Instigator / Pro
7
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Topic
#2596

Resolved: There is not systemic racism in United States government, as a whole.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
12,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Description

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”[1] [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.”[2]

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.

Definitions:

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.

Debate protocol:

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.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/systemic
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54738922

-->
@Undefeatable

No, because I suck at debating. I always end up humiliating myself.

-->
@Wilh3lm

really? Perhaps you'd like to debate me on the same topic?

Pro obviously won.

-->
@Undefeatable

"Invincibility lies in the defense, the possibility of victory, in the attack." -Sun Tzu

TBH the war on drugs strikes me as one of the better examples of it

-->
@fauxlaw

I suppose I’ll have to edit my profile then. Successful defense is arguably easier than successful attack

-->
@Intelligence_06

A win would destroy my arguments. A tie doesn't. Unless your definition of dichotomy differs my OED, which declares the word as essentially unchanged from 1588's first iteration of it.

-->
@seldiora

To be fair, the profile reads, "I will destroy any argument you try to come up with." Regardless of the grammar grist, the statement stands. Re-read your vote's second sentence and tell me if you don't fail to recognize that "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." That's my definition of "systemic." How is one going to follow program steps, etc, if that program is not documented, if the steps are not documented, as in legislation and policies, and be sure they are really following and not doing their own, anecdotal thing; "experts" be damned? Further, the description spells out the goals of the respective BoPs: "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." Did Con successfully demonstrate that the alleged racism is systemic by citing any legislation or policy that states it in print? No. You bought aqn argument of statistics of "experts" that I said was statistical nonsense, and demonstrated why.

Woops, meant to vote on this. Had half of it typed out

-->
@fauxlaw

A faux-dichotomy, shall I say? One can tie, which, although is not a win, is not a loss either.

-->
@fauxlaw

To be fair his name is Undefeatable not Victorious

-->
@Undefeatable

A tie is not a win, my friend; it's only half-points. No, I don't like them either, but then I don't declare the impossibility.

-->
@JRob

You’re allowed to cast another vote, just get rid of the part where you mention stuff that the two didn’t say.

-->
@JRob

It's an extremely common blunder for new voters, but it's an easy fix.

-->
@MisterChris

Thanks for your feedback! I'll keep that in mind in future.

JROB RFD:

Sources: Unremarkable.
S&G: Unremarkable.
Conduct: Nearly went to PRO. "Tsk tsk tsk."
Argument: Vote cast for CON.

My RFD is just a SMIDGE too big to fit here - so here's a drop box link. If there are issues accessing it - or if there are issues with my RFD - please inform me.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fk2jq69fvhagd7a/RFD%3B%20FoxRule%20vs%20DeFeet.docx?dl=0

Best of luck with the other voters.

-->
@JRob

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: JRob // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3; 3 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: See DB link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/fk2jq69fvhagd7a/RFD%3B%20FoxRule%20vs%20DeFeet.docx?dl=0
>Reason for Mod Action:

This vote will have to be recast with a more "tabula rasa" approach for the RFD. While you do not have to throw out your common sense to judge arguments (for example you should not accept it if a debater defines a horse as a sports car), you should also not be injecting any of your own arguments into the RFD itself. You can give commentary on whether you think certain arguments are true or false (as you did liberally in other areas of your RFD), but that should not spill over into the reason for your decision.

Said another way, the judgement should be isolated to what is presented in the debate without outside ideas injected in, except in rare cases.

Here is an excerpt from the DART Mod blackbook:
"Outside content may be commented on, so long as it does not cross into being a determinant factor on the vote. Should the voter weigh things outside of what the debaters themselves presented inside the debate rounds, the vote is eligible for deletion (identified plagiarism is a notable exception)."

In this case, a large excerpt of your RFD violated this principle:

"By way of comparison – America undeniably has a problem with racism. The disease is there – its symptoms are present tenfold, in protesting minorities to inexplicable disproportionate incarceration all the way to a rich history of segregation and police brutality. No, the government doesn’t explicitly encourage it in law – but it’s there, and the fact that there’s still not enough done about it – as CON proves – is enough evidence to fulfill their BoP.
TL; DR: Yes, 100% non-conformance is a “pipe dream”, and yes, it’s hard to find it written in black and white that there is disproportionate treatment of black and white – but a government that sits relatively idle whilst 13% of its citizens experience an extremely disproportionate level of incarceration and health issues is a government that operates on a racist system. It is systemically racist. If it were a different group experiencing these issues – one that didn’t have an extensive history of being discriminated against, then there might be another cause to be considered.
But: If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and swims like a duck – it’s certainly not a flamingo. Doesn’t matter what the name tag says, and doesn’t matter that it was told to be a chicken."

You can say why or why not you didn't buy PRO's definition through the lens of the arguments CON presented, but you can not make a fully fledged argument of your own.

This section is more representative of what you should have left it at:
"your definition of “systemic” does not specify written legislature – merely that ‘systemic’ means that “something is done according to a system or method”. For instance, in your example – a ‘systemic disease’ as your debate seems to imply, would refer to a genetic disorder – where the genes are responsible for ‘writing’ the rules. If the body is diseased regardless of the written rules – as in a viral or bacterial infection – then it’s still – by this very definition – systemic – affecting the whole system."

