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!
Tags
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
Round 1
Pro
#1
I Argument: The proper construct of a system
I.a I draw a distinct difference in definition between a system,and, therefore, systemic,and anecdote [which I did not include in the Description definitions because that term does not reside within the resolution]. Were anecdote to be included in the resolution, I would define it as an experience occurring to, or because of a small percentage of individuals, or individuals in a greater populated sub-group, but not comprising a majority of the sub-group and, as such not a majority of the entire population. The Progressives appear to expect that “systemic” is the proper description of U.S. government prejudice even if it is not a plurality, let alone a majority of government personnel expressing it. However, this behavior and does not properly describe systemic.If Con rejects the definition of systemicas offered in Description definitions, Con is rejecting a recognized and cited definition according to a scholastically-used dictionary in favor of a re-imagined definition according to a singular group of English-speaking people.
I.a.1 A system is defined in Description, under the guise of systemic / systematic, as “…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.” I contend that as a “method…following the program’s[system’s] steps,” the system is documented. In the specific case of the U.S. government [as defined, includes “U.S. city locales, states and federal government”] this documentation consists of written legislation and policies. Were it strictly word-of-mouth, I refer the reader to the effect of the child’s game of arranging children in a line or circle, telling one child a brief story, and having each child, in turn, relate by whisper that story to the next child in line, and so on, until the last child has heard the story. When asking the last child to relate the story aloud, it is no surprise that the resulting story does not match the first child’s rendering. In fact, the latter story may differ from the first sufficient to conclude it is a different story. Such is the effect of anecdote.
I.b Having a documented system, the ability to reference the construct of the system’s intent is clear and, hopefully, distinct, and is effective in demonstrating coherent understanding to all who reference it and abide by it. On the other hand, individuals, sometimes as a sub-group, may re-imagine a different construct of documented legislation or policy, and adapt it to their own whims. It is whimsy that is often the construct of anecdotal stories. However, it is evident when their whimsy differs from the systemic construct, and the resulting damage that may occur due to re-imagined whimsy is often blamed on the system rather than the whimsical anecdote, and/or the people espousing it.
I.b.1 Therefore, whimsical anecdote, while wearing the guise of the system [such as a police officer in uniform] is not the system as defined, nor do the results of the anecdote match the expected results of action matching the system as documented.
I.b.2 It is well documented that legislation as passed by government agencies in the three levels [local, state, federal] attempt to legislate behavior. However, it is also well documented that just because there is legislation, there is no guarantee that the legislation will find 100% conformance among citizens, even citizens in the guise of government authority from the president to the beat cop. 100% conformance is a pipe dream. As James Madison once said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”[1] But men are not angels, and, being imperfect, in spite of legislation, in spite of a documented system, some people will ignore the system and act by their own, reimagined, anecdotal volition. But such individual and sub-group action cannot ever be blamed on the systemic construct. Blame the one or the few who violate the system. As the author, Richard Bach, once wrote, “Argue for your limitations; they’re yours.”[2]
II Argument: The proper interpretation of racism
II.a The Description offered a scholastically-sourced definition of racism by Merriam-Webster as “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.”[3] By this scholastically-accepted definition, even a phrase like “Black Lives Matter” must be cast in suspicious light, particularly in light of the following statement as a policy of BlackLivesMatter.com: “We are working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise.”[4]
II.a.1 The quoted statement above, let alone the movement’s title, represents a policy of singling out Blacks as a protected class, specifically, as if to say the other racial entities do not matter, and declaring, without evidence provided, that Blacks are “systematically targeted,”and not just for generic prejudice, but for specific “demise.” Alleged systematic targeting is a claim made without properly interpreting the definition of systematic,or systemic. This is why I suggested in the Description that “this debate is all about definition.” There are proper, scholastically-accepted definitions, and there are re-imagined, wish-balloon definitions. The former will prevail in this debate. I have offered, in the Description definitions, and in my R1, Arguments I & II, the scholastically-accepted definitions of systemic,and racism.
II.b If Blacks are “systemically targeted,”by definition, it must be demonstrated by Con that the U.S. government has, by legislation and policy, demonstrated a denial of at least the U.S. Constitution’s 14A [1868], which declares the Equal Protection Clause: “..nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”[5] It follows that every federal, state, and local statute must be in accordance with this Clause, or it is unconstitutional.
