THBT Systemic Racism is a Significant Problem in the US

1702

rating

debates

70.13%

won

Description

Systemic Racism: Developed by sociologist Joe Feagin, systemic racism is a popular way of explaining, within the social sciences and humanities, the significance of race and racism both historically and in today's world. Feagin describes the concept and the realities attached to it in his well-researched and readable book, "Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations." In it, Feagin uses historical evidence and demographic statistics to create a theory that asserts that the United States was founded in racism since the Constitution classified Black people as the property of White people. Feagin illustrates that the legal recognition of slavery based on race is a cornerstone of a racist social system in which resources and rights were and are unjustly given to White people and unjustly denied to people of color.

"Systemic racism includes the complex array of antiblack practices, the unjustly gained political-economic power of whites, the continuing economic and other resource inequalities along racial lines, and the white racist ideologies and attitudes created to maintain and rationalize white privilege and power. Systemic here means that the core racist realities are manifested in each of society’s major parts [...] each major part of U.S. society—the economy, politics, education, religion, the family—reflects the fundamental reality of systemic racism."

https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-racism-3026565

Burden of proof is shared. No troll arguments. No argument from God/The Bible is allowed.

Since Fauxlaw did not think Systemic Racism is a problem in the US, I will allow him and any other persons to challenge my premise backed by countless experts.

Round 1

3. scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1376&context=dissertations

01.28.2021 08:03PM

Pro

As I believe that Con has completely failed to address my previous arguments (also, the one vote was a tie), I will restructure and post them here.

If Con thinks his original refutations were sufficient, he may also copy-paste them.

Introduction: Systemic Racism and requirements

Since Con believes he is free to separate "systemic" and "racism" to try to fool people into thinking there must be some kind of System (like a machine), I will stress the importance of my full concept.

Recall from description, that systemic racism includes but is not limited to:

the unjustly gained political-economic power of whites,
the continuing economic and other resource inequalities along racial lines,
and the white racist ideologies and attitudes created to maintain and rationalize white privilege and power.
Systemic here means that the core racist realities are manifested in each of society’s major parts [...] each major part of U.S. society—the economy, politics, education, religion, the family—reflects the fundamental reality of systemic racism.

Indeed, if Con tries to bat this away by separating my words, I have yet another research article that proves this is the proper definition of systemic racism [21]

"The concept of ‘systemic racism’ (Feagin and Feagin 1978, pp. 19–37; Feagin 2006) refers to

the foundational, large-scale and inescapable hierarchical system of US racial oppression devised and maintained by whites and directed at people of colour.3

Systemic racism is a ‘material, social, and ideological reality that is well-embedded in major US institutions’ (Feagin 2006, p. 2).

Racial oppression is foundational to and deeply ingrained in US history and is operational throughout societal levels ...

Systemic racism has routinely reproduced major societal institutions and networks that uphold asymmetrically ... social-psychological relations among racial groups.

In systemic racism theory, the past and present racial hierarchy and perpetuation of unequal socio-economic power relations among different racial groups are viewed as endemic to a race-based social system involving much more than conceptual meanings, ideologies and biased actions.

In the case of US society, systemic racism is foundational to and engineered into its major institutions and organizations."

So now no matter what Con throws at us with Merriam Webster and Dictionary.com, he cannot throw away the very concept rigorously defined and agreed upon with countless research papers. With that being said, let the battle begin!

I. The Expert Syllogism

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).

Experts are the prime source to know what is a real problem. For example, experts do not agree on systemic racism on Mars, 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, Con must provide a logical explanation for why all these researchers pour hours of dedication and finance into solving a non-existing problem. Until you destroy the core of this argument, I essentially win the entire debate.

Systemic Racism in the US is so severe that there is an entire 150 page book written on it, no doubt covering everything I've written here, and more. How can you explain this away if it never existed? [22] In fact, I dare Con to post a 150 page book written on how we carefully regulate and enforce racial equality in the US. I doubt he will successfully find such a source. Another 300 page book also highlights even in the summary that our past racism has merely been reflected across four centuries rather than truly resolved. [23]. Let's see Con explain how our current world does not reflect the same biases we had in the past.

II. The meta-analysis

A powerful analysis of multiple studies covers the overall problems with economics and incarceration with racial inequality.

This 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 social models, Alicia 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 in 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 citations that the experts combine goes to highlight Con'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 in 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 demonstrated to systematically exclude racial/ethnic minorities from voting[.] 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 systemic racism is not found within this study alone (which is, I remind voters, a CULMINATION of data and other studies, 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.

III. Education:

Racism begins at a young age in school, which inherently causes this to continue in their life. This point links to incarceration due to the similarity between suspension/expulsion and putting someone in jail.

The racism is so significant that minorities feel distressed and mental issues regarding the problem. "Elevated levels of Cultural Mistrust, Cultural Race-Related Stress, and Individual Race Related Stress lead to increased use of Emotion-Based Coping behaviors and decreased implementation 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]
Another study regarding schooling proves that assumptions exist earlier on, which further enhances my incarceration point. People will assume things of blacks -- that they are more responsible, older, and maybe inherently related to Crime. From the American Psychology Association, "Our research found that black boys can be seen as responsible for their actions at an age when white boys still benefit from the assumption that children are essentially innocent" [17]. The unconscious dehumanization of blacks was caused by negative interactions with black children. And since the assumptions start from such a young age, this continues well into adulthood, establishing the baseline that racism doesn't just come out of nowhere.
Blacks are also suspended at a disproportional rate [18], noting that from federal data "for every 100 students with special needs in 2015-16, white students lost 43 days to suspension, while black students lost 121 days". The huge difference between the two races proves that the problem is systemic and significant. Indeed, a GAO report proves that the representation of suspended blacks was severe in percentage difference; impossible to deny.
"School to Prison" is a known term, where the schools cause the minority students to become ostracized. The extremely harsh punishments push them to become neglected and build upon their vulnerability, raising this point to the next level. [19] As a result of this educational racism, a very high proportion of minorities are also dropping out of school. [20] How does Con explain this, if this is not due to the problems I've listed?
Another research article furthers on how Brown V Board was not enough to dismantle our systemic Racism. Not enough room for analysis, so will copy paste: "[Schools] remain effectively segregated due to the following: discrimination in schools by administrators, teachers, and students; racial bias inschool curriculum; the separation of students into different abilitytracks reflecting racial, class, and gender stratification; and the use ofstandardized testing that contains significant racial and class bias." Basically, the law wasn't effectively enforced, proving that our system has failed.

IV. Health Care:

Health Care inequality has caused countless deaths and inequality within the treatment.

Even if we account for socioeconomic equality, this alone cannot attribute for all the deaths and sicknesses gone untreated.

I have countless expert sources to support this.

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 government has FAILED to implement the existing equalities and rights. This is backed by credible sources and the idea that the private sector does whatever it wants due to a lack of laws and regulations. "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." [11]
This is not only supported by the collection of data but the real-world news. Yet another study highlighted " During the entire course of the pandemic so far, data compiled by the non‐profit APM Research Lab (2020) has shown that the crude death rate for Black Americans is more than double that for all other racialized groups. When adjusted for age, the risk of death from COVID‐19 is as much as nine times higher for African Americans than it is for whites (Bassett, Chen, & Krieger, 2020)." [15] The large political, social, and economic forces combined is the sole explanation for the blacks, and con has no way to deny this. The expert explains that there is an undeniable correlation. The social forces shape up the toxic environment for the blacks to be unable to access health services. The synergy between the biology and the sociological processes combine to ruin the minorities. My researcher further explains, "already we see evidence of racial inequities in COVID‐19 treatment (Eligon & Burch, 2020), and we know that discrimination in healthcare settings adversely affects the management of chronic conditions like diabetes (Peek, Wagner, Tang, Baker, & Chin, 2011)."
Another expert's experiment proves that blacks even received better treatment under those who were more racially accepting than those who were not. Under current circumstances, the gap between white and black mortality is unacceptable -- even my research highlights that the gap could be reduced by up to 19% if we tackled the systemic inequality. [14]

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.

There is a famous term we have heard called the "healthcare system", which is the umbrella term that 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). " [12] 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.

V Incarceration

Blacks are being contained at a severely inappropriate and alarming rate. There is no explanation for this besides the systemic inequality in the system.

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." [13] 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."

Impacts

There are also inherent problems within the police themselves, causing inequality and enforcing the racial profiling stereotype that we have in the US. In yet another study, it's noted that "Through an analysis of 27 local news media articles on the topic of street checks, it is argued that the Police Services and local media discourse enact gaslighting, a form of psychological abuse that is used to manipulate an object(s) to deceive and undermine the credibility of the target. The psychological effects of gaslighting on people of color included a sense of alienation, disenfranchisement from the community, and distrust toward the police. Through a case study application, it is suggested that gaslighting is part of a systemic, historical process of racism that has been used by the police and government organizations to both illegal target people of color and denies complicity in racial profiling." The impact of the police's bias is very clear and has caused the public to also believe that serving as part of the system, the police are part of the systemic racism.

David Williams is a famous researcher who proved my precise point here. The inherent problems of racism on multiple levels have caused countless deaths and jailing in terms of crimes. Socioeconomic inequality alone cannot explain this statistic [10]. The combination of structural, cultural, and individual racism makes up the undeniability of Systemic racism.

VI. Even more evidence

Even if Con would try to destroy my evidence based on the fact that most of them are not from 2020 (therefore not "currently a significant problem"), I still have sources that support the problems lying in equity and justice within the US, proving the Systemic Racism. One editorial published in 2020 further solidifies my present-tense problem. [16]

The article notes that the vast majority of blacks experience at least one form of racism. Nearly 80% of blacks reported experiencing discrimination, resulting in isolation and alienation. They also feel less supported and committed, perhaps even having an "emotional tax in the workplace". The research further proves the economic inequality, showing that the wealth gap is significantly related to segregation. The "adverse intersectionality is expected to occur due to (1) a compounding of overrepresentation in lower-paying automation-displacement-prone jobs and (2) underrepresentation in highest growth geographies". The association of minorities with bad paying jobs leads to an endless cycle where blacks are forced into poverty due to racial biases.

The expert furthers that racial injustice even causes psychological distress. The most famous example, George Floyd, caused massive riots calling out the message "black lives matter". There are repeats of the same problems I keep listing: health care, wages and wealth, policing and criminal justice, education, etc. It doesn't matter if we consider exactly 2020 or two years ago; both cases have significant evidence to support my position.

VII. Occupational Racism

It is evident that systemic racism exists clearly throughout career for minorities as well. In a Journal of Occupational Science, the expert echoes my previous research, first listing all the instances that further prove my argument: " Voting laws (Jones & Williams, 2018), educational systems (Kozol, 1991), housing policies (Gonda, 2015; Rothstein, 2017), judicial and penal systems (Cole, 1999), healthcare systems (Hoberman, 2012), labor markets (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004), deep social prejudices (Greenwald et al., 2009), and countless other everyday instances of racism (Kendi, 2019) systematically oppress people of color." If this wasn't enough, he also goes on to analyze the problems within jobs. Because having a job counters homelessness and poverty, this is still related to the economic factors listed above.

The expert explains the fulfillment of the definition due to the hierarchal relation of people to their skin color. The categorization had been used far in the past to justify dehumanization and slavery of blacks. After he talks of the entire history of slavery and Jim Crow laws, he leads into our modern day setting. He explains that "racism was still present in the expectations of this occupation. Black drivers were not permitted to pass White drivers and could face violence from police or vigilantes if they did so (Berrey, 2015)." He also lists examples of blacks gaining more rights and fighting against expectations especially with avenging the police brutality, proving that the problem existed.

He then notes that the unemployment of blacks, caused once more by racist employers [24], was the true cause of the crimes: "US residents often assume higher crime rates are directly correlated with higher numbers of residents of color, but there is no such correlation; in fact, unemployment is a much more accurate predictor of crime (Kendi, 2019)". In other words, we are giving a big reason for the crimes to occur. We are the problem. If we resolved our biases and hired people regardless of color, we would inherently prevent crimes. The system has a feedback loop that lets our racial bias feed back into inherent reasons for blacks to fulfill our expectations. A vicious, inescapable cycle, unless we change our mind.

Pre-Rebuttal: Legal Laws Against Blacks

Despite all my evidence, Con will likely remain ignorant and try to point out I haven't pointed out any laws that inherently defeat Blacks' rights and liberties. Yet my very first source demonstrates that our basis was racist and wrong, forcing us to work towards change. As the research lists, our foundation had racist laws to begin with. "US legal and political institutions have a long history of establishing racist laws and policies that actively segregated and subordinated racial groups on many levels (Davis and Graham 1995; Feagin 2006; Lopez 2006; Bell 2008). The US Constitution and early and later US Supreme Court cases operated to create and sanction a slave society and then a Jim Crow society that denied rights, opportunities and citizenship to people of African, Asian and Latin American descent. As critical race legal theorists demonstrate (Bell 2005), recent conservative political policies and legal rulings continue to legally or informally uphold segregated realities for whites and racial minorities." [21]

At last, all my arguments finally come together. You can see the big picture now. The Supreme Court contradicted itself, and was unwilling to listen to the people. Despite Brown V Board of Education, all of that was just a front, and education remains unconsciously biased towards blacks. Combined with inability to access healthcare and difficulty in jobs, we find that blacks suffer a difficult life. And the result is either poverty or jail for the vast majority of circumstances.

Call to Action

Understandably, Con 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 the federal government’s role in creating Black ghettos, and how racialized space still perpetuates structural inequality today (cf. Bonam, et al 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 the earth. To deny the existence of systemic racism is to deny the very effort to fight for equality, and potentially return 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 established a baseline. But it takes more than 12 to change the world and to demonstrate the lack of systemic racism.

VOTE FOR PRO.

