Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: No, it wouldn't.

First of all, just because there is a theory that we evolved from Africans doesn't mean that we are all the same. For thousands of years we have had a radically different environment and culture that may have lead whites to develop and evolve differently.It implies that we share our genetic traits with a tribe in Africa from which all of humanity descends.Any further evolution worked with our African genes. You cannot outgrow your ancestry. We are still African now, we just look different.If you are arguing that Africans are racially (IE genetically) prone to violence then it must follow that all races have this violence, because all races descend from Africa. You cannot argue that Africans became violent after we evolved separately, because at that point the tribes of Africa moved along the continent and evolved along separate paths, meaning that any violence on the genetic level would not be spread to all Africans.Evolutionists don't know anything for sure. They keep changing their theories.Evolution is a fact, and I don't care to debate it here. If you're entering a serious debate about genetics, then you must accept biology. It does no good to enter a discussion on astronomy while questioning the premise that the Earth is not the centre of the universe.How do you know that all the changes over these years are superficial. Maybe there are severe changes to personality and temperament that cant be physically seen or quantified easily.We left Africa some 70000 years ago. The environment, while different, was not fundamentally different in the sense that it required more intelligence, or more docility. It was a wild land, like Africa, but with new plants and animal life. When you wish to evolve severely different traits, you want to provide an environment that values the trait you're seeking.How come different races of dogs are so different. I mean they are all dogs and probably had a common ancestor. Oh wait there are huge physical and mental differences between different races of dogs.Excellent example. With dogs we specifically provided an environment that favoured aggression, or hunting, or playfulness, etc. If we merely took the dogs and moved them to different parts of the world, they may have different hair styles and body shapes, but the personalities would be very similar because they all had the same lack of personality selection.Now onto your second point. This is a quite bad argument. No-one said blacks are the sole cause of violence. I just argue that blacks are generally more violent than whites. I will use an example to make this easier to understand. Smoking is a major cause of lung cancer. If you eradicate smoking you won't eradicate lung cancer.If your argument isn't that blacks are the only aggressive ones, but whites are too, then what is your argument exactly? If you're going to argue that blacks should be removed because they are prone to violence, and whites are violent too, then it follows that whites must be removed as well. Otherwise you're just picking an arbitrary threshold to complain.Now why would you compare our society to the middle ages. It is completely different society with different definitions for crimes, different law enforcement capabilities, people lived differently(farms)and ultimately different people. These factors make it a wholly different environment and the comparison is worthless not to mention you don't have any actual statistics of the time.Different social environment produces different levels of violence.IF you were to try to use that argument you would have to find a society today which is very similar to U.S in every way(impossible) and then have hard statistics showing that the crime-rate is similar to the of the U.S with blacks and even that wouldn't explain why blacks commit more crimes in the U.S.I already offered an explanation: selection bias.Why are black moths picked on by predators more in forests with white trees?I never said social economic status doesn't have any effect on crime. A poor white man may be desperate for quick cash so he steals. I am just saying that it may be the same black mentality that causes them to be both violent and poor. He decides to do illegal things and steal for immediate gratification instead of working slowly toward a better life. The ratio of poor white men to rich white men men is a lot smaller then that of poor black men to rich black men(in this case I group medium with rich). I argue that this is because of the black mentality that causes them to be violent and ultimately lazy.Any traits you try to argue are racial, must be inherited onto whites and every other race. Are blacks lazy? Then whites are too. This is because we evolved out of Africa.Your last paragraph is kind of a joke. I mean common. You think the police randomly roams the streets and pick up dudes that stand out to take them in for questioning. The way it works usually is a crime is committed. Police analyze evidence and look for suspects that fit the evidence. The they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect is guilty. They dont look for the guy taht stands out they look for a suspect that fits a description. Not to mention that poor blacks tend to clump together into black neighborhoods where its the white man that stands out.There is a subconscious mechanism in animal minds that causes them to pick out that which is different. We are often unaware of it. This is why police will associate a person who is physically different with a greater propensity for crime.http://factsanddetails.com/japan.php?itemid=632&catid=18#06