II.b.1 I offer from the list of 10 Supreme Court cases directly concerned with the Equal Protection Clause [EPC] of the 14A the following cases having race as a substantive issue demonstrating the Court’s consistency in compliance with the 14A:[6]
1. Plessy v. Ferguson [1896] found that there was systemic discrimination against Blacks in Louisiana by that state’s enforcement of a rule marking trolley cars with signs, “for blacks only,” and “for whites only,” because the signs, themselves, demonstrated unconstitutional violation of the 14A.
2. Brown v. Board of Education [1954] [based on a proper interpretation of Plessy, the Court found that some States had incorrectly applied Plessy to allow segregation of schools if the school facilities were “equal.” Brown overturned unconstitutional state laws, applying the notion in Plessy that “separate but equal” was not even equal just because the facilities were “equal,” but that even by signage, alone, segregated facilities are unconstitutional.
3. Loving v. Virginia [1967] overturned Virginia’s state law prohibiting interracial marriage. Virginia argued that their case did not violate the EPC because their argument applied penalty to both marriage partners, the Lovings. The Court determined that the EPC required strict scrutiny to race-based classifications where a ruling was consequenced by racial discrimination.
II.b.2 These cases demonstrate evidence of the negating argument, above, II.a.1, that impose a disclaimer on the Black Lives Matter policy quoted in II.a [citation [4].
These cases also demonstrate that even in the apparent innocuous effort to achieve racial equality, an organization declaring that one race matters at the exclusion of others [i.e., Black Lives Matter] may be found to be in violation of the EPC. Whereas, given a total of 10 Supreme Court cases over the 231 years of the Court’s existence, in cases specifically concerned with racial issues, the three cases highlighted demonstrate the consistency of the Court’s [part of the system, after all] compliance and protection of the EPC, and all citizens’ rights to expect equal protection by the system.
I pass the debate to Con.
Con
#2
I'm impressed by pro's argument, but considering the last case was more than 70 years ago, and Judicial is merely one of the three branches, Pro is sorely mistaken to believe that is enough to prove lack of racism in the overall law system in the US. I will give undeniable proof that Systemic Racism exists as a whole in US, and desperately needs fixing.
Experts Agree There is a Problem, and All Evidence Points Towards It
If a problem does not exist, then the problem is not acknowledged as such by well known researchers, and as a result it can be dismissed. This is easily backed by the fact that no scholarly paper has tried to tackle the ideas of flat earth, QAnon, so on and so forth, except to disprove them. But experts still agree that there is much to fix within the US regarding Systemic Racism. One in-depth research looks deeply into the "State-level indicators of structural racism included four domains: (1) political participation; (2) employment and job status; (3) educational attainment; and (4) judicial treatment". Drawing from other social models from trusted researchers, Alicia et al. argues that Blacks are suffering in terms of law related problems. The experts vouch for action, to conclude "Results indicated that Blacks living in states with high levels of structural racism were generally more likely to report past-year myocardial infarction than Blacks living in low-structural racism states. Conversely, Whites living in high structural racism states experienced null or lower odds of myocardial infarction compared to Whites living in low-structural racism states. " [1]
I cannot stress how powerful and trustworthy this study is. They gather countless other researchers' information from the past, culminating towards undeniable proof that people view blacks and minorities with contempt, looking over the entire past half century for patterns and ensuring the truth of the evidence. The sheer amount of citation that the experts combine together goes to highlight pro's lack of comprehensive knowledge. Merely taking some excerpts, it's clear that this study is far more astounding than merely three supreme court cases:
Blacks face significant disadvantages with regard to educational attainment, income, wealth, credit, employment, and incarceration (CDC, 2011; Jones, 2000; Kaufman, Cooper, & McGee, 1997; Pager & Shepherd, 2008; Uggen & Manza, 2002; Williams & Collins, 1995).
...in 2011 six states passed laws that require a driver's license or other official government photo identification to vote; these laws have been demonstrated to systematically exclude racial/ethnic minorities from voting, as they are less likely than Whites to have official government identification (Parson & McLaughlin, 2007). Previous work by Hatzenbuehler, Keyes, and Hasin (2009) and Hatzenbuehler et al. (2010) has shown that state-level variation in policies and laws has substantial consequences for the health of minority groups.