Also petition for 40,000 char

1. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4133127/

2. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4306458/

4.science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6464/447.abstract

5. science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6502/351

6. science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6510/1440.2.full

7. news.mit.edu/2020/letter-systemic-racism-mit-0701

8. raliance.org/6-companies-taking-action-to-confront-systemic-racism/

9. v.gd/historyracism

10. annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-043750

11. pressley.house.gov/sites/pressley.house.gov/files/Anti-Racism%20in%20Public%20Health%20Act%20Summary.pdf

12. v.gd/encyclo

13. scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=lawineq

14. academyhealth.confex.com/academyhealth/2019nhpc/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/29586

15. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7441277/

16. journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0890117120943736?casa_token=OZfxmkIyeXEAAAAA%3AOXVithEmZZu3JDYr5zhhXqvxPL_wthBTAGhdb6MXg_fgys5tHCQBj-nz3pWROgsE9LXSFut3lM9A

17. apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/03/black-boys-older

18. gao.gov/products/GAO-18-258

19. aclu.org/issues/juvenile-justice/school-prison-pipeline/school-prison-pipeline-infographic

20. racismreview.com/blog/2011/07/12/racism-k-12/

21. tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01419870.2012.669839?casa_token=CADVrp2R-yAAAAAA%3AnKtSGcJRdVYTJgx8xtdQrzNVWj7UVlXrDOXFpR-FSxrJc1fRPINy2ro2ArIV-fE3UxTtYHGaCtrg

22. link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-72233-7

23. routledge.com/Systemic-Racism-A-Theory-of-Oppression/Feagin/p/book/9780415952781

24. aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/0002828042002561

[1]https://books.google.com/books?id=XmxnLEtyQJAC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=%22Systemic

01.30.2021 06:40PM

Con

Resolution [Pro]: THBT Systemic Racism is a Significant Problem in the United States

That which Pro believes is on him; I disagree that I failed to address his points of argument in our debate on this same subject of last November that ended in a tie, to wit, where Pro chooses to begin his R1 of this debate: “experts.” Pro offers a new expert, Joe Feagin, a sociologist, who will be addressed shortly.

I Argument: Definitions

I.a Pro chooses to define just one feature of his Resolution; “Systemic racism.” The charge by Pro that my attempt to separate “systemic” from “racism” failed to adequately address the problem is, curiously, pointed indiscriminately. I will quote Joe Feagin, Pro’s “expert” directly in due time. However, Pro’s source [in the Description, and in his R1] is at least one degree removed from Feagin, quoted by Thoughtco.com. Pro offers a four-point argument from Feagin, through Thoughtco. I will not repeat them; Pro has properly quoted, including Feagin’s definition of “system racism,” which, I’ll add, I agree is valid. However, in Pro’s criticism of my earlier attempt to separate “systemic” from “racism,” as if there are no other types of racism, let us dive into Feagin’s own words that Pro quoted, and a little further from Feagin’s own book of 2006, from which Pro draws only second-hand.

I Argument: Systemic vs. Individual Racism

I.a Pro cites sociologist, Joe Feagin, as a developer of the idea of “systemic racism” and quotes, but not directly, from his book, Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations: “Systemic here means that the core racist realities are manifested in each of society’s major parts [...] each major part of U.S. society—the economy, politics, education, religion, the family—reflects the fundamental reality of systemic racism."[1]

I.a.1 Well and good, so far as Pro quotes Feagin. Let’s quote him further from the next paragraph directly from Feagin’s book referenced above [1]:

“There is a tendency on the part of many Americans, especially white Americans, to see racism as an individual matter, as something only outspoken white bigots engage in. Yet racism is much more that [sic] an individual matter. It is both individual and systemic. Indeed, systemic racism is perpetuated by a broad social reproduction process that generates not only recurring patterns of discrimination with institutions and by individuals but also an alienating racist relationship – on the one hand, the racially oppressed, and on the other, the racial oppressors.”

I.a.2 Feagin draws a distinction between individual and systemic racism [as the bolded text – added for my emphasis - indicates], supported by his earlier paragraph quoted above in my arg. 1.a, “…manifested in each of society’s major parts…” which Feagin then generalizes in the quote immediately above [the following paragraph in his book] as “…institutions.”

I.a.3 Feagin, therefore, has separated individual racism from the other; the former a subject this debate’s resolution does not entertain, and is, therefore, not subject to discussion other than acknowledgement that, indeed, it does exist and is also “a significant problem.” Feagin separates individual from “systemic racism,” i.e. “institutions.” In his R1, Pro manages to highlight Feagin’s own separation by defining systemic racism: “Systemic racism is a ‘material, social, and ideological reality that is well-embedded in major US institutions’ (Feagin 2006, p. 2).” Pro misses two factors in Feagin’s argument:

1. Systemic and individual racism are separate factors.

2. Systemic racism is institutional, not individual.

How significant that second factor is will be discussed further on.

I.b However, Feagin errs in claiming that racism, individual or systemic, is “…a tendency on the part of many Americans, especially white Americans, to see…”Joe Feagin is, himself, by his picture,[2] one of these “white Americans.” Does he, therefore, include himself in that “expecially” [bolded for emphasis] tendancy, and exclude the fact [other than by guilt-association-self-therapy,-thus-admit-complicity], that there are other exemplaries of various races who also exhibit those “especially tendencies?” Why should Feagin add the bolded word, “especially,” as if his race is the only cause of significant issue? The reality is, there is no scientific basis for “race.”[3],[4] We are different only by visual comparison. There are many variations we express as humans, and yet every “race” has implicit bigotry,[5] so why does this sociologist paint a picture that is strictly a black/white binary issue? Selective implicit bias?

I.b.1When one Googles “racial issues in U.S.”[6] the first several “hits” pinpoint the issues as being black/white demographics, either in the first paragraph, or by images, or both. It is a bit of the universal scientific issue that by mere observation utilizing the scientific method, it changes that which is being observed,[7]such as by ignoring that the issue is more than a binary bigotry.

I.b.2 Pro’s own choice of R1 sources bears out this limited, binary scope. Look at them. “Black/white” is a major, consistent theme. As I have demonstrated [3][4] “there is no scientific basis for ‘race.’” So, why does Pro, following the lead of his source, Feagin, blindly follow? If this “problem” is, indeed, “significant,” maybe it should be given its just due, recognizing that it is not merely a binary issue.[8]

I.c So, if the argument of this debate is not to analyze individual racism [as the Resolution ignores], then let’s explore what constitutes systemic [institutional] racism. As I’ve said [arg. I.a.3], Pro offered a cited definition as quoted in his Description and R1, but skipped the important designation offered by his own source, Joe Feagin: “institutions,” as opposed to “individuals,” even groups of individuals. An individual is not an institution. Even a casual [not an organized collective] group of people do not constitute an institution.

I.c.1 In each of Feagin’s identified “major part of U.S. society” there are institutions [I offer examples of each]:

a. Economy Markets, Banking, Real Estate, Manufacturing

b. Politics Government [local, State, Federal]

c. Education Government [Local, State, Federal]

d. Religion Organized religions [Christian, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Wiccan]

e. Family Parents, Children, Extended family members

I.c.1.A The last [e. family] is only loosely an institution because there are seldom “official policies” developed by a family that formalize institutional functions of family members. This is mostly a verbal, therefore, informal, undocumented mandate with no serious consequences within the institution if “mandates” such as they exist are violated. Further, one family is not an institution, and even a group of families are not likely to verbalize identical policies of family functions.

I.c.1.B There are certainly some families in which the family, as a whole, may exhibit racial animus, but, unless an institutional condition affecting all families as documented family-directed racism, it is still an individual, not a systemic issue.

I.c.2 The other institutions [a – d] all have formalized, documented mandates of operational function, typically falling into the realms of either public policies or legal statutes which are both enforceable within the jurisdiction of these institutions. The crux of my argument opposing the Resolution is this: I challenge Pro to cite an example of any of the institutions a – d which exhibit current documented policies or legal statutes which mandate systemic racism. In this scenario, “system racism” is specifically documented as an expectation of performance by everyone within the institutional jurisdiction.

I.c.2.A There certainly are observable instances of individuals within an institution who exhibit racist attitudes and overt actions, but this example falls back into individual, not systemic racism. These people cannot point to a current policy/statute documenting the institutional expectation that they act out racial animus. Where there is no evidence of current documented policy or statute specifying universal systemic racism, the actions of individuals within the institution does not define or exemplify systemic racism.

I.c.2.B Why do I insist on current policy or statute? Simple: the Resolution specifies Systemic Racism is a Significant Problem. We can do nothing about problems of the past; they happened, are well documented occurrences, but we cannot change the past other than by corrections made in the present to effect future thought and action. Therefore, Pro is advised to keep his arguments [which he failed to do in R1] to present tense to align with his proposed Resolution. I did not make it a present “significant problem;" Pro did. I expect Pro to stay aligned to his Resolution.

II Argument: Practical observation of systemic racism

II.a Having a documented system of policies and/or legal statutes, the ability to reference the construct of the system’s intent is clear and, hopefully, distinct. It is effective in demonstrating coherent understanding to all who reference them and abide by them.

II.a.1 Thus, the incident last year that brought this significant problem to a head, the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis at the hands [and specifically the knee] of MPD Officer Derick Chauvin,[9] demonstrates that MPD’s policy manual[10] has not one word directing officers to apply systemic racism in any of their many documented activities. Therefore, quite simply, MPD, a political institution that is a “major part of U.S. society,” is NOT systemically racist. I challenge Pro to cite a source of his choice of any current public policy or legal statute in any State of the United States, or its federal government that documents institutional systemic racism.

II.b 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 such thoughts and actions. However, it is evident when their whimsy differs from the documented systemic construct, and the resulting damage to society that may occur due to re-imagined whimsy, as was obviously at play in the George Floyd incident, is often blamed on the system rather than on the individuals espousing the contrary thoughts turned to actions. In the case of Derick Chauvin, there were three other MPD officers who looked away, or otherwise ignored Chauvin’s actions. As was said by Edmund Burke, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” [11] That is the adequate indictment surrounding the death of George Floyd, and that is where the anger against systemic racism should be pointed, but Joe Feagin does not mention it. Some sociologist expert.

II.c Therefore, aberrant individuals, while wearing the guise of the system [such as a police officer in uniform] are not the system as defined, nor do the results of their racist attitudes match the expected results of action matching the system as documented by policy/statute, such as the MPD policy manual [10].

II.d Therefore, I conclude that what is observed as systemic racism is really a demonstration by individuals within the system. As such, the Resolution is defeated.

III Rebuttal: De-constructing Joe Feagin

III.a Four concepts Pro cited as Joe-Feagin-expertise:

1. “…the foundational, large-scale and inescapable hierarchical system of US racial oppression devised and maintained by whites and directed at people of colour.

2. “Systemic racism is a ‘material, social, and ideological reality that is well-embedded in major US institutions’

3. “Racial oppression is foundational to and deeply ingrained in US history and is operational throughout societal levels ...

4. “Systemic racism has routinely reproduced major societal institutions and networks that uphold asymmetrically ... social-psychological relations among racial groups.”

III.a.1 The problem of the exclusive binary issue is demonstrated in item 1, but contradicted in item 4 [which appears to include a more-than-binary condition].

III.a.2 The problem of mixing systemic and individual racism is highlighted by item 2 vs. item 3.

III.a.3 Feagin claims institutional racism in items 2 and 4, but, I issue the same challenge to Feagin as issued to Pro [as indicated in my arg. II.a.1, above]; Show me the current documented evidence by policy/statute that the problem is truly systemic, and not merely individual. This is a critical distinction [systemic vs. individual] that cannot be confused, yet, Feagin, himself, with Pro in tow, after clearly differentiating the two factors, as I’ve indicated in my arg. I, above [including all sub-paragraphs], manage to confuse them repeatedly. Either we blame the system [which must have current documented evidence by policy/statute], or we must blame individuals [who act based on person thought, and not by any policy/statute].

III.a.3.A Do we doubt the above necessity to keep “systemic” and “individual” racism in separate focus? Well, just to demonstrate Feagin’s, and Pro’s confusion, let’s quote Feagin again, just as Pro quoted him [it would be nice to be able to cite specifically where in Pro’s argument this quote is found]:

“’In the case of US society, systemic racism is foundational to and engineered into its major institutions and organizations.’”

III.a.3.B Thank you, Pro, for the bolding/underliningfor emphasis, just to demonstrate that both Feagin and Pro are in aligned confusion. After insisting that there appears [to them] to be either separation of systemic vs. individual racism, or they are inseparable [as noted in the four quoted notes above in my arg. III.a], Pro decides that Feagin decided that systemic racism is “engineered” [what “engineer” does not document his engineering? – therefore, by policy/statute] “into its major institutions [as designated above, my arg. I.c.1 a – e] and organizations.”

III.b I could rest my case for R1 right here, but, there’s more:

IV. Rebuttal: Pro's I Syllogism

IV.a The curious thing about syllogisms is that just because they are formatted P1, P2, C, the going theory is that they are always logical constructs. No, not always. For example:

P1: Birds fly

P2: Camels walk

C: [Therefore, it follows] Butterflies swim

Readers are welcome to assess that logic as valid. No? Let’s deconstruct Pro’s “Expert syllogism” of his R1, I:

“P1: If experts agree there is a problem [systemic racism], and attempt to solve it, there is a problem.

“P2: Experts agree on the problem.

“C: There is a problem.”

IV.a.1. P1 is supposed to be a singular proposal without qualification and which, in concert with P2, must be true. Pro has given us a binarylogic [there’s that word, again], both of which must be true: a. Experts agree on a problem, and b. they attempt to solve it. What if they do not attempt to solve it? The question hangs, unresolved; hanging the validity of both P1a and P1b. The syllogism actually fails in P1 due to its binary presentation, and by looking at the binary set in a different perspective: “If experts agree on a problem (systemic racism) and attempt to solve it, there is a problem.” The attempt to solve a problem [the ‘b’ phrase of P1], is internally identified as being a problem, itself. If attempting to solve a problem is a problem, how does Con expect to convince us his argument is logical?

IV.a.2 P2 is supposed to be a secondary proposal that must, with P1, be true to be a continued logical construct. But Pro has given us an identical proposal to P1a. Do we need it repeated? Should it be repeated? Now, three questions are hanging in this syllogism.

