Instigator / Con
4
1314
rating
50
debates
13.0%
won
Topic

Your proposal to the "race " problem.

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

MisterChris
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
People
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Pro
7
1726
rating
39
debates
88.46%
won
Description
~ 1,223 / 5,000

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Please provide a proposed solution to "racism". What is your method, code, idea, formula, whatever, that will help replace or eliminate all "racism" so that everyone will receive the proper treatment not involving "racial" discrimination?

How would you work or have others work as proposed to improve "race relations"?

Now be it that it's a proposal, you can't prove your method will work. But you do have to prove it is the best method yet, possibly ever thought up.

If the deductive reasoning is there to stand tenable with your concept , I'll stand to concede that. If I am able to undermine what's said on the basis of invalid points, you can come back to try again in another challenge.

For questions , please comment /send a message.

Round 1
Con
What is your proposal to replace all "racism" so in production we'll have more and more justice on the planet?
Pro
Thanks, Mall.

Looks like Sir beat me to making this argument, but I'm making it anyway. 

INTEPRETING THE BoP:

Under the description, CON quantifies that PRO must accomplish 2 things:

1. Provide a solution to racism, even if that solution may not be achievable 

"Please provide a proposed solution to "racism". Now be it that it's a proposal, you can't prove your method will work. 
2. Prove that it is the best method. 

But you do have to prove it is the best method yet, possibly ever thought up.
Now, how shall we define "best?" In this case, it should be defined as that which accomplishes the goal of ending racism most efficiently. 

1. PROPOSAL 

PRO says that the best, and only solution to end racism is the total eradication of humanity itself.

2. JUSTIFICATION

There has never been a time in human history without racism, that is, the "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."

We live in a world full of racism, and yet this is the lowest amount of racism global society has ever achieved. Indeed, despite a century's worth of campaigns by social justice ideologues,  racism persists even within the factions that adopt this ideology. Furthermore, even these flawed ideologies can only last for so long. Our era of prosperity and social justice will not be infinite, and we will find that at some point racism goes back to being glorified ideologically. 

Here's why: racism is inherent in humanity. Humanity and racism are inseparable. 

Humans are wrought with cognitive biases. 
In fact, many major thinkers of psychology argue that we are all inherently racist no matter how much we try to fight it. 

Vox finds:
There's a word for why we're all probably at least a little bit racist, even if we really don't want to be: Implicit bias.
It's a term that describes what's happening when, despite our best intentions and without our awareness, racial stereotypes and assumptions creep into our minds and affect our actions.
It seeps into just about every aspect of life, including areas like criminal justice that can have deadly consequences. Thirty years of neurology and cognitive psychology studies show that it influences the way we see and treat others, even when we're absolutely determined to be, and believe we are being, fair and objective.
They further:
Implicit bias comes from the messages, attitudes, and stereotypes we pick up from the world we live in, and research over time and from different countries shows that it tends to line up with general social hierarchies.
Studies have shown that people have implicit biases that favor Germans over Turks (in Germany), Japanese over Koreans (in Japan), men over women (when it comes to career-related stereotypes), youth over elderly, and straight people over gay people.
The only way to end racism for good, then, is to separate humanity from humans. To forcibly remove their ability to have cognitive bias. 

But unfortunately there is no practicable way to do that... other than to eliminate all human life. This solution fully fulfills PRO's BoP. To wipe humanity off the map would not only be a 100% effective solution,  it is the only solution. 

Back to you, Mall. 

Round 2
Con
"Here's why: racism is inherent in humanity. Humanity and racism are inseparable.

Humans are wrought with cognitive biases.
In fact, many major thinkers of psychology argue that we are all inherently racist no matter how much we try to fight it. "

In other words, you don't have a proposal. Knowing this before accepting the debate, why then accept something that you cannot take on the challenge of?


"The only way to end racism for good, then, is to separate humanity from humans. To forcibly remove their ability to have cognitive bias. "

How is this the only way when you haven't verified that I couldn't come up with a way?

Then the question is, why am I not "racist"?
If I can be not "racist" and others can not be that, so much for human nature. Now what if that can be multiplied so much so that "racism" doesn't exist at all , what's the chance?

I'm asking this because what you're saying about humanity is incongruent, doesn't mash up with this .


