Resolved: There is not systemic racism in United States government, as a whole.
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and same amount of points on both sides ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Resolved: There is not systemic racism in United States government, as a whole.
Systemic and systematic both derive from system. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “Systematic is the more common word” [compared to systemic], but recent common usage would appear to differ, making systemic the more popular usage. Regardless, for purposes of this debate, we will defer to systemic, understanding that meaning does not differ.
Although my preference is to use the OED as a default dictionary, I am acknowledging use of Merriam-Webster because there is limited access to the OED, and this debate is all about definition. I will defer to the more commonly used definition. It is acceptable to me, and should be, therefore, acceptable to all.
The common outcry from the Progressive camp is that the U.S. government, including the person of the current President, and the numerous city police agencies are racist. I submit this claim is not true. However, media sources beat the racism drum; often on the basis of anecdotes such as, “Another [American] activist… who's 21, told me [media reporter from BBC, but in the U.S.] that the fear of a bad encounter with the police lives in the mind of every African American.”
I contend that such anecdotal evidence does not demonstrate systemic racism. If it were systemic, according to the word’s definition, it would not be just anecdotal information. Rather, it would be obvious in the legislation and written policy [local, state, and federal] that such attitudes are documented. The challenge/BoP for Con is to demonstrate that such legislation and policy is documented. My BoP is to demonstrate the validity of the resolution.
Systemic / systematic: describes something that is done according to a system or method; a systematic approach to learning that involves carefully following the program's steps; what relates to or affects an entire system; a systemic disease affects the entire body or organism, and systemic changes to an organization have an impact on the entire organization, including its most basic operations.
Racism: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief; racial discrimination or prejudice.
United States Government: Government as constituted by U.S. city locales, states, and federal government.
Rounds 1, 2: Argument, rebuttal, defense
Round 3: No new argument, rebuttal, defense, conclusion
All argument, defense, rebuttal, and sourcing will be listed within the context of the debate argument rounds only, except sourcing may also be listed within comments within the debate file to conserve maximum space for argumentation, but only during the argumentation phase. No other external reference may be made within the context of the debate argument rounds.
No waived rounds. No more than one round may be forfeited, or forfeiture of entire debate will result. Concession in any round is a debate loss.
All argument rounds will contain arguments, rebuttals, and defenses, plus 4th round conclusion. No declaration of victory will be made but in the 4th round.
Arguments, rebuttals, defenses, or conclusions may not address voters directly for voting suggestions beyond statement of validity for arguments, et al, made in all rounds.
- Education: "elevated levels of Cultural Mistrust, Cultural Race-Related Stress, and Individual Race Related Stress leads to increased use of Emotion-Based Coping behaviors and decreasedimplementation of Avoidant-Focused and Task-Related Coping behaviors."  Supported by Scientific Magazine: "Universities are not level playing fields where all students have an equal opportunity to participate and succeed. The misuse of standardized tests such as the GRE excludes students who could have otherwise succeeded (4). Once admitted, Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) face challenges when transitioning to college life (5) and are more likely to be nontraditional students." 
- More Health, existing even in Artificial Intelligence: "The U.S. health care system uses commercial algorithms to guide health decisions. Obermeyer et al. find evidence of racial bias in one widely used algorithm, such that Black patients assigned the same level of risk by the algorithm are sicker than White patients".  Scientific Magazine also stacks upon an agreement: "Algorithms designed to make decisions about health care incorporate biases that limit care for Black patients." 
I. The Expert Syllogism, Clarified
In R1 I created a logical and well-crafted idea, but Pro fails to penetrate through it. The logic concisely stated is here:
P1: If experts agree on a problem (systemic racism) and attempt to solve it, there is a problem.
P2: Experts agree on the problem. (Numerous papers and scholars use the word "systemic racism" throughout various types of ways racism can be perceived, and try to find a way to solve it)
C: There is a problem (of Systemic racism).
Now, pro attempts to challenge P1 indirectly... but it doesn't work. There is not a single problem in the world, where the majority of experts and researchers have agreed on, which was a problem to be illogical or non-existent. For example, experts do not agree on systemic racism in Australia, because it doesn't exist. Or look at Antarctica, where there is no government, and logically, there can be no systemic racism. So Experts do not even bother concerning themselves with societal issues in Antarctica. If there was no problem, Pro must provide a logical explanation for why all these researchers pour hours of dedication and finance into solving a non-existing problem.
He will not find one, because there is none.
II. Health Care Issues
Pro tries to assert that there is no government policy or involvement within the public health sector, but I argue that lack thereof, is the problem. One Congresswoman advocated for a bill, for action, because the government has FAILED to implement the existing equalities and rights, despite the claim of Pro within supreme court cases. Backed by credible sources and the idea that the private sector does whatever it wants due to lack of laws and regulations, she convincingly destroys Pro's rebuttal. "Racial disparities in health outcomes exist at alarming rates and can be seen in the prevalence of chronic health conditions, such as diabetes, asthma, and hypertension; 1 infant mortality; maternal mortality and morbidity; and police brutality. Furthermore, unequal access to quality health care disproportionately burdens communities of color and exacerbates racial disparities. The COVID-19 pandemic has unveiled these inequities and made it impossible to ignore structural racism. Comprehensive research on the public health impacts of structural racism is needed to confront and dismantle the racist systems and practices that create racial disparities and to develop race-conscious public health approaches to reverse the existing disparities that have plagued our nation for too long. This point has been underscored by the federal government’s failure to adequately collect race and ethnicity data on COVID-19 testing, hospitalization, and deaths." 