IV.a.3 C is supposed to be a logical conclusion given the separate, but necessary truths of P1 [a+b] and P2 [actually, P1a repeated]. C is really just another repeat of P1a, and, therefore, is no conclusion at all. There are several such “syllogisms” I’ve seen presented in both Debate and Forum. Do they hold? This one certainly does not. Any others constructed as such do not, either. Therefore, Pro’s argument I fails.

V Rebuttal: Pro’s II “…the legalization of racism during the formation and expansion of the United States.”

V.a Spoiler alert: this quote admits to being historical in nature; specifically, “during the formation and expansion of the United States.”[12] Quoted from Institutional Legalization of Racism: Exploitation of the Core Groups,by Robbie W.C. Tourse, et al. [2018], the quote confirms the historical nature of its discussion, alleging that the “Institutional Racism” was established as the United States was being formed, and during its expansion. Those are not current events. The United States completed its current expanse in States, with the addition of Alaska and Hawaii in 1959, now 62 years ago. This entire idea of a historical stroll through the garden of the United States is not stopping to smell fresh flowers. I repeat the Resolution: THBT Systemic Racism is [not ‘was’] a Significant Problem in the United States. To be accurate to our cause [the Resolution], may we please remain current? I will repeat my challenge to Pro: in order to demonstrate that “systemic racism is a problem in the United States,” Pro’s BoP must …cite asource of his choice of any current public policy or legal statute in any State of the United States, or its federal government that documents an institutional systemic racism.

V.b I further challenge Pro to read the Constitution of the United States, and therein show me the article, section, and clause that offers any racial discrimination against any people whatsoever that indicates “institutional systemic racism” in the writing and sustaining ratification of the Document from Preamble through the Tenth Amendment in 1788, covering “formation” of the United States. Yes, the 1619 Project claims the same discrimination as does Mr. Tourse in his book I cited in V.a, above. I ask Pro to confirm that the word “race” does not occur in constitutional text until the Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1869, in utter, complete dismissal of Mr. Tourse, and the 1619 Project,[13]let alone Pro.

V.b.1 No, you cannot point to Article I, section 2, Clause 3, to wit:

“…direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

Why not?

V.b.1.A It is to this phrase that the 1619 Project, and Black Lives Matter, among others, point to claim discrimination against Blacks, even though the term does not exist in the phrase. Further, note the language that is in the clause: “whole number of free Persons.” Who was that? Not just persons of white skin. There were, up to and through the Civil War, and beyond to the inclusion of the Fifteenth Amendment, free Blacks in the Union, and taxed Indians, who were counted in the 1790 Census, and every 10 years thereafter, as “whole persons,” i.e., citizens of the United States.[14] Who were not counted? Even the “three-fifths of all other Persons” were counted in the Census as such.[15] Who were these “three-fifths?” Slaves. Oh, but let us be assured; more than Blacks were slaves, including some whites, so let us be careful how we discriminate by that term.[16]

V.c Pro cites in his arg. II a number of sources indicating “Blacks face significant disadvantages in educational attainment, income, wealth, credit, employment, and incarceration.” I appreciate Pro’s passion on this binary issue, but I wish he would share the concern, even though I argue that, systemically, no one faces this issue. Systemically, as I have demonstrated, and Pro’s source, Joe Feagin, as well, that systemic is not, after all, the correct pigeon-hole of the problem.

V.c.1 However, a perusal of Pro’s sources will show that, again, he is presenting historical evidence, not current, and that not by cited institutional policy/statute, which will be the only citation to support his BoP. University white papers, notwithstanding, they do not constitute official public policy/statute. “Empiric” evidence is not the demand. We do not attend a science symposium to discuss quantum physics. This is a social issue, institutions of major parts of society, but only institutionally. Show institutional evidence, as I have repeatedly asked.

VI Rebuttal: Pro’s III: Education

VI.a Pro argues, “Racism begins at a young age in school, which inherently causes this to continue in their life. This point links to incarceration due to the similarity between suspension/expulsion and putting someone in jail.” As if no youth in any school can avoid this ubiquitous claim. Is it true? Is it universal? Does every child in school exhibit this “especially tendency?” Well, first, it is evident that every child in school does not look the same; appearance, not “empiric” evidence of genetics, being the cause of those differences, as argued above in my arg. I.b, via sources [3][4].

VI.b To show the evidence of the Resolution, however, Pro must demonstrate the documented public policy/legal statute stipulating that these appearance differences must be segregated and treated differently. I do not argue that there are not individuals within the educational system who exhibit racial animus, contrary to their documented policies, but these are evidence of individual, not systemic racism. Let us be clear on that point. As I’ve argued, it is significant.

VII Rebuttal: Pro’s IV: Health Care

VII.a Pro cites:

“The government has FAILED to implement the existing equalities and rights. This is backed by credible sources and the idea that the private sector does whatever it wants due to a lack of laws and regulations. ‘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…’”[17]

This is a quote from Rep. Ayanna Pressley [D-MA-07], Congresswoman from MA who, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA] – the primary sponsor, and Rep. Barbara lee [D-CA-13] issued a bill in the Senate, The Anti-Racism in Public Health [2020], S.4533, last September, and which is still in Committee. “The government has failed,” Pressley says. I submit the government, an institution, therefore systemic, in the person of Ms. Pressley, has still failed because for all its pomp and circumstance as a solution to our Resolution, what this bill proposes are not sweeping changes in direct ideas to resolve racial animus in national healthcare. No. I quote from the bill:[18]

“(1) NATIONAL CENTER.—There is established within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention a center to be known as the ‘National Center on Antiracism and Health’ (referred to in this section as the ‘Center’). The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shall appoint a director to head the Center who has experience living in and working with racial and ethnic minority communities. The Center shall promote public health by—

“(A) declaring racism a public health crisis…

“(B) aiming to develop new knowledge in the science and practice of antiracism...

“(C) transferring that knowledge into practice, including by developing interventions …

“(D) contributing to a national and global conversation...”

What is the “solution” to our “significant problem” by the systemic government? Any specific actions? Any solutions? No. Just talk. A committee to declare and discuss a conversation about…

VII.b There is Pro’s solution: more talk. If he wants to solve the problem of the Resolution, he is going to have to demonstrate that somebody is going to have to do more than talk. Meanwhile, existing [current?] public policies [documented expectations] and legal statutes [bills that have passed] do not require anyone to act with racial animus toward anyone else. That people do so act is evidence of individual choice, not systemic imposition.

VIII Rebuttal: Pro’s V Incarceration

VIII.a I have demonstrated the frustrating reality of Pro’s previous exercises with his arguments III Education, and IV Health Care, that he is pointing to individually-sourced racism, not systemic, and the same goes for his V Incarceration argument. Again, Pro has not cited systemic evidence by virtue of public policy or legal statute that the system is rigged against any one race. He has cited individuals within the system who do not act according to the system expectations, and who, therefore, perpetuate denial of their documented expectations.

VIII.b I see little point in rebutting the details of matters Pro continues to throw because they all point to addressing individual racism when the Resolution speaks to systemic racism, and Pro has yet to comply with citing systemic documented policies and statutes that demand racial animus. He cites anecdotal evidence of individual choices to act inappropriately. As long as our major system, the government, continues to create bills that talk around, but never really define actions to be taken, which, in reality, already document our appropriate behavior, anecdotes will continue to be Pro’s only defense.

IX Rebuttal: Welcome to the United States of Mars

IX.1 Pro argues that, “…experts do not agree on systemic racism on Mars, because it doesn't exist.” Well, welcome to Mars, because Pro’s expert, Joe Feagin, demonstrably confused over what “systemic racism” really means, or that experts actually agree about systemic racism, period. Let’s construct a syllogism, yeah?

P1: Experts do not agree on systemic racism on Mars [so Pro alleges]

P2: Joe Feagin, an expert, does not agree with himself on systemic racism on Mars, or in the United States. [See all Con arguments, above]

C: Therefore, systemic racism in the United States is an arguable factor, and is not true by any Pro argument so far.

I will not ask to vote for Con, because this debate is not yet finished. I only now conclude round 1, and I remind Pro that he has established 4 rounds. Why would I ask for votes until it is finished? I pass round 2 to Pro.

[2]https://liberalarts.tamu.edu/sociology/profile/joe-feagin/

[3]https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/

[4]https://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-07.htm

[5]https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/08/19/exploring-racial-bias-among-biracial-and-single-race-adults-the-iat/

[6]https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=racial+issues+in+U.S.&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[7]https://fs.blog/2020/08/observer-effect/

[8]https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/aanhpi-massa-factsheet-201606.pdf

[9]https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/george-floyd-investigation.html

[10]http://www2.minneapolismn.gov/police/policy/index.htm

[11]https://www.openculture.com/2016/03/edmund-burkeon-in-action.html

[12]https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-72233-7_3

[13]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project

[14]https://www.amazon.com/Faux-Law-Misinterpretation-Constitutional-Language/dp/169428266X/ref=sr_1_12?dchild=1&keywords=books+by+richard+heket&qid=1611958050&s=books&sr=1-12

[15]ibid

[16]ibid

[17]https://pressley.house.gov/sites/pressley.house.gov/files/Anti-Racism%20in%20Public%20Health%20Act%20Summary.pdf

[18]https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/4533/text

Round 2

fitchburgstate.libguides.com/c.php?g=1046516&p=7602969

01.30.2021 09:55PM

Pro

Con has responded to all my arguments with a massive straw man misinterpretation. The idea of systemic is precisely such that the institutions and organizations, combined with unconscious effort to undermine equality within US to produce the problem of systemic racism. As yet another article confirms my expert's precise definition:

"Systemic Racism (also called structural or institutional racism) - racism that exists across a society within, and between institutions/organizations across society

Refers to the complex interactions of large scale societal systems, practices, ideologies, and programs that produce and and perpetuate inequities for racial minorities. The key aspect of structural or systematic racism is that these macro-level mechanisms operate independent of the intentions and actions of individuals, so that even if individual racism is not present, the adverse conditions and inequalities for racial minorities will continue to exist (Gee & Ford, 2011).
Examples: housing discrimination, government surveillance, social segregation, racial profiling, predatory banking, access to healthcare, hiring/promotion practices, mandatory minimum sentences"

As you can see, my severe impact has caused thousands of blacks and minorities to experience unfair and unequal treatment overall. My expert argument is not an appeal to authority fallacy, rather, it's a watered down version of saying that there must be evidence present for countless experts to draw and conclude upon. Con claims that the country must inherently pass laws that enforce the racism, but the ignorance and inability to follow otherwise will result in the same systemic racism.

This is similar to the oppression of specific regimes. Their actions are rarely so obvious as passing a law that allows Hitler to kills Jews. Hitler will just kill the Jews whether the law says he can't or cannot. His actions express the laws themselves. The segregations I have displayed in 7 different ways have not been refuted in the least within expressing the impact of the actions. Our laws claim to uphold equality, but we have failed to enforce that law. If I had said gun violence is a problem in America's Federal Government, I could just as easily claim that our failure to prevent gun violence would be just as bad as having a law that explicitly allows gun murders. If our law has no effect, then this would be the same as upholding racism in the first place.

If this wasn't enough, a Harvard Institute article explains what makes systemic racism so prevalent and important, as well as why my evidence fulfills the premise. The judgement of systemic is not merely from a pure definition with well bound standards. "First defined by Stokely and Hamilton (1967), institutionalracism refers to particular and general instances of racialdiscrimination, inequality, exploitation, and domination inorganizational or institutional contexts, such as the labormarket or the nation-state. While institutional racism can beovert (e.g., a firm with a formal policy of excluding applicantsof a particular race), it is more often used to explain cases ofdisparate impact, where organizations or societies distributemore resources to one group than another without overtlyracist intent (e.g., a firm with an informal policy of excludingapplicants from a low income, minority neighborhood due toits reputation for gangs). The rules, processes, and opportunitystructures that enable such disparate impacts are what constitute institutional racism (and variants such as ‘structuralracism’, ‘systemic racism’, etc.)." [projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/deib-explorer/files/sociology_of_racism.pdf]

Following such, my analysis of the evidence even considered merely based on results should only considered whether they are part of the system in order to prove the significance of "systemic racism". As the Federal government is supposed to sponsor the health care, economics, police system, education, etc. It is indirectly responsible whether it explicitly gives permission or sits by and do nothing. For example, if US had sat by and choose inaction in the World War's, that would be equivalent to sponsoring Hitler or Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, as someone violated our inherent rights, which we vowed to uphold. Similarly, the US Government is now choosing to sit on its hands while all this injustice and inequality is at hand. The lack of a clear law in favor of Con's position displays his requested evidence, and the resulting impacts on the black men is severe as a result. Hence, the resolution is upheld in a semantic front.

Quick Framework Rebuttal + Breakdown

There certainly are observable instances of individuals within an institution who exhibit racist attitudes and overt actions, but this example falls back into individual, not systemic racism. These people cannot point to a current policy/statute documenting the institutional expectation that they act out racial animus. Where there is no evidence of current documented policy or statute specifying universal systemic racism, the actions of individuals within the institution does not define or exemplify systemic racism.

Con expects organization to make it obvious there is some guideline for the Systemic racism. But obviously racism can be subtle and outrageous on a large level, without being a fundamental law. This is not a government equivalent of racism. This is not a moral type of system. This system is the composition of all organization and actions taken by those who are responsible for government, or directly/indirectly upholding the government ideals.

I challenge Pro to cite a source of his choice of any current public policy or legal statute in any State of the United States, or its federal government that documents institutional systemic racism.

See below on the practical overturning of Brown v Board.

Dropped arguments:

Meta analysis: Blacks face significant disadvantages in 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).

Blacks are discriminated against from a young age by the educational institution, causing severe problems throughout their entire life.

"Elevated levels of Cultural Mistrust, Cultural Race-Related Stress, and Individual Race Related Stress lead to increased use of Emotion-Based Coping behaviors and decreased implementation of Avoidant-Focused and Task-Related Coping behaviors."

Blacks are also suspended at a disproportional rate [18], noting that from federal data "for every 100 students with special needs in 2015-16, white students lost 43 days to suspension, while black students lost 121 days". The huge difference between the two races proves that the problem is systemic and significant. Indeed, a GAO report proves that the representation of suspended blacks was severe in percentage difference; impossible to deny.