After obtaining data from the US Census Bureau and carefully crunching numbers, the definitive correlation and causation are found within people' inherent beliefs and ideas, as well as the system itself: "Negative interactions for state elected officials, employment, and incarceration indicated that the effect of these measures of structural racism on myocardial infarction among Blacks differed significantly from that of Whites. "
The idea of health problems caused by the systemic racism are not found within this study alone (which is, I remind voters, a CULMINATION of data and other studies, which is far more reliable than cherry picking a few laws and cases where equality was enforced). Another researcher adds upon my evidence, noting "This article reviews several ways of conceptualizing structural racism, with a focus on social segregation, immigration policy, and intergenerational effects. Studies of disparities should more seriously consider the multiple dimensions of structural racism as fundamental causes of health disparities." [2]
The empirical evidence stacks on and on.
- 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." [3] 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." [6]
- 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". [4] Scientific Magazine also stacks upon an agreement: "Algorithms designed to make decisions about health care incorporate biases that limit care for Black patients." [5]
The effects of Systemic Racism are so terrible in the US, that the MIT president himself admits and sends an urgent letter remarking the problems existing in the system, and speaks out for action against such. He even admitted that surface level change was not enough: "At the Institute level, MIT has invested for years in multiple efforts to support students of color and to make headway on racial equity and inclusion. But whatever we have done, and however earnestly we have done it, we need to acknowledge that it has not been effective enough. For instance, an array of recommendations in 2015 from the Black Students’ Union (BSU) and the Black Graduate Student Association (BGSA) inspired substantive changes. Yet as the student members of the Academic Council Working Group recently emphasized, important work remains unfinished. What’s more, while MIT’s decentralized structure has allowed for great advances on inclusion in some units and departments, it has served to hamper Institute-wide progress. " [7] To discredit such a well-respected person of high status is, in pro's own words (paraphrased a bit), discarding the scholarly opinion that makes up the essence of society and truth.
Call to Action
It is understandable that pro and many others feel the way they do. Some are simply not knowledgeable enough, and only know about one side of the debate. But learning history and the truth paves a path towards greater understanding. As yet another study highlights, educating history lets us learn about how and why systemic racism exists today. The researchers stated, " Participants listened to a control clip or historian Richard Rothstein discuss thefederal government’s role in creating Black ghettos, and howracialized space still perpetuates structural inequality today (cf.Bonam, Bergsieker, & Eberhardt, 2016; Bonam, Taylor, & Yantis, 2017; Lipsitz, 2011; Rothstein, 2015)", [9] and as a result, they were able to further the battle against Systemic racism today, changing people's point of view for the better.
My voters, friends, the time to act against systemic racism is here and now. Already, six corporations have donated millions to billions of dollars to fight the inherent bias within people. [8] Police and judges have not self-reflected or educated themselves enough, and the evidence I have provided is as resounding as any scientific theory, such as evolution or the age of earth. To deny the existence of systemic racism is to deny the very effort to fight for equality, and potentially return back to a world where white males dominated and minorities are snuffed out like a candle. It is true that the Supreme Court, with 12 incredibly strict judges, have performed very well. But it takes more than 12 to change the world, and to demonstrate the lack of systemic racism.
VOTE FOR PRO.
Round 2
Pro
#3
I Rebuttal: Institutional racism
I.a Con’s R1 presented a number of studies,[1],[2] however, these studies consider different topics than those in the resolution. We are concerned with “what relates to or affects an entire system, including its most basic operations.”[3] By their own admission in each study, the health issues discussed, according to the data collected from an alleged representative sample size of the Black population, consists of 13.4% of the total U.S. population.[4] According to the Certified Six Sigma Black Belt Primer,[5] the sample size for a population of 43.9M Blacks, the sample population should be 2,401 for a statistical study with a confidence level of 95% with margin of error of ±2%. However, according to the data collection record in the first study, the sample population of Blacks totaled just 1,905. Therefore, the statistical conclusion is not sufficiently reliable.
I.b That aside, the studies address an institutional [i.e., U.S. private industry] system, not a government system [healthcare is not a government system in the U.S.; there is only management of a public insurance option]. Therefore, neither study resides within Con’s BoP to address his BoP obligation.I agree with Con, there is a problem, and it does need to be addressed, but neither study references government legislation or policy as origin of the problem of institutionally-originated racism. Therefore, the argument fails.