I suggest you remove your own argumentation from the RFD and revote.

-->
@Barney

Understood - removed.

-->
@JRob

In future, unless you have specific permission from users you were privately chatting with, please do not publically share their private messages.

This is clearly a case where no malice was intended , so it is a fairly minor CoC violation, but just a good habit to avoid doing that in future... You may of course always share your own, as you are the author of those.

-->
@3RU7AL

Ah, thanks. Didn't think of that.

-->
@JRob

You can always post your RFD under, https://www.debateart.com/forum/miscellaneous/topics

I'd like to read it but I'm not going to download it from dropbox.

R3, VI.c

-->
@JRob

thanks for the vote. I'll try to refrain from declaring victory too early. My username's pretty on the nose lol (though I guess it would help to say "I have not lost this debate in the least" since it isn't equivalent to "Victorious")

-->
@JRob

I admitted I was wrong and Antarctica was a better example (also pro didn’t even bother contesting lol). I was tired of pro ignoring the fact that no expert agrees with Qanon or flat earth

-->
@Undefeatable

"For example, experts do not agree on systemic racism in Australia, because it doesn't exist."

Mate...

Isn't a systemic error simply a second-order human error?

If I create a robot (or a system) and that robot (or system) kills someone, am I guilty of manslaughter?

-->
@oromagi
@seldiora
@BearMan
@Intelligence_06
@Theweakeredge

Intel, Bear, oro, edge, I encourage your votes.

seldiora, thank you for voting.

-->
@3RU7AL

Pro agreed by citing the definitions in Description. Con agreed de facto by accepting the debate as proposed. Your YouTube notwithstanding, which is not cited as policy in DA.

-->
@BearMan

BearMan, Separately defining both words allows full disclosure of their independent definitions, neither of which are diminished by linking them together as a noun [racism] preceded by an adjective [systemic], which is the typical English syntax. The complete phrase does not exist in Merriam-Webster, nor in my preferred OED, which is why I did not use the combined phrase in definition.
I do agree with your #18, however. Once accepted, the terms as defined in Description hold and cannot be altered to fit an argument by Con.

-->
@3RU7AL

CON had to agree with those definitions when accepting the debate. But PRO's definitions didn't define "systemic racism" they defined "systemic" and "racism."

This causes problems throughout the debate.

-->
@BearMan

Did PRO and CON agree on those definitions?

-->
@3RU7AL

fauxlaw provided definitions, but those definitions split the phrase into two words.

-->
@BearMan

PRO and CON must agree on their definitions before any debate can proceed.

In 30 seconds - - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd1HGmobf5g&list=PLpmLmx2zr10OM14A77GpwxYV6JVrZq6Oj

-->
@fauxlaw

"It is individuals who are racist. There's a distinct difference, and that is what this debate is about." - -

Ok. So what would you call a system *designed by racists* that does not provide equal outcomes for people of different skin-tones?

Would you call that system "demonstrably biased against people of certain skin-tones"?

Doesn't that sound like hair-splitting?

-->
@seldiora

Nah I was just clarifying that systemic racism means the entire system, to voters that didn't know that.

-->
@BearMan

pretty sure he knows that. He just argued from an overarching perspective with experts using Systemic Racism and Pro failing to say, if they were not talking about this racism, what were they talking about?

-->
@Undefeatable

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/systemic-racism

-->
@fauxlaw

I hope you’re just speaking as a debater. I’d be appalled if pro was your real stance

-->
@fauxlaw

er.... ignore the commentary on Australia. Stick with Antarctica. I named a random country on top of my head lol. Probably should've went with a more obscure country as an example.

-->
@oromagi
@fauxlaw

Thanks, though I forgot to spell check. I put in vote for pro by accident at the end of R1. Well, from my username alone, it's not a concession on its own. I got confused at the end since I'm affirming that systemic racism exists.

Is it just me or is the quality of debate on this site taking off like a coronavirus? This looks awesome.

-->
@fauxlaw

yeah, but surely you've done research right? Glancing over Undefeatable's massive wall of text, either this is a super strong gish gallop or you're doomed (unless we did something massive in the last 5 years that discredits MIT president + the study)

-->
@seldiora

Did I say racism does not exist? No. I am saying it is not systemic. That is, by definition, racism is not evident in the system, i.e., the government. Individual people are not the government; they are individuals who think contrary to government-originated legislation and policy. It is individuals who are racist. There's a distinct difference, and that is what this debate is about. I replied to your comment after posting my R1 argument because I was not aware of it before posting. I will answer no more questions while in active debate.

-->
@bronskibeat

Your opinion.

-->
@Juice

Your opinion.

-->
@seldiora

Regardless of your view, it's always a good idea to consider the opposing side, not to say that you should weigh each proposition with the same reliability or validity, only to consider them.

-->
@fauxlaw

I'm surprised you're pro on this. When I was debating bearman about whether to fix the prison system, I hadn't even considered the possibility that racism doesn't exist