"But unfortunately there is no practicable way to do that... other than to eliminate all human life. This solution fully fulfills PRO's BoP. To wipe humanity off the map would not only be a 100% effective solution,  it is the only solution. "

Going back to the first round, how do we know more and more justice exists on the planet when we're non-existent, no consciousness of it whatsoever?

The proposal is to eliminate "racism" and not human life. What's your proposal to get rid of "racism" replacing it, replacing it with justice?

The proposal to get rid of us is what you're saying. If hypothetically , some super advanced civilization resurrects us, restores, regenerates, revives us, we'll be back with "racism" still in existence. You need to propose something to solve "racism".

To replace "racism " with justice, we'd have to be here existing, living to bring about justice, improving a system of correct or proper treatment between "race relations".

This is a continuous thing while living, not dead.





Pro
Thanks, Mall.

REFUTATIONS:

In other words, you don't have a proposal. Knowing this before accepting the debate, why then accept something that you cannot take on the challenge of?
CON offered a proposal.

Citing the debate description:
What is your method, code, idea, formula, whatever, that will help replace or eliminate all "racism"

RECALL & EXTEND: "The only way to end racism for good, then, is to separate humanity from humans. To forcibly remove their ability to have cognitive bias. But unfortunately there is no practicable way to do that... other than to eliminate all human life. This solution fully fulfills PRO's BoP. To wipe humanity off the map would not only be a 100% effective solution,  it is the only solution."

CON has thus fulfilled the requirement of solving racism with their proposition.

How is this the only way when you haven't verified that I couldn't come up with a way?
There is not an alternative solution that is within the realm of possibility.

RECALL & EXTEND: "Humans are wrought with cognitive biases. In fact, many major thinkers of psychology argue that we are all inherently racist no matter how much we try to fight it.... The only way to end racism for good, then, is to separate humanity from humans. To forcibly remove their ability to have cognitive bias. But unfortunately there is no practicable way to do that... other than to eliminate all human life."

Then the question is, why am I not "racist"?
If I can be not "racist" and others can not be that, so much for human nature. Now what if that can be multiplied so much so that "racism" doesn't exist at all , what's the chance?

I'm asking this because what you're saying about humanity is incongruent, doesn't mash up with this .
You are racist. I am racist. Everyone is racist.

You can claim to be non-racist and totally objective all you want, but the truth is you will always have cognitive biases in one direction or another. Now, these biases are not always obvious, but the fact that they are still present even in the people we would consider the "least racist" verifies that racism is an immutable, inherent human trait.

Said another way, racism can be reduced, but not smothered entirely... except to eliminate humanity. 

You may not like this solution, but the requirement you gave would be that it eliminates all racism entirely. I fulfill this requirement.

 The proposal is to eliminate "racism" and not human life. What's your proposal to get rid of "racism" replacing it, replacing it with justice?
The goal is indeed to eliminate racism. The unfortunate requirement of doing so is eliminating human life. Hopefully I will not have to repeat this any further. 

As for "replacing" racism with "justice," justice is not within my requirements to achieve. My only requirement that you laid out is the reduction of racism. 

To replace "racism " with justice, we'd have to be here existing, living to bring about justice, improving a system of correct or proper treatment between "race relations".
Cross apply previous refutations.

The proposal to get rid of us is what you're saying. If hypothetically , some super advanced civilization resurrects us, restores, regenerates, revives us, we'll be back with "racism" still in existence. You need to propose something to solve "racism".

Just because a problem has been "solved" does not mean it can not become a problem again. If I replace a part in my car due to it being worn, I don't just assume it will always work. Another hundred thousand miles, and that part may be worn again. 

But let's assume you're right, and the solution needs to be permanent.  This solution is literally the most permanent there is. Death is inherently permanent. Not to mention that an advanced civilization resurrecting us is probably the most improbable thing I can think of.

Back to you, Mall. 
Round 3
Con
"How is this the only way when you haven't verified that I couldn't come up with a way?
There is not an alternative solution that is within the realm of possibility."


You know this how?

I'm getting a claim here but no proof.

If you're wrong on your proposal, there would be no way to correct it. No way to even confirm it was the best proposal. Right now it's just a proposal but not an actual solution . Why ? The problem still exists. Now if we no longer exist, we can't verify that someone later came up with an actual way to eliminate "racism" alone. That is without implementing so much collateral damage. People aren't perfect as we make mistakes, make errors and can be wrong. This is your hypothesis I suppose but not a confirmation. In regards to collateral damage, young people, babies , people that aren't "racist" are eliminated. 