I.c Having failed to demonstrate by these studies that the government system is at fault, and that statistically inferior data collection is demonstrated in argument I.a, above, I defend my argument in my R1, II.b.1 & II.b.2 that, one, the U.S. Supreme Court is an integral part of, though not the complete U.S. government system, and, two, that SCOTUS cases cited in my R I, II.b.1, demonstrate consistency of the Court relative to the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.
I.d Con claimed in R1, “Blacks face significant disadvantages with regard to educational attainment, income, wealth, credit, employment, and incarceration” (CDC, 2011; Jones, 2000; Kaufman, Cooper, & McGee, 1997; Pager & Shepherd, 2008; Uggen & Manza, 2002; Williams & Collins, 1995). Since all of the cited sources are citations from Con’s first study [1], and that study being totally rebutted in arguments I.a, I.b, above, they carry no water for this claim, either. Further, “…with regard to educational attainment, income, wealth, credit, employment…” these factors do not fall under the U.S. government system. All are matters of individual ambition, planning, and execution. Incarceration is a factor managed, ultimately, by the DOJ, but the study dealt with statistically insignificant, unreliable data, and further with healthcare, which, itself, is not government system. This Con argument fails.
I.e Con argues that “…in 2011 six states passed laws that require a driver's license or other official government photo identification to vote; these laws have been demonstrated to systematically exclude racial/ethnic minorities from voting, as they are less likely than Whites to have official government identification.” (Parson & McLaughlin, 2007)However, the claim that voter laws enacted demonstrate systemic racism in government is defeated by the following data. An analysis of voter laws in all 50 states separates the various states and their respective requirements for voter i.d. laws as of 2020:[6]
Type of I.D. required #states percentage of all states
Photo i.d. required 06 12%
Non-photo i.d. required 03 06%
Photo i.d. requested, not req’d 09 18%
Non photo i.d requested, no req’d 10 20%
No documentation required 22 44%
I.e.1These results demonstrate that any i.d. is required in only 18% of all states. Being not even a plurality of states, these variations cannot be considered as systemic, since the whole of the states are not affected by the policy of an inferior number of states that do require i.d.
I.e.2 Further, no citizen is forced to live in any specific state. Since citizens move to other states for any number of reasons, this specific reason is not unreasonable. Therefore, the claim of systemic racism in voter i.d. laws is defeated by choice of every citizen to live where their choices are allowed. That cannot be described as systemic racism.
I.e.3 To argue that voter I.D. requirements is needlessly racist is a red herring. Such i.d. is required to obtain welfare benefits, register to buy a firearm, petition the government, marry, buy liquor, rent M-rated video games, purchase a prescription, rent or buy a car, obtain a permit to assemble to protest, board a commercial aircraft, access public hotel accommodations…[7]
II Argument: Lacking rebuttal, definitions hold as defined
II.a I offered definitions in the Description document preceding the debate. If Con had any rebuttal concerning definition, prior to the debate was the time allotted to do so. That time has passed. But, instead of making a timely rebuttal, Con has proceeded in R1 to make a couple of subtle adjustments to the definition of systemic, to wit:
II.a.1 Con argued that by healthcare, educational attainment, income, wealth, credit,
Employment, and incarceration, systemic racism is observed and documented. However, as argued above, none of these issues, some of which are not even in the wheelhouse of government, affect a majority of the U.S. Black population, some 44M individuals. By definition, systemic means “…changes to an organization [having] an impact on the entire organization, including its most basic operations.Clearly, the entire population of Blacks are not affected by the issues Con raises, and, therefore, cannot be considered systemic.
II.a.2 Con argued for matters that are not government system issues, as noted above in argument I.d, and, therefore, do not meet the definition of either systemic,or racism.Lacking use of the documentedand unopposed definitions prior to the first round arguments, the change of those definitions to support Cons arguments shall not pass without rebuttal of these subtle alterations. I therefore declare these altered definitions by Con as null and void. 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.