"Our research found that black boys can be seen as responsible for their actions at an age when white boys still benefit from the assumption that children are essentially innocent" [17]. The unconscious dehumanization of blacks was caused by negative interactions with black children. And since the assumptions start from such a young age, this continues well into adulthood, establishing the baseline that racism doesn't just come out of nowhere.

"[Schools] remain effectively segregated due to the following: discrimination in schools by administrators, teachers, and students; racial bias in school curriculum; the separation of students into different ability tracks reflecting racial, class, and gender stratification; and the use of standardized testing that contains significant racial and class bias." Basically, the law wasn't effectively enforced, proving that our system has failed.

Since I have more space I can finally analyze why and how we failed to uphold Brown V Board. Note that, if this argument succeeds this will be the nail in the coffin. Since con keeps requesting for how institutions implemented racism, this would demonstrate how the education system overcomes the legal system's ideals.

[I forgot to cite this last round. It is from experts.illinois.edu/en/publications/success-and-failure-how-systemic-racism-trumped-the-ibrown-v-boar]

The publication first counters Con by showing that even the founding fathers had intended for oppression of minorities: "[Those] who drafted the U.S. Constitution, and then implemented it, built intothe country’s foundation certain mechanisms designed to maintain theenslavement of African Americans for the purpose of unjustly enrichingmany white Americans. These enslavement mechanisms were only removed eight decades later, and racial segregation was soon put in place".

Indeed, the article further lists that many cases show our unfair discrimination and inability to fulfill the ideals of equality. "Cases which have come to this Court depict a spectacleof slavery unwilling to die. . . . Negroes have been excluded overand again from juries . . . . They have been made to attend segregated and inferior schools . . . . They have been forced to live in segregated residential districts . . . ." The problems and accusations go on.

There is also expounding upon how white men tend to abuse their power within the education system. As a collective whole, merely a handful of individual racism could not have caused this problem. The corruption of bias influences the use of power, which stems into systemic racism. "The failure of school desegregationlies primarily in the hands of those with the greatest political, economic,and civic power, who have long been mostly white. White elites—including school board members, leaders of civic and business organizations, state and local legislators, and judges in state and federal courts—have made decisions that have reversed progress toward substantialschool desegregation since the 1970s."

Unfortunately, despite the momentary successes of Brown (which Con would claim is strong support against my position), our society remains unchanged with the practices of segregation. It's first highlighted that President Dwight Eisenhower faced pressure from white teachers and school leaders, making it impossible to make further progress. Con keeps asking what laws or decisions we've made to undermine Brown's equality. The history displays precisely this: "Oklahoma v. Dowell andFreeman v. Pitts decisions indicated that the Supreme Court wouldpermit large-scale resegregation of schools. The Freeman decision gavelower court judges much discretion to abandon supervision of desegregation before a school district was in full compliance.46 Today, as Orfieldand Eaton note, “[d]esegregation remedies can even be removed whenachievement gaps between the races have widened, or even if a districthas never fully implemented an effective desegregation plan.”" Definitely, you can truly see how deep the racism goes, going beyond mere persons and now into the most trusted authorities in the US.

Impacts

Crucial resources are denied for black students, which inherently destroys ideals for equality and halts potential progress for the future.

If the power of desegregation wasn't obvious, my source further explains the education denied for blacks. Firstly they say, "One major study found that “black third-graders in predominantly white schools read better than initially similar blacks whohave attended predominantly black schools.” Secondly, they support this by saying yet another study with 1,800 students found both white and black students performed better with desegregation. Why wouldn't they? After all, with greater equality, you have harmony, unity, team spirit, acceptance, all key for success. In contrast to the world I show where most black kids have trouble in their academics, the ideal world displays the great difference that we could have be making. But Con would toss all that aside merely because a seemingly muddled definition of "systemic".

Next, in contrast to my education dropped and expulsion rates in usual schools, the research thirdly adds, "Black students from desegregated, substantially white schools typicallyare more successful in entering into the high-paying job and college networks than those students from traditionally segregated schools. Goingto a substantially desegregated high school significantly increases thechance that a black or Latino student will attend college". Of course, common knowledge tells us that going to universities greatly helps you in your future career. I won't bother sourcing that. Instead, I will further that the states refuse to compromise, despite being a crucial component of the system, and a smaller sub system in itself.

The expert continues: "The state of Wisconsin is constitutionally responsible for providing public education. Yetthe state not only tolerates the funding gulf between Milwaukee and itssuburban counterparts, it has instituted policies that allow the gap to widen". The result is vastly reduced access to critical job networks that all people deserve to have. In addition, the segregation arbitrarily prevents resource access as a result. "Research indicates that other criticalresources, such as the availability of small classes and college placementcourses, are not equitably distributed."

I will spare you the summary of the rest of the report. The discrimination within school and their impacts are continuously analyzed for at least a dozen pages. Needless to say that systemic racism has a very significant impact on education.

Reminder of Institution failings

" During the entire course of the pandemic so far, data compiled by the non‐profit APM Research Lab (2020) has shown that the crude death rate for Black Americans is more than double that for all other racialized groups. When adjusted for age, the risk of death from COVID‐19 is as much as nine times higher for African Americans than it is for whites (Bassett, Chen, & Krieger, 2020)."

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. "

Reminder of effects of Incarceration and police brutality

Blacks are being convicted and imprisoned at an unfair rate, and it is our fault this is happening. "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. "

The psychological effects of gaslighting on people of color included a sense of alienation, disenfranchisement from the community, and distrust toward the police. Through a case study application, it is suggested that gaslighting is part of a systemic, historical process of racism that has been used by the police and government organizations to both illegal target people of color and denies complicity in racial profiling.

Nearly 80% of blacks reported experiencing discrimination, resulting in isolation and alienation. They also feel less supported and committed, perhaps even having an "emotional tax in the workplace". The research further proves the economic inequality, showing that the wealth gap is significantly related to segregation. The "adverse intersectionality is expected to occur due to (1) a compounding of overrepresentation in lower-paying automation-displacement-prone jobs and (2) underrepresentation in highest growth geographies". The association of minorities with bad paying jobs leads to an endless cycle where blacks are forced into poverty due to racial biases.

" Voting laws (Jones & Williams, 2018), educational systems (Kozol, 1991), housing policies (Gonda, 2015; Rothstein, 2017), judicial and penal systems (Cole, 1999), healthcare systems (Hoberman, 2012), labor markets (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004), deep social prejudices (Greenwald et al., 2009), and countless other everyday instances of racism (Kendi, 2019) systematically oppress people of color.

US legal and political institutions have a long history of establishing racist laws and policies that actively segregated and subordinated racial groups on many levels (Davis and Graham 1995; Feagin 2006; Lopez 2006; Bell 2008). The US Constitution and early and later US Supreme Court cases operated to create and sanction a slave society and then a Jim Crow society that denied rights, opportunities and citizenship to people of African, Asian and Latin American descent. As critical race legal theorists demonstrate (Bell 2005), recent conservative political policies and legal rulings continue to legally or informally uphold segregated realities for whites and racial minorities."

Conclusion

Voters, to repeat: obviously, individual racism had to contribute, but it is not the lone factor. For con to win, he would have to show that if we get rid of the individual's racism, the overall impact would not be large. But Con has not even attempted to refute my impacts.

The very history of US biases have led to our basic continuation of enforcing the Jim Crow laws and renewing the slavery and oppression that existed before. It may not be physical ownership, but our unfair treatment has led to blacks losing opportunity and inherently treated like they are mere property. This is unacceptable and clear showing of systemic oppression/racism.

[1]https://fitchburgstate.libguides.com/c.php?g=1046516&p=7602969

02.01.2021 06:54AM

Con

Resolution [Pro]: THBT Systemic Racism is a Significant Problem in the United States

I Rebuttal: Definition of “systemic racism” as a strawman

I.a Pro cites yet another “expert,” as if Joe Feagin is just out standing in his field, sewing wheat, but reaping weeds. In R2, Pro offers Fitchburg State University’s “Anti-racism Resources”[1] Interesting choice, considering that it features a video [discussed further down] and a side-page directory which includes [!!!] “Levels of Racism: Systemic vs. Individual.” Pro, please continue to provide sources that support my argument and BoP. In case you missed it, I’ve clearly drawn the distinction in my R1, but, if the dead horse needs continued beating until morale improves, so be it.

I.b FSU’s systemic racism definition says it is, ““…racism that exists across a society within, and between institutions/organizations across society.”[2] That FSU then offers a separate section discussion of individual racism just a scroll away would indicate that it, like Joe Feagin, a sociologist – who was not educated at FSU, so, the inclination that these are separate issues of racism is epidemic – agree with my argument that individual racism exists, and “…occurs between individuals, and is what most people think of when using the term racism.”[3] People like Pro [apparently – it is his source], Feagin, and FSU. Then why are we debating the point? Refer to my analysis of Pro’s R1 “expert syllogism:” “If experts agree on a problem…” [my R1, IV]

I.c Pro’s FSU source offers a video about Jamal and Kevin, boys in separate neighborhoods serviced by the same school. They are designated as poor and rich, respectively, and the video discusses their conditions as resulting from conditions had by their grandparents in the 1980s. However, these conditions are of historic reference. See my argument of history vs. currency in my R1, V. A quick word search in Pro’s rounds will indicate a frequent use of history’sword family when the debate is resolved to be one of currency. Current, as in the existing recent addition of legal statute, specifically, the Tax Cut and Jobs Act [2017], which features Opportunity Zones.

I.c.1 The media has numerous stories about that particular feature of the law, which is all of four years old. Knowing how complimentary the media as a whole has been toward President Trump [tongue-in-cheek], it will be apparent in virtually any search among the major media outlets that they are less than complimentary about an effort yet in its infancy. Considering that the Affordable Care Act [2009] is now in its 12thyear, and has yet to fulfill the promise of healthcare for all, let’s allow The Tax Cut… Act its similar duration before digging its grave.

I.c.2 Maybe the FSU video about Jamal and Kevin was produced pre-2017; can’t tell. I note the webpage was updated literally 24 days ago as of this writing, it has managed to avoid mention of the TC&JA. Hmmmm… sustaining individual racism appears to cut both ways. Surprised?

I.c.3 Strawmen tend to suffer this ignorance of staying current. The term, after all, refers to material that is long past its harvest, so the moniker would appear to be adequately descriptive of its condition.

I.d I appreciate that Pro admits, “As you can see, my severe impact has caused thousands of blacks and minorities to experience unfair and unequal treatment overall.” I doubt that Pro’s argument really has its root cause in Pro, himself, but, what ever floats the boat.

II Rebuttal:“…the country must inherently pass laws that enforce the racism.”

II.a Pro claims the above quote is my argument. No, I did not argue by that demand. I asked for Pro to cite existing law/[policy that imposes systemic racism in its language.

II.a.1 If such an existing legal statute, or public policy does not currently exist, then neither does systemic racism. And that is according to Joe Feagin, FSU, and other experts Pro has offered in his R1 and R2, and elsewhere, not by my argument, alone.

III Rebuttal: Multivalence of racist attitudes

III.a The “elsewhere” Pro sources includes Harvard, no less; one of those rich places FSU’s Kevin would know, but, apparently, Jamal would not… except isn’t President Obama a poor kid with a Harvard degree? What does Barack have that Jamal does not have? Ambition? Probably. While Obama did once say, as President, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money,”[4] he now owns a beachfront mansion on Martha’s Vineyard.[5] Who gives a person ambition? The government? Wrong. Think again. It’s a personal matter, yeah?

III.b Shall we discuss Dr. Ben Carson, celebrated neurosurgeon, and Trump Cabinet member as Secretary of Housing & Urban Development? He was a Jamal, too; who’s mother was not even literate, yet managed to raise this son to stand in high places with broad accomplishments. Ambition? That is the one-word response I offer to Pro’s “elsewhere” sources and argument. Ambition can overcome and overwhelm racism of every kind.

III.b.1 “The Righteous and Reasonable Ambition to Become a Landholder”[6] is the title of an article that reviews the difference, ambition, between former Black slaves of the antebellum South and former slaves in the Cherokee Nation [remember the mention in my R1, V.b.1.A, that more than Blacks were slaves in the American past?]. Ambition was a significant modifier of racist attitudes.

III.c Back to Pro’s citation of a Harvard article, The Abstract says, “…contemporary sociology considers racism as individual- and group-level processes and structures that are implicated in the reproduction of racial inequality in diffuse and often subtle ways.”[7] No mention here of systemic racism; it’s an individual and group-level issue, as both Joe Feagin, Fitch State University, and even Pro have agreed.

III.c.1 “While the first phase focused on the direct relationship between racism and racial inequality, the second phase considers diffuse relationships between these concepts and the ways in which historical, unconscious, institutional, and systemic forms of racism interact with other social forces to perpetuate racial inequality.”[8] So continues the Harvard paper. Note that it maintains the historical institutional nature of systemic racism, but if institutional policies and statutes no longer contain the language one can declare as racist, then, relative to the Resolution, the significant problem was, but is not is a problem, other than perpetuated by individuals, not the system.

III.d But, no, Pro argues, “…obviously racism can be subtle and outrageous on a large level, without being a fundamental law.” Yes, but is that systemic racism, since Pro does not qualify it other than by “a large level,” and not by “institutional,” which would mean it is documented policy/statute, and, therefore, an obligation by everyone in society? No, and, as I have noted, there may be many people in a system [any of the “major parts of society” outlined in my R1, I.c.1 a – e], but they still act individually in opposition to current systemic mandate.

IV Rebuttal: Health care meta analysis: dropped argument

VI.a Pro claims I dropped his meta-data analysis of systematic racism in health care, and cites several sources. Pro ignored my R1, arg. VII in making the claim, and I invite that reference.