Clearly, from the government's inaction itself, there is a problem. Based on Pro's reasoning, then even if the stock market crashes and the government does nothing, this is not a "systemic" fault. Yes. It is... individual's fault? For not being able to revive the stock market? Ah, the reasoning falls apart. The government takes on the exact responsibility to take care of these industries and these sectors where individuals alone cannot influence (unless you are the owner). Now, Pro might say, wait a minute, this is just the organization's fault, not the government.
But the organizations FORM together the systemic racism. It's the bit and pieces, all the evidence combined that makes into systemic racism. There is a famous term we have heard called the "healthcare system", which is the umbrella term which includes all the private sectors combined with government action. According to encyclopedia.com, health care is "the method by which healthcare is financed, organized, and delivered to a population. It includes issues of access (for whom and to which services), expenditures, and resources (healthcare workers and facilities). "  My idea of government failure is supported by its ideals. "All governments have some degree of involvement in healthcare because essentially all countries have a centrally funded agency that is concerned with public health issues". Therefore each institute combined forms the entire system, making the MIT President's point valid in the context of systemic Racism.
III. Incarceration Concession from Pro
If you read Pro's argument carefully, you'll notice that he dropped incarceration as soon as I mentioned it. He only stated that my health care study only brushed upon it, and recommends:
"Con is going to have to demonstrate the Con BoP by strict adherence to the definitions as listed, and cease reference to topics outside the parameters of the debate, such as continuing to argue that healthcare, and the other listed factors, excepting incarceration as I have identified in r2, I.d."
I have already challenged health care. But even on this point alone, I shall completely crack and destroy pro's case. Remember that he cannot go back on this, as he admitted himself that incarceration is managed by the DoJ, which is part of the government, irrefutable responsibility and dependence.
One scholarly article goes well into depth about this problem. It opens up with a strong statistic. "while making up only approximately 12% of the U.S. population, African Americans constitute 49% of its inmates."  The author goes on to talk about how George Bush admitted there was a problem with police making judgments about blacks. "Vice President Al Gore promised that if elected, his first act as President would be to issue an executive order banning racial profiling. 21 Then Governor George W. Bush responded that he did not want to "federalize" the local police, but he did agree that something needed to be done about racial profiling." This is then supported by other studies and ideals. "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Dr. John Lamberth of Temple University conducted a study to record the proportion of African-American drivers and ... Thirty-five percent of the cars pulled over had a black driver or passenger, while only thirteen percent of cars on the highway contained either a Black passenger or driver."
The author then provides extra context, adding on the war on drugs as an additional problem. "the federal sentencing guidelines and a growing minority of state sentencing guidelines dispense more severe punishments for use of crack cocaine, a drug used predominantly by African Americans, than for powder cocaine, a drug used predominantly by White Americans." The disproportional rate of guilty to the arrest is appalling. The author highlights: "African Americans constitute approximately 13% of the U.S. population and 13% of its drug users; however, African Americans constitute 35% of drug arrests, 55% of drug convictions, and 74% of drug imprisonments. "
After this, the author notes how the amendments do not protect minorities, followed by the very supreme court cases that Pro has vouched for so much. There is an impossible way to enforce Equal Protection, displaying that the judicial branch didn't help reduce systemic racism. "Even in the United States v. Clary,153 the only reported federal court decision holding that the 100:1 ratio violated the Equal Protection Clause, 154 the district court focused on the theoretical nature of the provision instead of its actual results by attempting to prove that its purpose was subconsciously discriminatory.155 Not surprisingly, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned this decision. 156 In his opinion, Senior Circuit Judge John R. Gibson asserted that the theory of protection against "unconscious racism" is untenable because "the Equal Protection Clause is violated 'only if that impact can be traced to a discriminatory purpose."
Silton further follows through with the nail in the coffin, noting how the Supreme Court's interpretations precisely destroyed the Constitutional amendments themselves. "The Supreme Court made it possible for a racist officer to justify pulling over only African Americans by showing that he had the modicum of reasonableness necessary for probable cause 248 or, in cases of a Terry search, mere "articulable suspicion."
The reason why this man is my sole trusted source is that I am running out of space, and that a formal journal of law is as trustworthy as any logic possible.
- Pro dropped the scholarly article that taught people about current racism by using history of black ghettos
- Pro dropped the idea that denying systemic racism would lead to a slippery slope going back to oppressing minorities
- Pro dropped the idea that Corporations are spending billions of dollars on an issue which he says is non-existent
VOTE FOR CON.