III Argument: Systemic is not institutional
III.a A systemic issue has been defined. My opponent would have us believe that “institutional” is an identical term, and can, therefore be interchanged with systemic and have the same universal understanding. Here is why that is fallacious:
II.a.1 In their 1967 book, Black Power:The Politics of Liberation, Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton wrote: “When a black family moves into a home in a white neighborhood and is stoned, burned or routed out, they are victims of an overt act of individual racism which most people will condemn. But it is institutional racism that keeps black people locked in dilapidated slum tenements, subject to the daily prey of exploitative slumlords, merchants, loan sharks and discriminatory real estate agents. The society either pretends it does not know of this latter situation, or is in fact incapable of doing anything meaningful about it.”[8]
Con’s “institutional” argument agrees, however, there’s a fly in the soup. Yes, society is incapable, but not because they don’t have any desire to help. Opportunity Zones, which encourage private investment, launched by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 is evidence that the claim is false.[9] Further, generally, the erosion of the nuclear family, particularly with the frequent loss of a stable father in the home, in the Black community are factors that sincere Black leaders recognize has issues only the family, and not any social program, will fix. “In addition to coping with the burden of racism, African Americans have had to put considerable energy toward negotiating the possibility of being perceived as race traitors by others within the African American community. This study tracks the possibilities and perils of black group identity in literary representations of black men…”[10] That is an indictment that each person affected by the above complaints must fix in their mirrors.
Need I remind my opponent that the Supreme Court consists of eight Justices and one Chief Judge, and not “12 incredibly strict judges?” But, yes, it does take more than 12 to change the world, or just the U.S.A. In fact, given that it is the federal, state, and local legislators who enact law and policy, in just the federal system, that amounts to 535 legislators. From their perspective, alone, I challenge my opponent to demonstrate that the current and standing statutes they have, in the last 50 years, and currently enact have a racial bone in the body of work they produce; the system they create.
I pass the argument to Con.
[3]This debate, Pro Resolution, Definitions, “systemic”
[5]Bill Wortman, Joe DeSimone, Frank Bensley, et al, CSSBB Primer, Quality Council of Indiana, 2009. The definitive ASQ-certification body of knowledge in Six Sigma.
Con
#4
Tsk, tsk tsk. I'm disappointed. It seems Pro has entirely dropped one of my core syllogisms and my entire argument, by trying to say that majority of blacks don't receive racism, and hence this is not a problem. It would be like saying, poverty is not a problem, because the bottom 50% of the world as a whole is not poor. No. If even a handful of innocent black men has been consistently judged poorly by the legislative laws and ideas set in place, then systemic racism exists. I will further solidify my stance in R1.
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." [1]
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). " [2] 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." [3] 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.
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." [1]
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). " [2] 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." [3] 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.
Dropped arguments (as reminder)
- 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
Conclusion
The congress is responsible for passing laws, and the system itself consists of the police men, the local government, and even the smaller sectors itself. If education is broken, then the entire system is flawed, regardless of congress involvement, until congress fixes it. If health care is flawed, then the president and legislative branch are responsible to solve this problem. This is not an anarchy where the public health sector has nothing to do with the "system". No, the public health problems IS the system. That's why pro's arguments fail, and that's why he failed to refute my arguments.
VOTE FOR CON.
VOTE FOR CON.
Round 3
Pro
#5
I Defense: Taken to Tsk
I.a Sometimes, syllogisms work; sometimes they do not. Often, they do not because they expand “logic” beyond good sense, the country where logic is no longer logic. To wit:
I.a.1 The syllogism fails in P1: “If experts agree on a problem (systemic racism) and attempt to solve it, there is a problem.” The attempt to solve a problem [the second phrase of P1], is internally identified as being a problem? If attempting to solve a problem is, itself, a problem, how does Con expect to convince us his argument is logical?
I.b.1 P2 fails for the issue that Con tripped on in R1, and continued to trip in R2. Con continues to misunderstand the definition of systemic. I have defined it. Go back and read it. Con keeps side-stepping the definition.
I.c Con further errs by, once again, referencing matters outside the scope of the resolution. Frankly, the resolution does not care what is going on in either Australia or Antarctica as their geography does not fit within the resolution, limited to the U.S. government and its product of legislation and policy. Therefore, the argument fails.