Why not try to extract what constitutes "non-racist" behavior to spread it all around?

Make a homogeneous behavior of that.

"You are racist. I am racist. Everyone is racist."

What have I done or said to prove I am "racist"?

"You can claim to be non-racist and totally objective all you want, but the truth is you will always have cognitive biases in one direction or another. Now, these biases are not always obvious, but the fact that they are still present even in the people we would consider the "least racist" verifies that racism is an immutable, inherent human trait."

What is cognitive bias? 

What does it have to do with "race"?

"You may not like this solution, but the requirement you gave would be that it eliminates all racism entirely. I fulfill this requirement."

Part of the requirements. The remaining instructions are that you work and you have to be alive to work to solve this issue. You have to have others work and others have to be alive to work to solve this issue. We all are working on people relations .

" The proposal is to eliminate "racism" and not human life. What's your proposal to get rid of "racism" replacing it, replacing it with justice?
 The goal is indeed to eliminate racism. The unfortunate requirement of doing so is eliminating human life. Hopefully I will not have to repeat this any further. "

You forgot the justice part. People have to exist with their lives intact for justice to exist in it.

"As for "replacing" racism with "justice," justice is not within my requirements to achieve. My only requirement that you laid out is the reduction of racism. "

Not correct as you , you, you only made one requirement for yourself to avoid refutation.

"Just because a problem has been "solved" does not mean it can not become a problem again."

This is an oxymoron. There's no such thing as a solved problem being once more again a problem. You're confusing a remedial temporary fix with a solution. 

The answer or solution to a math problem such as 2+2 has been solved to equal 4 . 

A math equation that has not been solved doesn't have an answer or solution that's been found. This is why scientists may have incomplete calculations on the most highest of complexed equations. All they may have at the moment is an hypothesis. They're still working to solve the problem. Once solved, it's the same answer everytime. It's always 4 as the matter has been solved. Then they move on to the next problem yet to be solved.

There is no going in circles with solutions. 

"If I replace a part in my car due to it being worn, I don't just assume it will always work. Another hundred thousand miles, and that part may be worn again. "

That worn part just like a worn tire doesn't become a problem. As I already know what the solution is. That would be replacement. Also being that the solution is already known, I don't have to figure on how to solve it, I can be proactive and prudent having the replacement on reserve. See , don't mix up questions that have already been answered versus questions that exist without a known answer. The question can come up a million times but you'll have the answer just as many times. The point in this topic is to find the answer to my question. It still hasn't been found. 

It hasn't been found so I'll settle for what you think , what your proposal, suggestion is that could be an answer. Even if it's not the answer , what is the best response or reaction to the problem?
You may not have the answer to something but the best , possibly appropriate thing to do instead of doing nothing may be what you can offer right now.

The description made it clear that you most likely can't prove that your proposal will work but possibly be the best so far. Of course we would only know that being alive. 

"But let's assume you're right, and the solution needs to be permanent. This solution is literally the most permanent there is. Death is inherently permanent. Not to mention that an advanced civilization resurrecting us is probably the most improbable thing I can think of."

Why don't you think harder and come up with something that leaves all of us still breathing?

You know if you could think of something , you take it over death. That is, unless you have a death wish , you're suicidal or not content with life.

Think of a baby or child . You're saying they practice "racism". Prove that because I've never witnessed it. I've observed non- "racist " acts out of them and if that can be multiplied , why not?

The description called for improvement. How is that possible when we're all dead? 

This proposal of yours is actually the most opposite to the solution. The goal was to eliminate "racism", not people. Why eliminate "racism"? It can stop the most gruesome, heinous act that can be manifested . Eliminating so many of us like those in extermination camps.

Your proposed solution is suggesting to do the same thing but in a more expeditious fashion.


Pro
Thx, Mall

You know this how?

I'm getting a claim here but no proof.
We know this for two reasons, both of which have been repeatedly stated throughout the debate:

a. Humanity and cognitive bias are inseparable. 

therefore

b. The solution to ending racism completely requires the removal of humanity from humans. 

There are only two possible ways to accomplish this, killing all of humanity or somehow reducing all of humanity to a permanent vegetable state. One is clearly practicable while the other is impossible.

Thus we render the solution of killing all of humanity. 

