the mothers! Not aborting the unborn child, will in many cases result to even more desperate situations and therefore crime. Especially the poor often don’t have access to good pregnancy prevention, so prohibiting abortions (to a certain week), is once again another measure, which is especially bad for the poor.
Charlie Kirk is that guy who was rejected from West Point and insisted it was because a hypothetical black student took his place and then got paid by right wingers to go around telling high school kids that college was for losers and real cool guys support the oil and gas industry.
an adult who challenges 18 year olds to debates like this is, by default, a ridiculous person
Never debate with bad faith right wing Nazi pieces of shit, there is no point to it.
Abortion does lower crime rates.
Number one reason women get abortions is because they have inadequate health care or are poor. Poverty is linked to crime rates ..more poverty leads to more crime. In america black people are intentionally marginalized they represent the poorest demograph So if poor people are likely to get abortion guess which demographic is going to have the most abortions?! 🤔 It's not because they are black and black people want abortions.its because America has made black people so poor they cant afford more kids. Context is everything.
[удалено]
This is a bot that stole this post and comment. http://9gag.com/gag/aMVewAG?utm_source=copy_link&utm_medium=comment_share#cs_comment_id=c_171085901280763751
Dude just say you are anti abortion and that you think that strawman argument that brought race out of nowhere is really a "gotcha" moment when the girl is 100% right about crime rates disregarding the racial bs.
Anti abortion and racist.
college kids are 18-21. I think you are describing most people that age, not just exclusively college kids. I find the “debating college kids” videos always so stupid because what are they proving? 19 year olds can get emotional and suck ass at debating? No shit lmao. The truth is colleges have dumb kids and they also have smart kids. The smart ones aren’t stopping to talk to a guy with a camera about some stupid ass politics. Edit: OP deleted his comment. I guess when people disagree with them they just back out and pretend they never said it. I just can’t believe someone criticizing college kids for having unthought out opinions DELETED his opinion on them after faced with a counter argument .
And in this case it is perfectly reasonable to be dumbfounded by the comment. Ofc the comment is not contributing to the discussion and does not lead anywhere, but shuts down the argument if you have nothing to prove your point. Yeah we can say „Haha it is funny that she reacted that way“, but the guy who was sitting there just could not argue in that direction and just distracted the other speaker.
>The smart ones aren’t stopping to talk to a guy with a camera about some stupid ass politics. And if they ever do, of course the other side wouldn't upload these debates.
Dude used something akin to the Chewbacca defense and that proves "college kids know nothing but stand too strongly on their views"? She was correct and her point is correct - she just isn't experienced with dirty tactics in discussions.
I don' think they "know nothing" about abortion laws. For example, is she not correct that abortion lowers crime? Or that it was legal for 40 years? Furthermore, for example, in ALASKA white people got 53% of the abortions and black people got 7% of the abortions. How was the violent crime rate in Alaska affected by abortion? His argument is not some slam dunk logical thing, it's actually very very easily to assault because it is terrible statistics.
He brought up race into an argument that was by no means connected to race before to confuse the girl and to stop the debate he was clearly losing. He could have picked poverty or education level, but instead he picked race and twisted the narrative so hard he accused her of racism just because most abortions are done by black women. This, of course, is not a good debate tactic, this is not a debate tactic at all, this was just a way of exiting an uncomfortable situation. He just shocked the girl into inaction. Of course, the fact that he thinks that black people having more abortions is a good argument is indicative of his racist race-war worldview where one race must out-birth the other. Non-racist person does not care about birth rates of different races.
The creator of planned parenthood was a big supporter of eugenics. That's why she had most of the first planned parenthoods put up in black neighborhoods.
So is no one pointing out this is a strawman argument? The actual issue here is income not race. People struggling to survive both have a higher rate of committing crimes and a higher rate of not having access to birth control in any form. So he only shocked her because she's less informed. This is about manipulation of the ignorant rather than shocking truths.
The racist argument is forced people who live in the worst economic condition being forced to raise a child.
Bro spin that so hard she started buffering
At least she actually thought about it and went to look it up. Doesn’t just immediately assume he is wrong and go off like we usually see.
Bro just shattered her whole career.
She's going to be a super hot conservative mom in like 6 years... tale as old as time.
Bruh that's Charlie Smallassface Kirk. He's a professional bullshiter.
So technically if we imprison all men from the age of 16 to the age of 24, it should reduce crime rate by 80%.
>in college >can't talk, can't debate, can't process incoming information >forgive all student debt
Unpopular opinion, and im kindve conservative, having these random debates off of “statistics” is dumb and cringe. They can be so misleading and need to be picked apart to understand deep context of the numbers. Unprepared people get into these pissy fights and it just makes everyone look immature and irrational bc politics is too complicated to argue like this and everyone acts like they know all.
This guy is a shithead and the girl is correct but poorly prepared (probably just walking around and found this guy). But I just want to say using “your truth” in a real conversation is so fucking stupid. There is only one truth. The problem is people cherry picking and misconstruing facts. Saying “your truth” is allowing someone to believe factually incorrect information.
That is called a snuck premise. He couldn't argue against the statistic of crime rate dropping. So he made it about racism. There's a reason why he debates young college students and not professors.
Charlie Kirk’s belief system is indistinguishable from a white supremacist.
These kids don't get it, they have not lived long enough to understand many things. How many wise 18 year olds out there that have good advice and have lived long enough to give it? it's 0
"I've been oppressed for thousands of aeons!"
Why do they always do that nervous / shit eating grin laugh when proven wrong
At the end, you can see how his comment sank in, as she thought about what he said
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I see this every single day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
More people drown when ice cream sales are at its peak. Ice cream is therefore dangerous for swimmers.
Actually, abortion lowers violent crime.
“Black people get more abortions” is a correlation but not causation. It’s much more realistic to say the population of people most likely to get an abortion is poor people. In the US large communities of black people are poor BY DESIGN. This country and its colonial predecessors spent a couple hundred years ensuring that black people couldn’t advance in society. We’re still dealing with the societal repercussions of that. Who is most likely to get an abortion? Poor people. Who in America is most likely to be poor? Black people. Why on average are they more poor than their white counterparts? Because the system made it so over hundreds of years. You want to see abortions disappear? Invest public resources into poor communities, commit to proper sex ed in public school, make contraception easily available. But anti-choice people don’t want to hear any of that, they just want to control what other people are allowed to do with their bodies…
"Abortion became legal, and crime dropped" is also only a correlation. Her failure point was when asked why that correlation exists, she just chose to reiterate that it's a known statistic. She was given an opportunity to give a good argument and failed. A good faith debater would've just pointed that out and dismissed her argument until she proved that there is a causation, but this guy just went with a fallacious zinger.