II Defense: Health Care
II.a Once again, Con strays from the scope of the resolution. Health care has already been designated as outside the scope because, as an institution, health care is not a part of the U.S. government system beyond a financial matter of creating a public insurance option. Admittedly, government does oversee public health issues and tracks health-related data, but, even with this involvement, Con ignores that systemically, i.e. by legislation and policy, Con has failed to demonstrate that this documentation has embedded verbiage of racial inequality, and until this linkage is made, Con’s argument fails. Unfortunately, the time has passed for new argument, so such an effort, if successful, is too late. That some individuals within the system express racist tendencies is a given, but they act as individuals, and do not properly represent the system in their actions.
III Defense: Incarceration
III.a Repeat the defense of the government health care system in II, above, for the matter of incarceration. Con may reference individual cases of government employees acting with racism, but that is not the system; it is individuals who are not following legislation and policy.
III.b Within this argument of incarceration, Con added the allegation of racial profiling by law enforcement relative to driving in traffic. The same defense applies as in III.a, above: We have individuals within a system [law enforcement as an arm of U.S. government] who act with racist tendencies, but I challenge Con to show us the City Police Manual with a documented [systemic] declaration of racial profiling as official policy. That will be the evidence of systemic racism, but not some academic’s misunderstanding, and that of Con, of what systemic racism is. It is unfortunate that Con’s time to produce this evidence is passed.
III.c Con argues that I dropped his incarceration argument. Read my rebuttal, R2, I.a through I.e. Con’s incarceration argument was an appendage to the health care argument, which, considering the evidence demonstrated by Con’s sourcing, dealt with the strict application of health services with regard to specific ailments discussed by the “statistical” studies cited. I rebutted that these issues are outside the scope of the resolution since the practice of health care is not government related, and no evidence of systemic issues by documentation were offered, plus the fact that the statistical data did not conform to professional statistical standards.
IV Rebuttal: Prisons and United States v. Clary
IV.a Con argues that racial profiling exists in U.S. prisons, but, again, does not demonstrate that there is systemic racism applied because Con does not provide citation of legislation / policy documenting that Blacks are targeted excessively based on numbers of incarceration at excessive rates for crimes committed. Observe the following table of data from the U.S. Census, update 2019,[1] and the FBI 2017 report on Crime in the United States.[2]
Race Pop % by race Crime arrests % by race
all 328m
B 43.9m 13.4% 02.2m 5.0%
W 250.3m 76.3% 05.6m 2.2%
IV.a.1 This data demonstrates that more Blacks are incarcerated, not because of systemic racism, but because considering relative populations of Blacks and Whites, Blacks commit a higher percentage of total crimes by more than double, even though the White population is larger than the Black population by a factor of 5.7x. Commission of crime is a personal, individual decision, not a systemic coercion.
IV.b Con raised the court case of U.S. v. Clary, which demonstrated that “the 100:1 ratio violated the Equal Protection Clause” [US Constitution, 14A ECP]. Since Con raised the 100:1 ratio, I’ll let Con explain what it is. Voters/readers are going to have to depend on his description since it is his argument. I’ll just mention that it refers to two types of cocaine, and that blacks appear to prefer sale of one more than the other. But Blacks are not coerced by government in either choice; it is a matter of personal choice. It occurs that one cocaine type carries a higher prison sentence than the other, considering that it has a greater potential of harm to a user.[3] The fact is, the choice of the more harmful variety is purely a personal choice, and not a systemic coercion. Why don’t Blacks simply change their paradigm? That is the privilege of personal choice, guaranteed by the 14A.
V Defense: Dropped?
V.a Con accused my drop of 3 arguments:
V.a.1 First “drop” came from Con’s R1 “Call to Action” regarding Black ghettos. Con’s argument is, “As yet another study highlights, educating history lets us learn about how and why systemic racism exists today. “Black ghettos” are mentioned once by Con as the creative role of government, but there is no argument substantiating the government’s role; there’s just the naked claim. The mention of Black ghettos is within a statement that this information is heard from a “control clip,” and there is a citation [9] following “(cf.Bonam, Bergsieker, & Eberhardt, 2016; Bonam, Taylor, & Yantis, 2017; Lipsitz, 2011; Rothstein, 2015), [9],” but there is no citation [9] in Con’s citation list, and the reference in parentheses is just a list of names, without an article or book title. It goes nowhere, so I have no idea what Con is arguing here. It appears it is Con who dropped a citation. As Con is out of rounds for argument, this matter is dead.