If you're wrong on your proposal, there would be no way to correct it. No way to even confirm it was the best proposal. Right now it's just a proposal but not an actual solution . Why ? The problem still exists. Now if we no longer exist, we can't verify that someone later came up with an actual way to eliminate "racism" alone. That is without implementing so much collateral damage. People aren't perfect as we make mistakes, make errors and can be wrong. This is your hypothesis I suppose but not a confirmation. In regards to collateral damage, young people, babies , people that aren't "racist" are eliminated. 

Why not try to extract what constitutes "non-racist" behavior to spread it all around?

Make a homogeneous behavior of that.
  • RECALL & EXTEND that CON himself said "Please provide a proposed solution to "racism". Now be it that it's a proposal, you can't prove your method will work." This renders any discussion over verifying it being the "best" inconsequential. It is not required to be verified after the fact. The solution is only required to be the best shot we have at ridding ourselves from racism. 
  • CON's logic is faulty at the fundamental level. There is no need for "verification of my solution" because it leaves no avenue for error. Without humanity, there is no racism because it is an exclusively human construct. 
  • CON commits special pleading by changing the timescale of the debate. In the debate description they specified PRO would be arguing that this is the "best method yet," and now they extend PRO's BoP unduly to include arguing that their method must be the best of all time. 
  • Behavior can not be homogenous, as humans are individuals, each with their own set of cognitive biases.
What have I done or said to prove I am "racist"?

Be human.

What is cognitive bias? 

What does it have to do with "race"?

RECALL & EXTEND: Vox finds:
"There's a word for why we're all probably at least a little bit racist, even if we really don't want to be: Implicit bias.
It's a term that describes what's happening when, despite our best intentions and without our awareness, racial stereotypes and assumptions creep into our minds and affect our actions.
It seeps into just about every aspect of life, including areas like criminal justice that can have deadly consequences. Thirty years of neurology and cognitive psychology studies show that it influences the way we see and treat others, even when we're absolutely determined to be, and believe we are being, fair and objective."

Part of the requirements. The remaining instructions are that you work and you have to be alive to work to solve this issue. You have to have others work and others have to be alive to work to solve this issue. We all are working on people relations .

  • The win requirement was that PRO provide a solution to end racism. The solution does not have to fit with every word in your description, that is abusive and inconsistent with the rules of debate. "How would you work towards x" is not a win requirement, it is a question towards me that may or may not be relevant depending on the solution I chose. 
  • Furthermore, CON's argument is logically fallacious. PRO's solution does not indicate that people will be unable to physically achieve death through some action, for the same reason you do not argue that an alive person can not kill themselves because they are dead. One of the best candidates for human annihilation, for example, is the deliberate nuclear destruction of Earth. 
You forgot the justice part. People have to exist with their lives intact for justice to exist in it. Not correct as you , you, you only made one requirement for yourself to avoid refutation.

"Justice" was a concept CON introduced randomly in R1. CON is committing a special pleading fallacy. 

This is an oxymoron. There's no such thing as a solved problem being once more again a problem. You're confusing a remedial temporary fix with a solution. 
For the sake of argument, let's agree to this.

PRO's argument is untouched. Death is a permanent solution.

Why don't you think harder and come up with something that leaves all of us still breathing?
Because there is no practicable solution that leaves all of us still breathing. 

Think of a baby or child . You're saying they practice "racism". Prove that because I've never witnessed it. I've observed non- "racist " acts out of them and if that can be multiplied , why not?
Because "non-racist" acts do not indicate the absence of racism any less than "non-violent" acts indicate the absence of violence. I could kill a family of 20 and then donate to a charity, but that would still make me violent. 

The description called for improvement. How is that possible when we're all dead? 
It would be an improvement under the criteria you laid out, that we eliminate racism. 

Back to you, Mall. 


Round 4
Con
"Humanity and cognitive bias are inseparable.

therefore

The solution to ending racism completely requires the removal of humanity from humans. "

How do you know I am "racist"?

I'm not and others are not so it is possible to live with the non-existence of "racism".

"Thus we render the solution of killing all of humanity. "

How does this improve "race " relations as the description states?

"This renders any discussion over verifying it being the "best" inconsequential. It is not required to be verified after the fact. The solution is only required to be the best shot we have at ridding ourselves from racism. "

We don't know it's the best beforehand.

"CON's logic is faulty at the fundamental level. There is no need for "verification of my solution" because it leaves no avenue for error. Without humanity, there is no racism because it is an exclusively human construct."