VI.b Pro cites 6 sources to add to his argument on systemic racism in healthcare, and I acknowledge each source makes one claim or another of systemic, or institutional, or structured racism in the practice of healthcare by healthcare professionals, but not one source bothered to cite the systemic, or institutional, or structured policy/statute that mandates such practice; only that such racism is practiced by groups of individuals, contrary to their documented policies and statutes. But, as I have argued, my BoP is to demonstrate that the issue is not systemic, or institutional, or structured, because there is not official policy or statute that can be cited that mandates the practice as it is.

VI.b.1 One of Pro’s R2 sources [9] [We welcome back Joe Feagin!], who raises [by a different paper] the apparent issue I discussed in my R1, V.b.1 regarding the U.S. Constitution’s misunderstood Article I, section 2, clause 3, and that this clause does not discriminate against Blacks, as Feagin alleged, first, because not all blacks at the time of composing the Constitution were slaves, contrary to Feagin’s allegations. There were Black citizens counted as whole persons. There were Indians counted as whole persons, etc. Feagin’s entire construct that America was founded on racism does poor justice to the Constitution by misinterpretation.

V.b.2 Feagin doubles down on his misunderstanding by saying, “Whites have enforced various types of racial separation since the mid-seventeenth century, when the status of African Americans became that of enslavement for life.”[10] As noted above, VI.b.1, I would like to know why Feagin claims the status of Blacks was enslavement for life when not all Blacks were enslaved. Feagin makes the same critical mistake as Pro: if some are so treated, then all are so treated. Nope, we cannot make that broad claim. Some are not all. Just as individual racism is not systemic racism.

VI.b.3 There’s more. Feagin claims, “They have been made to attend segregated and inferior schools . . . . They have been forced to live in segregated residential districts…” All? No. Examples: Barack Obama. Dr. Ben Carson. Kamala Harris, our current Vice President. Cory Booker. Hirum Revels. Who? He happens to be the first Black Senator to serve in that body. In 1870. How many Black professional athletes have attended prestigious schools [Notre Dame, Alabama, USC… ] and are living lives of luxury and privilege? Privilege because it was not just given to them; they excelled by their choice to do so. What makes these examples different from FSU’s “Jamal?” Who do we blame for their personal ambition, and that personal ambition is somehow denied to others? Themselves; they who are not ambitious? Or is ambition not a personal choice?

VI.b.4 There’s still more: Feagin claimed that Brown v. Board of Education [1954], a Supreme Court case, was the first time Blacks were recognized as “first-class citizens.” Seems we have demonstrated that Blacks in the Northern, non-slave States always were citizens, whole persons for purposes of the Census of 1790, and that, as of 1788 at the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

VI.b.5 Feagin even brought Plessy v. Furguson [1898] into his discussion as establishing “separate but equal” as a precedent, thereby discriminating against Blacks. However, Brown v. Board overturned “separate but equal,” and dispensed with all statutes supporting discrimination as of 1954; 67 years ago. This is why I can challenge Pro to demonstrate current policy or statute that demonstrates systemic racism because to have such is unconstitutional. But, as I have also argued, legislation does not guarantee human behavior. As people still commit murder, even though the law prohibiting it was codified first by Ur-Nammu in 2100 BC, behavior trumps law, by some, but not all.

VI.c May I remind readers that I did not ask for anecdotal evidenceof the practice of racism in healthcare, or in any other “major part of society,” I have asked for current documented public policy or legal statute that mandates systemic racism. Since Pro has, to date, not provided this latter evidence, I maintain Pro has failed in his BoP.

VI.d I offer the following as an exemplary policy: “The ACP [American College of Physicians] condemns the injustices and harm that Black and indigenous communities and other people of color experience as a result of pervasive overt and covert systemic institutional racist policies, practices, and discrimination in the United States. ACP commits to being an antiracist organization dedicated to action and policy to confront and eliminate racism.”[11]

VII Rebuttal: Pro’s education meta analysis

VI.a Pro makes similar claim for Education, that is, that there is meta analysis of alleged systemic, or institutional, or structured racism in that “major part of society.” And again, Pro offers multiple sources for the allegation. I could repeat all the rebuttal arguments in VI, above, exchange “healthcare” for “education” and, otherwise, make the identical argument that these sources claim systemic, or institutional, or structured racism, but not one source bothered to cite the systemic, or institutional, or structured policy/statute that mandates such practice; only that such racism is practiced by groups of individuals, contrary to their documented policies and statutes.

VI.b Pro may continue to argue, presenting other “major parts of society” wherein are demonstrated claimed systemic, or institutional, or structured racism, but not one source bothered to cite the systemic, or institutional, or structured policy/statute that mandates such practice; only that such racism is practiced by groups of individuals, contrary to their documented policies and statutes. Period.

VI.b.1 To avoid further repetition, I will argue in defense of my position the above R2, VI.b, stipulating that to meet his BoP, Pro cannot prove his BoP by anecdotal evidence of individual racism within any system, institution, or structure, but that there must be demonstrated evidence by current public policy / legal statute…you know the rest.

VIII Rebuttal: Pro’s Reminders of Institutional Failings

VIII.a Pro concludes his R2 by citing another string of sources. They discuss alleged systemic racism in voting laws, education [been there], housing, judicial/penal, [been there in R1], healthcare [been there R1, R2], labor markets, social prejudices [been there in R1, R2], and everyday issues [been there R1, R2]. I refer the readers to my VII rebuttal, above, and repeat: “exchange “healthcare” for “education”, plus “voting laws,” “judicial/penal,” “labor markets,” “social prejudices,” and… and, otherwise, make the identical argument that these sources claim systemic, or institutional, or structured racism, but, again, with this group, not one source bothered to cite the systemic, or institutional, or structured policy/statute that mandates such practice; only that such racism is practiced by groups of individuals, contrary to their documented policies and statutes. This is the case even though some indicate there are policies, and even one mention of voter law, but no one, of all these experts, bother to cite a single statute/policy; they just say they exist.

VIII.b Sorry, but I might as well claim there exists the United States of Mars, but is anyone going to believe it is true without my citation of evidence, only on my say-so? No, I didn’t think so.

VIII.b.1 Suppose I were a State Senator from… say VT [not likely, as I am not and have never been a Democrat], and I claim to have introduce a bill, S.5392, The Best Educational Social Practices Act [BESP] of 2015, and it stated, “All schools K-12 in the State of Vermont will modify their school policies such that that all students who are left-handed with red hair, shall, henceforth, be advanced one grade, in each grade, with immediate effect.”

And let us further suppose the bill was enacted into State law. What disruption in our education in Vermont will have occurred as, suddenly, there was a run on red hair dye, and great numbers of children [about 91% of all children[12]] began to practice in earnest to be left-handed? And what of those children who did not color their hair, nor practiced left-handedism?

Absurd? Indeed, it is. The same absurdity applies to “experts” who claim, repeatedly, there are policies/statutes mandating systemic racism, but do not bother to cite them as evidence of their claim. Do you believe my allegation of the BESP law? Me neither.

VIII.c The absurdity continues: As if the above claims by Pro, with insufficient citation of numerous sources which do not cite what they claim, Pro adds a last expert. David Williams, et al, “Racism and Health: Evidence and Needed Research.” Williams states, “Institutional racism refers to the processes of racism that are embedded in laws (local, state, and federal), policies, and practices of society…”[13] This is a perfectly adequate definition of systemic racism. Williams proceeds to demonstrate several laws [local, state, and federal] and policies…

VIII.c.1 No, wait! I spoke to soon. No, Williams does not bother to cite any such laws or policies; he just claims they exist. Did he actually write my claimed BESP law? Must have, but somewhere else, because it is not part of Vermont’s statutory law.

Isn’t a bit sloppy for alleged experts to claim evidence [see the title], but not cite any? For shame. Some expert.

IX Rebuttal; Jim Crow laws

IX.a Pro concludes, claiming, “For con to win, he would have to show that if we get rid of the individual's racism, the overall impact would not be large. But Con has not even attempted to refute my impacts.” Does the Resolution speak to individual racism? No. Does the Resolution say individual racism is a significant problem? No. Does the Resolution state that ridding individual racism would not have a large impact? No. Have I refuted Pro’s impact? Whose impact? Do I care, or need to respond to Pro’s impact? No. Regarding impact, Pro’s R2 claimed, [see my argument I.d, above] “…my severe impact has caused thousands of blacks and minorities to experience unfair and unequal treatment overall.” I hereby deny his personal impact.

IX.b Pro claims the enforcement of Jim Crow laws. Do Jim Crow laws still exist on the books, or is it that individuals still act as if they were, but only because it is their choice to do so and not because such laws are still enforced by statute? Answer:

IX.b.1 Refer to the Jim Crow Museum on the campus of Ferris State University, which offers the following article, “What was Jim Crow.”[14]The short article has 30 references to Jim Crow laws. Every single reference is in past tense, hence the title, What wasJim Crow. The museum, which, if such laws still existed, particularly by the museum being sponsored by an educational institution of higher learning, would surely document some local, state, or federal statute enforcing systemic racism, if one existed.

IX.c Neither Jim Crow, nor any other systemic racism legal statute or public policy exists currently in the United States, or, by now, Pro should have cited one. This Resolution does specify current condition only. He has not cited any law or policy, and has, therefore, failed to meet his BoP.

I rest my case for R2 and pass R3 to Pro.

[2]ibid

[3]ibid

[4]https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/04/28/obama_to_wall_street_i_do_think_at_a_certain_point_youve_made_enough_money.html

[5]https://www.google.com/search?rls=en&sxsrf=ALeKk02LZ3CBlscFpTI4rzAtEerQtqIuXw:1612115454494&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=image+obama+mansion+on+martha%27s+vineyard&client=safari&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiX0IGI3sbuAhXCHzQIHcgfBD0QjJkEegQIBhAB&biw=1665&bih=860

[6]https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/full/10.1162/rest_a_00842

[7]https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/deib-explorer/files/sociology_of_racism.pdf

[8]ibid

[9]https://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2004/5/Feagin.pdf

[10]ibid

[11]https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-4195

[12]http://www.anythingleft-handed.co.uk/lefty-probability.html

[13]https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-043750

[14]https://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/what.htm

Round 3

02.01.2021 02:15PM

Pro

I do not feel up to a fourth round as I do not think Con is handling this debate correctly.

Con has made three critical errors in this debate which I will succinctly summarize to conclude.

1. Shifting the burden of proof

Con continuously assumes that we must have the explicit law currently enforcing the racism, however, government is equally obligated to uphold laws that say otherwise. We know that the founding fathers themselves contradicted "All men are created equal" in the constitutions from holding slaves and letting it remain unresolved for centuries until we finally freed the slaves. Even though there was no explicit federal law approving the ownership of slaves, the actions spoke louder than words, and our problems remained. As such, I extend all impact related arguments, and Con's inability to refute the sheer amount of people affected by these actions.

2. Assuming that implicit agreement from Government is not the same as "Systemic" problem

Throughout this entire debate, I have shown the government's failing to implement laws to help out the people. The court implemented Brown V Board of Education, yet the institutional leaders (which, group by group forms the system) link my impact and my cause together to show that our people inherently destroy the ideals of freedom and equality. Remember that US is a slightly unusual government in that it derives from "consent of the governed". Even if the division of individual and systemic seems clear, once a sufficiently large and influential group works together, it becomes undeniable that it is systemic. Recall Harvard expert's note how it is similar to institutional racism, due to the sheer weight of impact realized from all the government-sponsored organizations attributing the racism. Next, extend that racial profiling is supported by the government's current policies. Police abuse and unusual incarceration rates can only explained by our government's failure to uphold its very responsibility.

3. Assuming that the past is in the past

Pro assumes that all my evidence is outdated by default, yet the history and the progress made needs to be seen clearly. For each issue I tell, con must tell us what we have done or achieved, but he tries to bat it with a counter-law, without addressing if any of these laws actually accomplished anything. Imagine there was a law that told us to crack down harder on drugs, but police got lazy as a whole and gave up. The corruption within the police system would fulfill the definition of systemic. Similarly, our rebellion against the law has enforced racist policies rather than helping reformation ideals.

If one needs more specific present evidence, one merely needs to look deeper into my expert sources.

2017 Book from last round (full link): "Racist explicit policies of federal, state, and local governments define where whites and African Americans should live. Today's residential segregation... is not the unintended consequence of individual choices... but of unhidden public policy that explicitly segregated every metropolitan area in the US. The policy was so systematic and forceful that its effects endure to the present time". As you can see, my explanation for the present policies is that the government simply had to do absolutely nothing. We seem to have well intended law, yet in reality the segregation by law and policy is simply undeniable.

Let's continue by analyzing one more of my previous sources.

Merely the abstract of Feagin's book (link) is enough to display that we continue reinforcing previous laws set beforehand. "This system of racial oppression, as Feagin argues, was not an accident of history, but has been created and sustained intentionally by white Americans. Systemic Racism examines how major societal institutions have been thoroughly pervaded by racial framing, ideas, stereotypes, images, emotions, and practices. The book explains how white Americans labored to bring forth a racist system in the 17th century and have worked diligently to perpetuate that system ever since."

Remember that Systemic, also known as institutional or structural racism, is merely one that operates on a societal level and has undeniable impact on a certain group of people. I've established impact over and over again in this entire course of the debate. It's very clear that by definition of systemics significance, the resolution is upheld.

And if Voters doubt that I have fulfilled the definition of systemic racism, I will bring one last source that combines it all together. Systemic is not just about explicit laws that say "you can practice racism." As Nejm.org realizes, "All definitions make clear that racism is not simply the result of private prejudices held by individuals,8 but is also produced and reproduced by laws, rules, and practices, sanctioned and even implemented by various levels of government, and embedded in the economic system as well as in cultural and societal norms." [nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMms2025396]

Even though there is no official definition for systemic racism, the attributes are similar and the impacts are agreed upon by all the papers I presented. Remember that Con has few to no expert sources, and therefore should be taken with a grain of salt when he demands to see the current laws upholding racism. You want to see racism? We still uphold Jim Crow laws in our own way. Our progress has failed. Vote for pro.