V.a.2 Second alleged “drop” is a statement that “denying systemic racism would lead to a slippery slope going back to oppressing minorities.” In neither of Con’s two rounds is there an argument that uses the word string just quoted. Its only existence in either round is in this R2 claim that I dropped the argument. What argument? Lacking an argument, and failure to substantiating the same leads to Con’s drop of an argument he may have intended to make, and cite, but did not.
V.a.3 Third alleged “drop” is that corporations are spending billions of dollars. Earlier in R2, Con claims, “…corporations have donated millions to billions of dollars to fight the inherent bias within people. [8]” However, as in V.a.1, There is an apparent citation [8], but Con’s R2 has but three citations, so I refer Con to V.a.1 with the same concluding rebuttal: Con dropped a citation, therefore an unsubstantiated, and now dead claim.
VI Defense and Conclusion
VI.a Con has dropped my challenges to provide the legislative and policy documentation for each of his arguments. The only acceptable proof of his arguments is by provision of the documentation to demonstrate the fallacy of the resolution. This is Con’s BoP. It has failed.
VI.b Con has ignored the definitions offered in Description, Definitions prior to the debate, and has altered the definition of systemic by introducing institutional as a replacement object of debate. Since Con has passed the opportunity to correct his false arguments, I declare the matter dropped.
VI.c Con has repeatedly confused the argument by introduction of elements outside the scope of the resolution by introducing studies of faulty statistical norms, and subjects not related to the resolution such as educational attainment, income, wealth, credit, Australia, Antarctica, Black ghettos, and corporate spending [corporations outside the scope of the U.S. government system].
VI.d As earlier argued [R1, R2], "systemic racism," as used by Con's arguments, is committed by individuals in a system and not by the system itself. I have successfully rebutted all Con attempts to assail the resolution, and Con has failed to overwhelm it. Vote for Pro. Thank you.
Con
#6
My name is Undefeatable, and I believe I have kept my namesake. I will keep conclusions succinct as pro has completely failed to refute my ideas.
I: Experts use the term systemic racism, agreeing on the problem. Pro has failed to provide logic for why their use of the term fails.
II and III: Persons and individuals working for law are part of the system. Otherwise, pro cannot demonstrate systemic equality either, as the Supreme Court justices would be not part of the system by his logic. Health care acts, education and incarceration combined with scholarly analysis has proven beyond a doubt that the government itself is at fault.
Pro has failed to read my round one conclusion. That alone should net me the debate. I said that if we deny systemic racism, this will lead to minorities being ignored and snuffed our like a candle. Through the ignorance of Pro and his unwillingness to accept what is part of the US system, it is evident that I completely and utterly overwhelmed his arguments.
VOTE FOR UNDEFEATABLE.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Null vote due to personal bias. I completely feel like pro just missed the entire point of how com says expert thinks system and structure points exists. Smaller details are refuted but overall, it doesn’t seem convincing even with Undefeatable ‘s lackluster final round. Personal feedback, to pro try to actually read all of cons stuff it doesn’t feel like you grasped the essence. Con... don’t get angry, stay solid at the end. If you’re right then other voters should agree with you.
No, because I suck at debating. I always end up humiliating myself.
really? Perhaps you'd like to debate me on the same topic?
Pro obviously won.
"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
I suppose I’ll have to edit my profile then. Successful defense is arguably easier than successful attack
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.
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
A faux-dichotomy, shall I say? One can tie, which, although is not a win, is not a loss either.
To be fair his name is Undefeatable not Victorious
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.
You’re allowed to cast another vote, just get rid of the part where you mention stuff that the two didn’t say.
It's an extremely common blunder for new voters, but it's an easy fix.
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.
**************************************************
>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.
Understood - removed.
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.
Ah, thanks. Didn't think of that.
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
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")
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
"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?
Intel, Bear, oro, edge, I encourage your votes.
seldiora, thank you for voting.
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, 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.
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.
Did PRO and CON agree on those definitions?
fauxlaw provided definitions, but those definitions split the phrase into two words.
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
"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?
Nah I was just clarifying that systemic racism means the entire system, to voters that didn't know that.
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?
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/systemic-racism
I hope you’re just speaking as a debater. I’d be appalled if pro was your real stance
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.
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.
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)
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.
Your opinion.
Your opinion.
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.
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