It's not a solution . It's a proposal to one. Why ? It hasn't been proven that it will work. In fact , the proposal is not suggesting to get rid of "racism" but just "races". But you believe everyone is "racist" including those you don't personally know, babies just born or unborn. Everybody is "racist". A claim but no proof.

So your "racist". What are some of the "racist" things you've done so far today?

After we're dead , you can't verify if someone would have came up with an idea to solve the "race" problem with us all still breathing. Your proposal creates an unfalsifiable, untestable arena. If you truly think life is worth holding on to and want to work to improve things, you'd come up with a proposal that leaves room open to possibly better proposals

A human construct by all or just some humans?

"CON commits special pleading by changing the timescale of the debate. In the debate description they specified PRO would be arguing that this is the "best method yet," and now they extend PRO's BoP unduly to include arguing that their method must be the best of all time. "

Best yet , best of all time, there's no difference to me. Whichever you feel comfortable in phrasing.

"Behavior can not be homogenous, as humans are individuals, each with their own set of cognitive biases."

Individuals getting on a bus are doing the same thing that is getting on a bus. People drive cars so this is all homogeneous behavior.

Please specify further when making the statement you made.

"Be human."

So the definition of a "racist" is to be human.

Ok well it's explanation time. You have to get specific to make sense. What is it or what does it mean to be human ?

Is "cognitive bias" another phrase for "racist"?

Is that what you're saying?

"The win requirement was that PRO provide a solution to end racism. The solution does not have to fit with every word in your description, that is abusive and inconsistent with the rules of debate. "How would you work towards x" is not a win requirement, it is a question towards me that may or may not be relevant depending on the solution I chose. "

Not every word of the description should be cooperated with. Says who? In other words, some of description can be ignored for the sake of what? Help me out. Would the challenge be harder if you did not chop it up?

You are to propose a solution. What you're providing is not a solution. It is not a solution . It is, it is , it is a proposal. This is my debate challenge and my rules and terms.

This is how you move the goal post by cherry picking the description. You either be honest and consistent going by all what the description has laid out. That's what consistency is. YOU want to be consistent, you go with all of what the description is asking.
Your proposal fails to work with others to improve "race" relations . That improvement would, would eliminate "racism" replacing everywhere that it was with proper treatment.

"Furthermore, CON's argument is logically fallacious. PRO's solution does not indicate that people will be unable to physically achieve death through some action, for the same reason you do not argue that an alive person can not kill themselves because they are dead. One of the best candidates for human annihilation, for example, is the deliberate nuclear destruction of Earth. "

Are you saying you propose that people work to kill themselves, children , babies and all?

""Justice" was a concept CON introduced randomly in R1. CON is committing a special pleading fallacy. "

In other words , you have no rebuttal. Plus justice is the opposite of "racism". Improving a society purging the "race" issue would manifest justice.


"PRO's argument is untouched. Death is a permanent solution."

A permanent solution to what?

"Because there is no practicable solution that leaves all of us still breathing. "

I understand that's what you think or else you would of thought of it I guess. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Why do you think these different organizations exist? These groups like NAACP or "black lives matter", propose to deal with the "race" problem . In a fighting, empowerment, non,-defeatist like fashion to enhance life , not to take it away.

You never hear Malcolm X suggesting what you've been saying or Martin Luther King.

You must think your plan is better than theirs if you say yours is the best.

"Because "non-racist" acts do not indicate the absence of racism any less than "non-violent" acts indicate the absence of violence. I could kill a family of 20 and then donate to a charity, but that would still make me violent. "

That's how you look it. You're not violent at the moment of donating. I'll doubt the donation will be accepted as people will fear for their safety. Let's say somehow you get parole after being released from prison.

Why are you on parole? Well someone had to deem you safe enough or whatever at the moment anyway. It's all context. They'll never let you out on good behavior because you were violent before you got to prison and been so ever since on the inside.

So somebody not being "racist" at the moment isn't being "racist" at that moment. You have to prove that a moment will come that all people will be "racist" . Many people will never have a moment of doing certain things that are wrong like murder. The wrongdoing of being "racist" is no different.

"It would be an improvement under the criteria you laid out, that we eliminate racism."

Let me tell you what the description laid out and if you want to go into detail with your response and deal with all the information presented to you, you can be on the side of truth and be honest.

Many of these responses of yours are broad, insufficient and rather vague.