[1]https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/07/03/july-4th-the-56-people-who-signed-the-declaration-of-independence/39636971/

02.01.2021 11:37PM

Con

First, I will note for the record, not as part of the debate relative to argument, but merely as explanation since Pro has not provided a full exposure to a change of protocol. Before posting his R2 [1/30/2021 02:55PM] Pro issued a PM to me [1/30/2021 [07:55AM] requesting that we truncate the debate to 3 rounds rather than his initial designated 4 rounds because he was “tired.” I replied [1/30/2021 08;51AM] that “I would think about it.” After consulting with a mod for general acceptance of the proposal to change protocol, since I was fully willing to conduct 4 rounds, I agreed to Pro’s request [01/31/2021 03;33AM], indicating that we could each conclude our debate with our third round and waive round 4. I committed I would not offer new argument in my R3 such that doing so would cancel Pro’s opportunity to respond to such an argument from me since I have the last word in this debate as Con. I suggested Pro do the same; not offering new argument in his R3, but limit that round to rebuttal, defense and conclusion as I would in R3. Pro replied [01/31/2021 03;52AM] “ye.” I took that as a truncated “yes,” indicating agreement. So be it.

Resolution [Pro]: THBT Systemic Racism is a Significant Problem in the United States

I Rebuttal: Alleging shift of the BoP and other constitutional misinterpretations

I.a Pro claims my shift of the BoP. I will counter that my BoP has not changed from R1 to now; my consistent arguments and rebuttals have been strictly in opposition to the Resolution as stated, word for word. I leave it to voters to determine if I have succeeded in that quest.

I.b I will counter that Pro is shape-shifting the Resolution. His resolution. I’ve quoted it at the beginning of each round to keep it firmly in mind for me and for each reader. To demonstrate, I will quote Pro’s conclusion of his R3, the agreed final round of this truncated debate:

“Even though there is no official definition for systemic racism, the attributes are similar and the impacts are agreed upon by all the papers I presented.”

I.b.1 Not sure what Pro intends to mean by “official.” I will assume he means that there is no mention of systemic racism by definition in any current legal statute or public policy. I agree; there is not; not that I have found, butt as I have challenged to Pro throughout the last 2 rounds to demonstrate such systemic racism by official statute or policy. However, as Pro alleges, some of his source papers have, indeed, defined the term, “systemic racism,” or “institutional,” or “structured.” As I have demonstrated in my R1 and R2 arguments/rebuttals, Pro’s sources agree with these terms as I defined them in my R1. They cannot agree with both Pro and Con as our separate BoPs address, or should address our opposing views of the Resolution.

I.c I will also counter that Pro is shape-shifting the Constitution of the United States in order to justify his BoP. He said, relative to the Constitution:

“We know that the founding fathers themselves contradicted "All men are created equal" in the constitutions from holding slaves and letting it remain unresolved for centuries until we finally freed the slaves. Even though there was no explicit federal law approving the ownership of slaves, the actions spoke louder than words, and our problems remained. As such, I extend all impact related arguments, and Con's inability to refute the sheer amount of people affected by these actions.”

I.c.1 I will de-construct this extended quote. First, Pro quotes, not the Constitution of the United States [September 1787], but the Declaration of Independence [July 1776], by the reference to “…all men are created equal.” That word string does not exist constitutionally, and I refute Pro’s inference that it does. The Constitution was a document intended for a completely separate purpose than the Declaration, and preceded the Declaration by a full 11 years. 56 men signed the Declaration.[1] The slave owners among them numbered 41.[2]

I.c.2 39 of 42 men representing the 13 Colonies-become-States ratified the Constitution by signature; 3 present abstained, and several others departed prior to the ratification. However, of the 56 men who signed the Declaration 11 years previous, only 8 were present [14%] in the Continental Congress to sign the Constitution.[3] Therefore, we cannot justly say that the two Documents of our founding were accomplished by a significant number of the same persons.

I.c.3 I am not arguing that “…all men are created equal” is a faulty concept; I firmly agree with it. But, we must recall that of the 13 colonies out of which sprang the United States, 8 were slave states; 5 were free states.[4]

I.c.3.A Pro alleges, by his quote above, that the Constitution upheld slavery, allowing it unchecked “for centuries,” as if the Constitution were ratified in 1619 with the arrival of the first slaves in the Colonies. We know it was not ratified until September 1787; a duration of time of 168 years [1.7 centuries to be fair], and that during that time, this was not an established “United States of America” but fully sovereign colonies of Great Britain. That country allowed slave trade on its shores since the flourishing Roman Empire, and did not successfully approve its abolition by Parliament until 1833.[5] The Unites States followed suit in 1863 with President Lincoln’s signature of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863,[6] but not fully enforced until the end of the Civil War in 1865.

I.c.3.B It must also be recognized that the Continental Congress had no greater obstruction to its purpose than the issue of slavery. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, himself an owner of some 100 slaves on his Virginia plantation, was a firm abolitionist who yet recognized that to abolish slavery in a coup, demanded by the Constitution, were they to ever ratify it, would send the 8 Southern slave states into immediate economic ruin; in effect, bankrupting an already struggling set of Colonies-to-become-States upon the ratification of the Constitution. In July 1787, James Madison spoke these words to the Continental Congress during their debate:

“We have seen the mere distinction of colour made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.”[7]

Madison was personally conflicted over the issue of slavery, and, but for the economic disaster that would have followed, would have, and by the above, did continue to push for abolition as part of the Constitution’s decree, until it was apparent that this issue would cause the Constitution’s full failure.[8]

I.c.3.C I will not let Pro’s commentary slide unnoticed that “holding slaves and letting it remain unresolved for centuries” is a correct understanding of history. To question whether the Constitution, which does not mention the word “slavery,” right or wrong, is not a matter for this debate since that would be a debate over history, the which is not a factor offered by Pro in the Resolution. He did not include a historic perspective in the Resolution by clearly establishing the debate in the present tense. However, it is Pro who has raised the specter of the past, thus, himself, shifting the BoP, in all three rounds to date, as he accused Con. Whereas, it is Con who has, through all three rounds, insisted that the debate is established as a debate of current events,not the past. So be it. Pro has failed to meet his current obligation to the Resolution. Again.

II Rebuttal: “Government's failing to implement laws to help out the people.”

II.a Pro’s quote introduces yet another example of Pro’s ignorance of my entire founding argument against the Resolution:

“I challenge Pro to cite a source of his choice of any current legal statute or public policy in any State of the United States, or its federal government that documents institutional systemic racism.” [my R1, II.a.1]

II.a.1 In vain, I have extended the above challenge to Pro over the previous two rounds. Pro talks around the challenge, citing “expert” after “expert,” making the same claims as Pro that the government has failed “to implement laws to help out the people.”

II.a.2 In R2, I rebutted Pro’s argument that we in the United States still suffer under Jim Crow laws. I cited [R2, arg IX] the Jim Crow Museum on the campus of Ferris State University.[9] I highlighted the article therein, which clearly indicates that no current Jim Crow law exists in the United States, and that by virtue of the Supreme Court case Pro, himself, first cited, Brown v. Board of Education [1954],which officially set the precedent against all Jim Crow laws, and by which, Jim Crow laws/policies were eventually stricken. None remain. I challenged Pro to cite a remaining Jim Crow law. He failed to do so, demonstrating that, systemically, institutionally, structurally, whatever –ly one wants, there is no remaining Jim Crow, or any other racist statute/policy in the United States.

II.b I will repeat, by paraphrase, my comment from R2, VIII.c.1:

Isn’t a bit sloppy for alleged experts, including Pro, to claim evidence [official legal statutes/public policies], but not cite any? For shame. Some experts.

III Rebuttal: Assuming the past is in the past

III.a News flash: officially, it is. That is, systemically, institutionally, structurally, whatever –ly one wants, the past, by scientific construct is in a set place and time:

“The content standards presented in this chapter outline what students should know, understand, and be able to do in natural science. The content standards are a complete set of outcomes for students…”[10]

III.a.1 The foregoing is a quote from an introductory paragraph from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine; a primer of scientific standards for school children, K-12. One of these scientific standards is time; the measurement purpose of our clocks and calendars. One of its basic principles is a simple clarification of separate periods of time: past, present, and future. Only the present is fleeting; the other two extend in both directions [backward and forward, respectively] to infinity.

III.a.2 Fortunately, for purposes of our Resolution, only the present is the germane period, not necessarily “fleeting” in terms of constant passing of seconds. No, I’ll allow a certain lattitude, say, since Pro brought it up, the incident of the SCOTUS decision of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954,to the present; February of 2021. Allowing for a certain amount of time for local, state, and federal law and institutional public policies to be made compliant to the precedent of Brown,say, to the close of the 20thcentury [being rather liberal], therefore, beginning the 21stcentury, this is our Resolution’s present “is,” as in, systemic racism is a significant problem.

III.a.3 From the Resolution’s perspective, my BoP is that, in the current time, systemic racism, as defined by Joe Feagin [see my R1, arg. I, and all sub-paragraphs], Pro’s illogical syllogism [see my R1, arg. IV, and all sub-paragraphs], Robbie Tourse, et al [see my R1, arg. V, and all sub-paragraphs], Ayanana Pressley, et al [see my R1, arg. VII, and all sub-paragraphs], the United States of Mars [see my R1, arg. IX, and all sub-paragraphs], FSU [see my R2, arg. I, and all sub-paragraphs], Harvard University [see my R2, arg. III, and all sub-paragraphs], 6 sources on healthcare [see my R2, arg. IV, and all sub-paragraphs]… that’s enough.

III.a.4 All the above [III.a.3] concur that systemic racism is a construct of legal statutes and public policy, acknowledging that individuals within theses systems/institutions/structures are really the ones at fault, making their own interpretations of what these s/i/s actually document as law/policy. As I said:

“…Feagin claims the status of Blacks was enslavement for life when not all Blacks were enslaved. Feagin makes the same critical mistake as Pro: if some are so treated, then all are so treated. Nope, we cannot make that broad claim. Some are not all. Just as individual racism is not systemic racism.” [R2, V.b.2]

III.b I will rebut Pro’s beginning argument: “Pro assumes that all my evidence is outdated by default, yet the history and the progress made needs to be seen clearly.”

III.b.1 Indeed, it does, but Pro immediately puts blinders on. He cites another “expert,” The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America [2017] by Richard Rothstein. Pro quotes:

"Racist explicit policies of federal, state, and local governments define where whites and African Americans should live.”

III.b.1.A Note the language is couched in present tense, even aligning with my calendar above [III.a.2]. But, as with other sources Pro has cited in his R1 and R2, this R3 source also omits citing which “explicit policies of federal, state, and local governments” he alleges define his allegation that anyone live anywhere by official statute or policy. Rothstein does not cite a single one because there is no such statute/policy in existence in Rothstein’s 2017, nor now, 2021. If Rothstein, et al, cannot cite it, nor can Pro. On that matter, Pro fails to meet his BoP.

III.c Pro resurrects Feagin to argue the same line… “…that we continue reinforcing previous laws set beforehand.” “We,” who? We, the people? Or, “We, the system/institution/structure?” “We,” individuals, even as groups of individuals, who have already been demonstrated to be “some, but not all” the people? Or “We” the system?

III.c.1 I will agree with, and have consistently argued, that “we” is “some” people, the individuals, the “some,” but not the “all.” Therefore, “We” do not imply the system/institution/structure. Individuals are “reinforcing” Jim Crow, not the system, for the system has officially obliterated Jim Crow in compliance with Brown, and come rain and storm and fury, Pro cannot change what Brown established well before our present.Brown was Pro’s source. I’ve merely clarified what Brown really did, by “impact” and by “statute/policy.”

III.d Therefore, Pro’s earlier argument that “Government is failing to implement laws to help the people”is wrong because government has implemented new laws in compliance with the abolition of Jim Crow laws, adjutant to Brown’s precedent. Neither Feagin, nor FSU, nor Harvard, nor Rothstein, nor any other Pro witness can cite an existing law or public policy to the contrary. Moreover, they all admit that the actions taken by some, even some who hold government, or other institutional positions, are acting individually inconsistently with established, current statutes and policies, and they acknowledge that these actions are individual racism. Therefore, Pro’s BoP has failed.

III.d Yet, Pro crows,

“Remember that Systemic, also known as institutional or structural racism, is merely one that operates on a societal level and has undeniable impact on a certain group of people. I've established impact over and over again in this entire course of the debate. It's very clear that by definition of systemics significance, the resolution is upheld.”

III.d.1 Pro has repeatedly established “impact… on a certain group of people.” Yes, just impact, and only on individuals, not all of us. Pro did that, by citing many sources who each cannot cite anything but impactwhen Pro’s BoP is to cite the evidenceby legal statutory, or public policy, that impose a desired behavior of all of us.Therefore, Pro’s BoP has failed.

III.e Pro concludes with still another expert, this time, Zinzi D. Baily, et al, writing How Structural Racism Works — Racist Policies as a Root Cause of U.S. Racial Health Inequities. However, this article offers talk, and more talk that "All definitions make clear that racism is not simply the result of private prejudices held by individuals, but is also produced and reproduced by laws, rules, and practices, sanctioned and even implemented by various levels of government, and embedded in the economic system as well as in cultural and societal norms."[11] [Bolded for emphasis by Pro] Again, like all other Pro experts, this one lacks any citation of “laws, rules, and practices” to which it blindly refers. Sorry, but I don’t accept blind references that lead nowhere, or Pro would have surely cited them, too. He did not. They do not exist. Do readers begin to sense a trend? I have cited sources that confirm that current legal statutes and public policies do not exist to enforce systemic racism. Therefore, Pro’s BoP has failed, simply by of citation of opinions, albeit scholarly opinions, but not facts.

IV Conclusion

IV.a let us, first, review Pro’s conclusion:

“Even though there is no official definition for systemic racism, the attributes are similar and the impacts are agreed upon by all the papers I presented. Remember that Con has few to no expert sources, and therefore should be taken with a grain of salt when he demands to see the current laws upholding racism. You want to see racism? We still uphold Jim Crow laws in our own way. Our progress has failed. Vote for pro.”

IV.b It is intriguing that, after claiming definitions by Feagin, FSU, Harvard, Rothstein, and Baily, Pro sweeps them away by his conclusion. So be it. They do not define systemic racism correctly, calling it such, but describing individual racism. In fact, they do not, because they cite not. They opine.