Your response to being "racist" means to be human or I'm being human means "racism". This isn't telling me anything further to the truth or information I can use to understand or learn of what you're saying.

Anyhow, the description mentioned several things you didn't address in your proposal.

The description expounds on the title so the title of the debate isn't all there is to it. You can only fit so much in a title. So I unpack it in the description.

What is your proposal to solve the "race" problem?

What do I mean by the "race" problem and a proposal to solve it?

Namely improving "race" relations as that is what produces the problem from within it somewhere somehow.

So you have to find where it is in that situation in which people relate to each other.
Now the cop out move would be not to figure it out like selling a whole house instead of fixing a leaking pipe.

But somehow unfounded, you say that the whole house has fault.
Looking at your proposal, is it an improvement of "race" relations ?

Improvement has to do with changing something for the better. The keyword is changing.

The worst or the very heinous acts of "race" relations has eliminated people which is what you're suggesting, elimination of people. So the same result, no change in it makes it no better or improvement to "race" relations which doesn't fix the "race" problem.

To put it in perspective, you just suggested what is already happening to us now and in the past but in a more expeditious fashion.













Pro
Thx Mall.

WHAT IS A WIN CONDITION?

It seems I will have to explain what a win condition is, and apply it to Mall's description for clarity. 

A win condition is a declaratory statement that specifically defines what one side or the other has to do to win in the debate description... this is synonymous with "qualifying the BoP."

Mall gives two win conditions in his description:

A. provide a proposed solution to "racism".

B. you do have to prove it is the best method yet, possibly ever thought up.

It's optional to do this, as it can be done within the debate itself, but if you give win conditions in the description and then 180 on them later on is not only a special pleading fallacy but bad conduct.

I will note that questions within the description can not be win conditions by nature. They are simply rhetorical tools to get the debate going. They are not a declaratory statement. And they certainly do not establish a rulebook for the entire debate.

RECALL & EXTEND: "How would you work towards x" is not a win requirement, it is a question towards me that may or may not be relevant depending on the solution I chose. 

REFUTATIONS:

How do you know I am "racist"?

I'm not and others are not so it is possible to live with the non-existence of "racism".
RECALL & EXTEND my previous response to this statement from the last round as it is unrefuted. 

How does this improve "race " relations as the description states?

Here is the original statement: How would you work or have others work as proposed to improve "race relations"?

RECALL & EXTEND: I will note that questions within the description can not be win conditions by nature. They are simply rhetorical tools to get the debate going. They are not a declaratory statement. And they certainly do not establish a rulebook for the entire debate. "How would you work towards x" is not a win requirement, it is a question towards me that may or may not be relevant depending on the solution I chose. 

Furthermore, CON does not define what "better race relations" or "proper treatment" would be other than the previously given qualifier which was that the solution must eliminate all racism. If there are no people, there is no racism. No one is being racially mistreated. Under his definition, I clearly achieve "improved race relations."

We don't know it's the best beforehand.
RECALL & EXTEND that CON himself said "Please provide a proposed solution to "racism". Now be it that it's a proposal, you can't prove your method will work." This renders any discussion over verifying it being the "best" inconsequential. It is not required to be verified after the fact. The solution is only required to be the best shot we have at ridding ourselves from racism. 

RECALL & EXTEND that CON's logic is faulty at the fundamental level. There is no need for "verification of my solution" because it leaves no avenue for error. Without humanity, there is no racism because it is an exclusively human construct. 

PRO has extensively proven it is both the best and only solution.

It's not a solution . It's a proposal to one. Why ? It hasn't been proven that it will work. In fact , the proposal is not suggesting to get rid of "racism" but just "races". But you believe everyone is "racist" including those you don't personally know, babies just born or unborn. Everybody is "racist". A claim but no proof.

So your "racist". What are some of the "racist" things you've done so far today?
Everyone is racist because it is an inherently human trait, something that about 30 years of neurology and psychology research show us extensively. 

I am racist because I have implicit bias. 

RECALL & EXTEND: "Implicit bias comes from the messages, attitudes, and stereotypes we pick up from the world we live in, and research over time and from different countries shows that it tends to line up with general social hierarchies.
Studies have shown that people have implicit biases that favor Germans over Turks (in Germany), Japanese over Koreans (in Japan), men over women (when it comes to career-related stereotypes), youth over elderly, and straight people over gay people."