IV.c By contrast, contrary to Pro’s claim of my “grain of salt,” refer to the summary of my III.a.3, above, and its respective references to earlier rounds’ arguments.

IV.c.1 Pro claims: “You want to see racism? We still uphold Jim Crow laws in our own way.” “We,” who? In whose “own way?” We’ve been here before; III.c, and III.c.1, above. Revisit those paragraphs. We, individuals, not “We” systems, institutions and structures. Some, but not all of us express racism. That is individual racism. Not systemic racism. Pro fails to meet his BoP, per the language of the Resolution. I have held to its language and have demonstrated that Systemic Racism is NOT a Significant Problem in the United States, but individual racism is a problem because individuals still embrace Jim Crow laws and practices while our official legal statutes and public policies have abolished them.

I rest my case. Vote for Con.

[2]ibid

[3]https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/constitution/introc.htm

[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_states_and_free_states#/media/File:US_SlaveFree1789.gif

[5]https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Abolition-Of-Slavery/

[6]https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured-documents/emancipation-proclamation

[7]https://www.montpelier.org/learn/slavery-constitution-lasting-legacy

[8]ibid

[9]https://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/what.htm

[10]https://www.nap.edu/read/4962/chapter/8

[11]https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMms2025396

Round 4

02.02.2021 04:57AM

Pro

When voting, check for impacts, check for links, make sure to read my definitions carefully and see how everything works together. I have no doubt that my experts worked together to fulfill a correct definition and significance of systemic racism.

The short version? We have failed to overturn our racist laws in the past, and we have not made significant progress in institution, organizations, overall groups nationally. Of course, the individuals are partially related to the societal racism. As a whole, we have systemic racism, which gets rid of our equality and justice within the US. Obviously, the government is ruled by the people. But when a significant number of the government acts in the same way to enforce racist biases, this clearly highlights systemic racism. The impact of the thousands of powerful individual racism combined is different from what would be expected if an average citizen enforced the racism. Because of the policies inherently causing massive groups of minorities to be cast down upon -- especially in sectors that government is responsible for -- it's clear that my impacts based analysis wins against con's arbitrary reasoning.

And even if voters don't buy that, consider that Con has not addressed one of my crucial contentions -- inaction, or lack of enforcement of a law about equality, is just as bad as proposing the racist law. If we keep slaves on a national level despite prohibition, then systemic slavery and racism would still exist. Even though slavery no longer exists, the oppression of black continues on. So similarly, we have economic, health care, education, and criminal inequality, and therefore systemic racism still exists.

Vote for pro.

02.02.2021 06:58PM

Con

Resolution [Pro]: THBT Systemic Racism is a Significant Problem in the United States

As I noted in my R3, Pro & Con agreed to a waiver of R4. Waiving, I trust all will agree, really means a suspension of all further argument. By his 275-word R4 entry – when “waive” is a single, adequate word - Pro violated the agreement, which was at his request.

Therefore, readers take note: within Pro’s R4 are additional arguments, to wit:

“…we have systemic racism, which gets rid of our equality and justice within the US.”
“…inaction, or lack of enforcement of a law about equality, is just as bad as proposing the racist law.”

In no previous round does Pro argue about “equality and justice.”

In no previous round does Pro argue about “inaction, or lack of enforcement of law about equality”

In no pervious round does Pro argue and that it “is just as bad as proposing racist law.”

I declare a foul of agreed protocol, and declare, as it was Pro who requested the waiver of round 4, to which I, in consult with a Mod, agreed, I therefore conclude the waiver is null and void, and I shall proceed with rebuttal and defense, taking all the words I need within what is still protocol by Pro’s initiation.

I Rebuttal: “We have failed to overturn our racist laws in the past”
I.a Pro has argued this point in the past, but raises it again in his R4. I will turn on it again:

I.a.1 Pro notes there were racist laws in the past. There were, and I’ll point to the SCOTUS precedent of Plessy v. Furguson [1898], which introduced, or, some may argue, codified “separate but equal.”

I.a.2 Pro raised the matter of further SCOTUS precedent by the decision of Brown v. Board of Education [1954], also in the past, but did not inform that this precedent overturned Plessy,and instituted the necessity for all U.S. legal statutes and public policy in all States to eliminate racist law and policy in the United States. Instead, Pro argued that Brown had little to no effect, that “…we have failed to overturn our racist laws in the past.”

I.a.2.A That’s a nice claim, but Pro did not cite any specific current legal statute or public policy to support his claim. Currency is the demand of Pro’s Resolution, since every keyword of the Resolution must stand up to scrutiny, yes? Having failed to do so, the claim remains as such; BoP failure by Pro.

II Rebuttal:“…we have systemic racism, which gets rid of our equality and justice within the US.”
II.a Pro’s own source, Joe Feagin, [see Pro R1] defined “systemic racism” by claim that “…the United States was founded in racism since the Constitution classified Black people as the property of White people.” I rebutted in my R1 that the Constitution, using Article I, section 2, clause 3 as Feagin’s source, says no such thing, but rather, that Black people are not mentioned at all, that all free people were to be counted [in the 1790 Census], and that included free Blacks in the North, and taxed Indians, neither owned by anybody else, and I’ll now add, since Pro brought it up, that it does not mention any people as property. Therefore, Feagin’s claim is not true; therefore, Pro’s claim fails.

II.b Pro’s source, Feagin, [as I argued in my R1, I.a.3] further defined systemic racism as “Systemic racism is a ‘material, social, and ideological reality that is well-embedded in major US institutions’ (Feagin 2006, p. 2).”   I further argued, “Pro misses two factors in Feagin’s argument:
1.             Systemic and individual racism are separate factors.
2.             Systemic racism is institutional, not individual.”

II.b.1 Therefore, given that systemic racism must be institutional to be systemic, there must be statutory/policy examples to cite in order to demonstrate that systemic racism currently exists.

II.b.2 Pro stated in his R4 argument: “I have no doubt that my experts worked together to fulfill a correct definition and significance of systemic racism.” Therefore, according to Pro, all Pro sources agree with Feagin’s definition, and must, therefore, have current citation of statute/policy exhibiting allowance of systemic racism. Since no one, neither Pro nor his sources, have done so, Pro’s BoP fails.

III Rebuttal: “…inaction, or lack of enforcement of a law about equality, is just as bad as proposing the racist law.”
III.a As noted above, Pro never launched an argument about “lack of enforcement of a law about equality,” in any previous round, thus violating his request for waiver of round 4. I declare a foul. Further, as a new argument, Pro was obligated to make certain that his argument is supported, either by sourcing of recognized scholarship [the best option], or at least by logical, convincing argument readers can follow. Pro offered neither. I need rebut no further; the Pro argument fails under its own unsupported weight.

III.b I can say the same for the secondary clause, “…is just as bad as proposing the racist law.” In this case, Pro offers a suitable supporting argument, “if we keep slaves [present tense]… racism would still exist.” Pro implies systemic racism, but, as shown, Pro’s Feagin says systemic racism is defined as institutional, not individual, so Pro’s argument fails on two points: slavery no longer exists, and even if it did, it would have to have legal/policy precedent, and neither Pro, nor any of his sources, have demonstrated by citation that such laws or policies currently exists. Therefore, pro’s BoP fails.

IV Rebuttal: “…we have economic, health care, education, and criminal inequality, and therefore systemic racism still exists.”
IV.a We’ve been here before. I’ve demonstrated that all these various types of “major parts of society” have individuals within them, in some cases many people, but regardless of count, they act individually in violation of legal statute and public institutional policy, to act out in behavior that is neither legal nor ethical. The system cannot be blamed because there is no evidence that they encourage, condone, and, in fact, they do not document allowance of such behavior. If they did, Pro would have cited it by specific notation so that we, too, can find and read it. Pro did not do this. Therefore, his BoP fails.

V Conclusion
V I will simply repeat my R2, VIII.c.1 & R3, II.b: Isn’t it a bit sloppy for alleged experts, including Pro, to claim evidence [official legal statutes/public policies], but not cite any? For shame. Some experts.

I re-rest my case. Vote for Con

03.05.2021 12:07AM

#53

-->

@Death23

Undefeatable's summary of my vote is pretty much on target. I agree with him on this resolution, but I tried my best to divorce myself of my personal opinion.

Death23

03.04.2021 09:31PM

#52

-->

@Undefeatable

TBH I think blacks have disproportionate political power as a race because the black vote is the most unified of all the races. Last election the black vote changed the outcome of pretty much everything.

03.04.2021 08:11PM

#51

-->

@Death23

Whiteflame felt that I attributed too much to authority and their competing definitions on individual vs systemic racism caused my argument to fall apart. Despite having 20+ experts supporting my case, it became arbitrary which one was only individual and which one was systemic.

03.04.2021 08:08PM

#50

I invite a re-read of
Forum: 1293-was-brown-vs-board-of-education-a-mistake
my post #36:

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, systemic policy, 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, wrote, “Argue for your limitations; they’re yours.”[2]
A scholastically-sourced definition of racism by the OED is, “beliefs that members of a particular racial or ethnic group possess innate characteristics or qualities, or that some racial or ethnic groups are superior to others; an ideology based on such beliefs.”
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.”[3]
The quoted statement above, let alone the movement’s title, represents a policy of singling out Blacks as an unprotected 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 systemic. There are proper, scholastically-accepted definitions, and there are re-imagined, wish-balloon definitions. The former prevails, or, rather, it should but apparently does not.
If Blacks are “systemically targeted,” by definition, it must be demonstrated by those advocates that the U.S. Government has, by legislation and policy, demonstrated a denial of at least the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment [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.” It follows that every federal, state, and local statute must be in accordance with this Clause, or it is unconstitutional.
I offer from a list of 10 Supreme Court cases directly concerned with the Equal Protection Clause [EPC] of the 14thAmendment the following three cases having race as a substantive issue demonstrating the Court’s consistency in compliance with the 14th:
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.

2.     Brown v. Board of Education [1954]  based on a proper interpretation of Plessy, the Court found that some States had incorrectly applied Plessyto allow segregation of schools if the school facilities were “equal.” Brown overturned unconstitutional state laws, applying the notion in Plessythat “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 a consequence by racial discrimination.

These cases demonstrate evidence of the negating argument, that impose a disclaimer on the Black Lives Matter policy quoted above.
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 230-plus 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.

[1]James Madison, Federalist Papers #51
[2]Richard Bach, Illusions, The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah, Dell, 1977
[3]https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/

03.04.2021 07:50PM

#49

-->

@Theweakeredge

Regarding your #25
Your initial point that gov’t/industry perpetuate systemic racism is apparently, on net judgment in two debates, not true. Remeber, my challenge to Pro in both debates was to show the evidence of that perpetuation by current statutory law, or by current government or industry policy [documented by publication] that such systemic racism is still a problem. My argument was that unless you have current law or policy to demonstrate, the issue is individual racism and not systemic. Pro failed, in both debates, to provide that proof.

I know something of manufacturing in the auto industry; I spent 12 years in it, both for GM and Ford as a process engineer, then manager. Your offered situation was once an issue, but in my 12 years, I watched the industry take great strides to avoid the very conditions you described. You ignore that there are two basic root cause factors of quality issues with any product, from cars to toothpicks. You either have a design issue, which requires design change to resolve, or you have manufacturing process issues, which are a little more difficult to resolve, simply because of the factors feeding manufacturing process: Method [or process], Material, Environment, Equipment, Manpower. All five have issues beyond design, and must be changed to correct/prevent issues. If the design is flawed, that could impact all five process issues. Root cause cannot have multiple factors, whereas there may be many cross-factor non-root issues, but, ultimately, there is but one root of them all, and that is what must be discovered to not only correct an issue, but prevent its recurrence. I will tell you, for nothing, that root issue is seldom manpower-related. It’s not impossible, but other issues are generally the cause, which, themselves, make manpower alter the process just to try to make things work. It is why a famous Japanese industrialist in the 80s was man enough to admit to his workers, “I’m sorry my process failed you.”

03.04.2021 07:31PM

#48

-->

@Death23

Then you are free to engage the third debate on this subject. I have passed on it, having drawn a draw and a win in the first two. I also perceive, however, a distinct disinterest in voting on the subject, drawing as single voter in 2 debates. Maybe "is not difficult' is a greater challenge than voters are willing to admit.

Death23

03.04.2021 07:02PM

#47

-->

@whiteflame

Showing that systemic racism exists and that it's a "significant problem" is not difficult. Is there a TLDR version of how this was lost?

03.04.2021 02:03PM

#46

I think I just didn’t use enough sources and that’s why I lost. There’s a bunch of more layman’s videos that explain more simply and concisely along with helpful graphs. The controversy among the top level was probably too muddled for research papers to win this one.

Barney

03.04.2021 11:09AM

#45

Voting will be over tomorrow, after that almost any type of discussion will be fair game.

03.04.2021 04:45AM

#44

-->

@Theweakeredge

I'd like to respond to your #25 post, but during the voting phase, I don't want to say anything that might be influential to potential voters, even though they should not let comments influence their vote, but it's always a possibility, even subconsciously, so I'll wait until voting has timed out.

03.04.2021 04:26AM

#43

-->

@whiteflame

thanks for voting

03.04.2021 04:11AM

#42

-->

@fauxlaw

well, bravo on getting whiteflame's vote and winning (unless someone else votes). You did well. But I won't lose the next time!

03.04.2021 02:54AM

#41

-->

@Undefeatable

What I read from your impacts were the various explanations for why racism has impacts and broad-scale racism, in particular, is damaging. The impacts I'm seeing aren't tied to the existence of systemic racism, they're tied to the existence of racism that affects many people, which is what Con preyed upon. I think examining why we need to define it as systemic racism in order to address it (e.g. we can't just punish bad actors and hope to fix the problem) would have done a lot to further your point. You have a lot of the link story to get there, but you spend most of your time focused on those links rather than examining why it matters to uphold your particular view of systemic racism and why the semantic argument is actually damaging to the wellbeing of so many in society. Essentially, while you certainly talked about why it was frustrating to face a semantic argument, I think you could have done more to explain what it does to perceptions of racism as a result, and how it hinders our capacity to both recognize and address causes of persistent racist tendencies in society.