After we're dead , you can't verify if someone would have came up with an idea to solve the "race" problem with us all still breathing. Your proposal creates an unfalsifiable, untestable arena. If you truly think life is worth holding on to and want to work to improve things, you'd come up with a proposal that leaves room open to possibly better proposals

RECALL & EXTEND that CON himself said "Please provide a proposed solution to "racism". Now be it that it's a proposal, you can't prove your method will work." This renders any discussion over verifying it being the "best" inconsequential. It is not required to be verified after the fact. The solution is only required to be the best shot we have at ridding ourselves from racism. 

RECALL & EXTEND that CON's logic is faulty at the fundamental level. There is no need for "verification of my solution" because it leaves no avenue for error. Without humanity, there is no racism because it is an exclusively human construct. 

RECALL & EXTEND that CON commits special pleading by changing the timescale of the debate. In the debate description they specified PRO would be arguing that this is the "best method yet," and now they extend PRO's BoP unduly to include arguing that their method must be the best of all time. 

There was no requirement for PRO's solution to be falsifiable or testable. Isn't a solution with 100% accuracy the best under your own requirements?
Furthermore, this "you can't completely verify" argument ignores that it is impossible to verify anything completely. We can only verify beyond reasonable doubt, something PRO has done. 

Best yet , best of all time, there's no difference to me. Whichever you feel comfortable in phrasing.

PRO elects the former. 

Individuals getting on a bus are doing the same thing that is getting on a bus. People drive cars so this is all homogeneous behavior.

Please specify further when making the statement you made.
PRO means by "Behavior can not be homogenous, as humans are individuals, each with their own set of cognitive biases" that everyone is different and will make different choices in different situations. CON's metaphor here doesn't refute that, it only illustrates that at times people will make the same choice. 

So the definition of a "racist" is to be human.

Is "cognitive bias" another phrase for "racist"?

Is that what you're saying?
Not exactly. The definition of racism is the same it's always been:  "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group"

Because of cognitive bias, though, all of us hold small prejudices against other people. By definition we are all at least a tiny bit racist. 

Not every word of the description should be cooperated with. Says who? In other words, some of description can be ignored for the sake of what? Help me out. Would the challenge be harder if you did not chop it up?
....
This is how you move the goal post by cherry picking the description. You either be honest and consistent going by all what the description has laid out. That's what consistency is. YOU want to be consistent, you go with all of what the description is asking.
Several responses here.

RECALL & EXTEND PRO's "what is a win condition?" section. 

  • Not every word of the description needs to be "cooperated with" because not every word is a rule or win condition. Most of it is superfluous.
  • I am not "cherry-picking" the description, you are taking non-win conditions and trying to forcibly impose them on me. That is dishonest. 
Are you saying you propose that people work to kill themselves, children , babies and all?

Yes. Because it would solve racism under your proposal.

In other words , you have no rebuttal. Plus justice is the opposite of "racism". Improving a society purging the "race" issue would manifest justice.
That was my rebuttal. It is a concept you introduced out of nowhere. Not a win condition, not agreed upon. Justice is also not the opposite of racism. Non-racism is the opposite of racism. 

A permanent solution to what?

I... wha... have you not been listening?

Why do you think these different organizations exist? These groups like NAACP or "black lives matter", propose to deal with the "race" problem . In a fighting, empowerment, non,-defeatist like fashion to enhance life , not to take it away.
Racism CAN be reduced. You can get people to hold their tongue and try their best to be 100% objective and non-racist. But it would not eliminate racism completely. Once again, you said that PRO must give a solution that eliminates all racism. PRO did so. 

So somebody not being "racist" at the moment isn't being "racist" at that moment. You have to prove that a moment will come that all people will be "racist" . Many people will never have a moment of doing certain things that are wrong like murder. The wrongdoing of being "racist" is no different.
This is a very silly burden to place on PRO and your logic is incoherent. Just because I am not exercising a particular trait most of the time does not mean that I don't carry that trait. We can't say that someone who is mostly non-racist is never racist at all.  Neurology and psychology has PROVEN that everyone will exercise the trait of racism throughout their lives, even if it is in a limited capacity. 

So the same result, no change in it makes it no better or improvement to "race" relations which doesn't fix the "race" problem.

Silly argument. There has never been the total eradication of all people.

The rest of the end section CON presents has already been refuted extensively. 

VOTE PRO.