03.04.2021 02:47AM

#40

-->

@whiteflame

in addition, I feel like I exhausted every single source possible and analyzed to the biggest extent I possibly could. I told of the history and the explanation for why systemic racism stems from the past from R3. Is the pro side of the debate just not possible with semantic arguments?

03.04.2021 02:39AM

#39

-->

@whiteflame

well I'll be damned. I feel like I tried my best to step back in R3 and succinctly prove my point in R4, despite my inability to waive the final round. What could I have done better in? I thought for sure I had the impacts with every source agreeing with the wording of "Systemic racism". I made sure to point out that there was individual racism, but once you get rid of that, there's still the large wave of laws and problems caused by government, healthcare, education, so on and so forth. I feel like I did reasonably well with linking the problems in the institutions to the problems in the system. How could I have won this?

03.04.2021 02:29AM

#38

RFD, Pt. 1

This debate is really frustrating because it's not really about whether this is a significant problem. It's the aim of so much of Pro's arguments, which focus on impacts, to establish its significance, yet much of that argumentation is either outright conceded or ignored because it's not pertinent to Con's argument. In fact, the only words that are pertinent are "systemic racism," and I get two very different views of what is required to meet the standard for systemic. I'm going to go ahead and quote the definition in the description:

03.04.2021 02:29AM

#37

RFD, Pt. 2

What's missing from this definition, and where Con puts the vast majority of his energies, is a clear comparison between what is systemic and what is individual racism. Part of the problem here is that there is a complex array of policies, and that it's not simple to disentangle what is the result of choices on a local level and what is systemic. When do we cross that line? Does a single city doing this become systemic? A single district? A handful? A state? I can understand that we must eventually reach that point of being systemic, but I don't know what it takes to reach it. Moreover, I'm kind of unclear about what makes a policy racist, which shouldn't really be this unclear by the end. If it causes harm to a given group of people without directly stating them in the policy, is it racist? Moreover, if a government decides to ignore the effects of a policy that was not intended to be racist, but clearly has an undue and excessive effect on certain races, is that society engaging in systemic racism?

03.04.2021 02:29AM

#36

RFD, Pt. 3

I feel like both sides try to engage with these questions, but I never get a clear answer as to why systemic racism must represent a given view. From Pro, I keep wondering what the cost is of failing to recognize these issues as systemic. I could buy a lot of Con's arguments about semantics and still find a plausible reason to support you if you explained what makes systemic racism so much more insidious or more important to address. Instead of trying to work against Con's game, play it: he keeps telling you that all the obvious examples are in the past, so explain why and how things have changed and why it matters. If you can't separate the concept of systemic from individual by definition alone, then you need to give me a reason that engages with why your experts see systemic and individual racism as a necessary distinction. Con keeps wielding that against you, but you could have used it to your advantage if you had forced him to engage with an argument that isn't semantic.

As for Con, I feel like you could be doing more to address this issue of a lack of action as a form of racism. That's a point Pro makes quite a bit, and while it is harder to define in that same light (as it's more the actions of individuals with the government effectively just allowing it to occur), I don't see you doing much to counter this point except to say that these policies don't specifically target race, which I think treads a thin line. It could easily have been argued that that is the new vogue for systemic racism since the days of Jim Crow: providing implicit consent to further a policy that chiefly doesn't solely target a race or set of races, but does clearly cause outsized harms to people in those groups. Simply being more complex and undirected doesn't automatically means it fails to meet the standard of being racist, yet I see much of your argument as very much to the letter. I can see ways in which that perspective could be problematic, some of which I mentioned in my feedback to Pro, to which I think your argument is vulnerable.

03.04.2021 02:28AM

#35

RFD, Pt. 4

All this being said, while I'm not particularly fond of semantic arguments, in a debate where the entire focus is semantics (it would have been on the word "significant" in most instances), the words play a pivotal role. As I see it, Con did a lot more work here, examining the discrepancies between the positions of Pro's experts and their own definitions of both individual and systemic racism. I may not be fond of it, but he does an incredibly thorough job of it. However, it's not so much the subject of the debate that has me making this decision, but rather the framing of the debate around experts. Pro makes a big point of stating up front how essential experts are to this debate, but is largely losing the debate on his experts and how they demarcate between individual and systemic racism. That reliance works against Pro, since any case he could have made for why it's important to establish that distinction and to recognize examples that fall into the systemic category are lost in the effort to just show that racism happens on a large scale. That ends up being reason enough for Con to carry the day.

Considering what I'm being told about what was agreed by Pro and not adhered to in the debate, I do also award conduct to Con, as Pro apparently agreed to waive the final round and still posted.

03.02.2021 02:38PM

#34

-->

@Undefeatable

I give it 50-50 odds that I get through it. Read through over half of it yesterday.

03.02.2021 02:10PM

#33

-->

@fauxlaw

I don't think anyone's going to be able to vote in only 2 days. Care to open up a 1 round waived debate where voters can vote on this debate?

02.28.2021 10:33PM

#32

-->

@Undefeatable

I'll try to get through it, no promises for this one, though.

02.28.2021 05:29AM

#31

-->

@whiteflame

@MisterChris

4 days left. Up to the challenge, or too long?

Barney

02.25.2021 11:10PM

#30

Voting closes in 1 week.

Bringerofrain

02.20.2021 07:05PM

#29

Maybe not 30k character limit is ridiculous

Bringerofrain

02.20.2021 06:11PM

#28

Remind me to vote

02.02.2021 11:06PM

#27

-->

@Undefeatable

Nope, I cited, by quote, arguments you never previously argued. I read every word of your arguments, every round. You never made those specific arguments before. Even if you had just repeated, that is not a waiver. Sorry. A waiver is a waiver, and it means exactly what I said it means. You did not waive; therefore, neither did I, for I made no new argument in my R4, as I committed. Not that you forbade that particular protocol.

02.02.2021 07:38PM

#26

-->

@fauxlaw

did you even read the previous rounds? I only repeated what I already said.

02.02.2021 03:37PM

#25

-->

@fauxlaw

The point is that corporations, and in some cases, the government; perpetuates racism on a systemic level - for example: if a factory of some sort, pretend its a car factory (the specific thing doesn't matter, just for ease of communication). That car factory 3 different models and 2 of the models work great, but 1 model continuously bugs out, it never passes safety inspections, all of that. Why does it do this? Are the specific parts or workers who program and construct the cars creating this issue? Well, not likely, considering the preponderance of models that fail this continuously. An obvious next question is if the model itself is faulty, but all the blueprints and the models themselves are pretty similar to the other two models, with only differences in asthetics. Why then do they continue like this? This would continue to circle, and the most likely answer seems to be the workers or programmers who make the cars... but for such a large amount of cars of the same model to be constructed incorrectly? That must mean that all or at least most of the workers and programs constructing this car are making the same mistakes, but why then is the factory letting these workers stay? If they perform so obviously wrong? The answer? The factory management itself is under the impression that the workers are making the car correctly.

02.02.2021 03:16PM

#24

-->

@fauxlaw

Yeah, I definitely agree that there are no current laws that can be considered racist (well besides affirmative action...). But what I found interesting was that he said we need to give more control to the government so that corporations can't create racist policies like Jim Crow laws. The irony being corporations don't legislate. But I think you identified the overarching problem: the idea that corporations and government should be categorized as personal agents, thus separating them from the individuals they are comprised of. Or in general, corporations are always evil greedy entities that need to be controlled, and government is the benevolent savior that will take control and provide all our needs. But there is a failure to recognize that both entities are made up of individual humans, capable of both great benefit and great harm to others.

02.02.2021 04:57AM

#23

-->

@whiteflame

vote if you have time. I think my round 1's the most effort I've spent so far, and I'd hate for it to go to waste.

02.02.2021 04:09AM

#22

-->

@Fruit_Inspector

@Theweakeredge

Now that I've finished the debate [per Pro's request, we have waived round 4] I'll enter your discussion of free speech and such.
1. Edge - your #6 and #8 posts do not acknowledge an unwritten, but very evident factor in the 1A: You have the right to be offended by someone else's speech, but their speech may not necessarily be illegal, and your attempt to censor that speech by some legal backing [I know you did not argue this point, I'm just sayin'] is not necessarily valid. The issue of highest incident in the Supreme Court, looking at all cases they's rendered decisions since 1790 when the Court was established, are 1A issues. Though the Court has been all over the map on the 1A, over the last 50 years, they've become mostly lenient on 1A claims against a plaintiff. They have been more accepting of broad strokes people think are 1A violations. So, there's that. But your #8 claims: "News flash: The constitution already does that, hence why you can't make terroristic threats in an airport." No, you're not citing teh Constitution; you're citing SCOTUS precedent and modern [post 9/11] congressional legislation.

2. Your #8 & #18 claim that corporations are the responsible party in Fruit's #14, show me the corporate policy that actually stipulates in writing that their employees may engage in racist attitudes and actions. That people in corporations, and in every other societal system [education, healthcare, etc] is clearly evident, but they are not given authority to do so by corporate [or other system] authority, because such is illegal. People commit individual racism, even as in groups, by violation of their system's policies and statutes because legislation/policies do not automatically enforce behavior. people do what they want, and that's on. them, nor their corporation, or whatever..

Fruit: Your #14 asked, "Who used their authority to enact and enforce Jim Crow laws?" Answer: "Most modern misguided interpretations of Jim Crow laws had the basis in the Supreme Court precedent, Plessy v Furguson [1898], which established the "separate but equal" doctrine that held until Brown v. Board of Education [1954] abolished Jim Crow, enforcing removal of Jim Crow laws, be they local, state, or federal. over time, since '54, these laws have been removed by appropriate legislatures to the degree that if one has survived, let alone more, I've not found it, and I doubt Pro eve tried.

Death23

01.31.2021 06:01AM

#21

Classism, heightism, fatism, uglyism, able-ism, age-ism, whateverism, lifes-not-fair-ism, its all a huge problem !

01.29.2021 01:30PM

#20

Note to voters: any time I mention pro, except “vote for pro”, I probably meant con

01.29.2021 08:10AM

#19

-->

@Theweakeredge

So we should probably just adopt communism so the government has total control, and that will eliminate all the oppression of corporations. That's what your correlation would imply.

01.29.2021 04:39AM

#18

-->

@Fruit_Inspector

Because the source of those things are corporations... and the those corporations are actually causing more damage... the more control the government holds over the corporations the less oppressive they are, which is a direct correlation.

01.29.2021 04:06AM

#17

-->

@Theweakeredge

Even if what you were saying was true, you would only be furthering my point. Because now the government is inherently racist and oppressive, AND they are corruptly controlled by outside forces to create oppressive laws. So why should we give this racist oppressive and corrupt government MORE power to create oppressive laws?

01.29.2021 02:49AM

#16

-->

@Fruit_Inspector

No. they typically created the oppurtunity, as in, they made the rule that say: a black person couldn't enter a restaurant, and then the government followed suit because of, mostly, lobbyist. The source, however, is clearly corporations.

01.29.2021 12:03AM

#15

-->

@Theweakeredge

Let me make sure I'm understanding what you just said. Corporations were the main party in using their legislative authority to create and enforce laws - in this case Jim Crow laws? That is unless you were trying to dodge the question...

01.28.2021 11:55PM

#14

Mostly corporations... in regards of allowing segregation and enforcing segregation, and the government prohibited discriminatory practices in regards to race... so... your point?

01.28.2021 10:00PM

#13

-->

@Theweakeredge

Who used their authority to enact and enforce Jim Crow laws?

01.28.2021 09:51PM

#12

-->

@Fruit_Inspector

And you think the government will create more problems than the citizens? If we don't hand over some control of the economy to the government then the only thing they care about is profit, they don't care who gets to work, the workers, or anything like that. It would mean that if a business felt like being discriminate it wouldn't matter. Ever heard of Jim Crow laws? The argument you are using was also used to enforce segregation. I believe that the population will create much more problems than the government will.

01.28.2021 09:42PM

#11

-->

@Theweakeredge

Well it should be noted that free speech comes with a duty not to slander a fellow citizen in order to harm their reputation and such. I understand that becomes problematic when you abandon objective truth and morality because then any speech considered offensive by popular opinion becomes illegal. But free speech is not the only issue. The government taking authoritarian control of the economy is another problematic issue.

The point is, the more control we hand over to the government to fix the alleged problems, means the more control the government now has to create more problems in the future. Less control=less ability to create more problems. But again, if a racist government apologizes for abusing human rights, would you immediately give that government near-unlimited authority to legislate in the name of racial equality? If a pedophile apologizes for abusing children, would you put that person in charge of a daycare?

01.28.2021 08:58PM

#10

-->

@Fruit_Inspector

My argument is that the government ought to have some control over what threats or what people can say to harm others, there is a very obvious hurdle that words would have to overcome to achieve that status. Cyberbullying is literally against the law... so... again, this is already a thing.

https://cyberbullying.org/bullying-laws

01.28.2021 08:55PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

Is that the argument you are going to use to give the government unlimited authority to decide what you can and cannot say?

01.28.2021 08:45PM

-->

@Fruit_Inspector

News flash: The constitution already does that, hence why you can't make terroristic threats in an airport.

01.28.2021 08:44PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

And I suppose you are seeking to abolish the system that guarantees every citizen's right to free speech, for a system where the government determines what is acceptable speech and what is "hate speech"?

01.28.2021 08:40PM

-->

@Fruit_Inspector

Umm... the systems that people want to uphold are systematically flawed, the system we have used to uphold slavery, and then we abolished that - the same things apply here - of course, racism will always exist, but we can mitigate systematic racism.

01.28.2021 08:35PM

Crazy thought:

If the government is supposedly responsible for systemic racism and oppression, perhaps the solution is to give them less authority to dictate how we live our lives, not more. If you give them the power to restrict the constitutional rights of those you disagree with (hate speech laws, gun control laws, etc.), what will stop them from then restricting your rights later? After all, they are inherently bigoted and oppressive.

It's kind of like trusting a pedophile with daycare reform.