Instigator / Pro
12
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Topic
#2965

THBT Systemic Racism Is Definitely a Problem in the US

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...

coal
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
21
1604
rating
6
debates
100.0%
won
Description

Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded as normal practice within society or an organization. It can lead to such issues as discrimination in criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power, and education, among other issues.

Con cannot use the bible, simulation-ism (argument that the world is merely a simulation), or quantum physics

Burden of proof is shared.

-->
@Undefeatable

Lol, "disprove" evolution

-->
@Undefeatable

Evolution is one of those subjects I don't debate. Not because I couldn't, but because I don't care to spend time debating a subject that really comes down to the religious right vs. everyone else.

-->
@coal

nice win. I bet you could also disprove evolution if you really wanted to; I feel like the weak link between fossils and differentiation of micro/macro bear remarkable resemblance to "you can't use results to prove the past/present" [and individual vs systemic]. Not to mention alternate explanations with Noah flood is probably really problematic lol.

-->
@Undefeatable

Systemic racism debates are difficult. I honestly give you credit for just making a strong effort here, and I haven't even read the debate lmao

-->
@Undefeatable

I think you did better this time. You were more directly responsive to his points and built up a generally stronger case, though I can still see you falling into the same trap of believing you’ve addressed certain points that are still very much a problem for your case.

-->
@whiteflame

do you think I did better than my previous time, at least?

-->
@whiteflame

Thanks for the vote and RFD!

-->
@Undefeatable

Sure,
For voter ID:

This to me is a very partisan issue. coal (<---lol, do I capitalize this?? A proper noun, but that IS his name...oh the things I go through) pointed out that methods such as gerrymandering are politics at play and the black vote happens to vote more democrat (What is it, like 80+ percent?). So I think it makes sense why Republicans would want these ID laws enforced and Democrats not, given these communities are generally more in poorer standing, have more criminal convictions, and, for immigrants, lack citizenship and or proper documents. Regardless of your stance on voter ID, this shows all the signs of standard political partisanship.

For Housing:

This is actually a great point! I need to see your case focus on the housing act of 1934 (less is always more). You did touch on loans, but these things could also be explained via other reasons such as higher criminality and bad credit...speaking of which, housing projects would have been an excellent example of government interfering in the African American community, explaining their current conundrum. It would be a great argument turn of coal's single motherhood example, using it instead as the impact to the housing and anti poverty legislation which continues to this day.

To Truth!
-logicae

-->
@Undefeatable

I was on DDO, yeah.

The issue isn't lack of character space. The issue is conceptual. Please review Con's response to your framework, and work on responding directly to those issues.

-->
@FourTrouble

aren't you that one guy from... Debate.org? Unfortunate for me. I did my best with research but it's really hard to prove Pro side with only 10k characters per round.

I don't think Pro had a clear grasp of what systemic racism is, and Con made that quite clear in his attacks on Pro's framework.

Lack of conceptual clarity also made it difficult to evaluate empirical evidence. But I'm a casual reader who isn't thinking about this debate too hard. Big picture, seems like a fairly clear win for Con.

-->
@logicae

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: logicae // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: Arguments to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Not sure why this one was reported... High quality vote, with feedback for both sides. It does include outside content in mentioning another vote, and giving personal feelings on the issue; but that was clearly wholly separate from the point allocation weighing.

The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************

-->
@TheHammer

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheHammer // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: legibility to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In short, you did not even look at the arguments, and nitpicked a non-issue in punctuation to poorly justify giving points to one side. While punctuation can rise to be enough, it would have to be abysmal; either from the complete lack thereof, or, like' ungodly; terrible.

Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.

Legibility is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, wherein sections of the debate become illegible or at least comparatively burdensome to decipher.
Examples:
• Unbroken walls of text, or similar formatting attempts to make an argument hard to follow.
• Terrible punctuation throughout.
• Overwhelming word confusion, or regularly distracting misspellings.
• Jarring font and/or formatting changes.

The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************

TheHammer
Added: 19 hours ago
#1
Reason:
From CON:

"Regardless of race, if you complete your education, don’t have kids out of wedlock and maintain full time employment you’re far more likely to join the middle class than otherwise (Brookings 2013). "

Pretty sure he's missing a comma or two.

-->
@Undefeatable

It is definitely possible to gish gallop someone with sources. You should focus on drilling down hard on a few reliable ones that clearly establish causation, rather than an avalanche of sources that 1) have to be meticulously picked through, and 2) can dilute the point you're trying to make.

-->
@Undefeatable

Er.. No, I wouldn't say so. Here's what I would do - take a look at all of your quotes - paraphrase them - your doing good as far as not responding in segments, but you drop far too many points. I'd say try to acknowledge EVERY point brought up by your opponent, combine points as you've been doing. Even if you don't think the point is important, respond to it, you never know when your opponent might try to pivot off a peripheral point. You don't need more room - you need to reprioritize how you debate

-->
@Theweakeredge

unfortunate. I suppose I'll have to add 5,000 more characters to my argument before trying this again...

-->
@Undefeatable

If you can sell your narrative, then you've won - you can do that with only one source - or none at all. Lot's of debaters use a break down and re-present style, arguing that the interpretation that their opponent got out of sources aren't what is the truth of the matter. You touched Coal's narrative, but you ultimately let it stand - that's why people will vote for him.

-->
@Undefeatable

I’ll work on this, though it’ll be a hot second before I can get to it.

If the lesson you took from the last debate was “present more sources”, though, that’s not what I was trying to tell you with my feedback. I talked a bit about better source utilization, I.e. digging down into the elements of a source that establish their value, defending them more effectively from rebuttals, etc. Sheer numbers may win you some debates, but they tend to mean you undercover each one, which makes the sum often worth less than the actual number of sources.

-->
@Undefeatable

Sources don't win debates, they prevent the other side winning and are a very defensive thing to use to back up what your saying as something more than paperweight in backing (if it's a direct claim the other side may dispute).

-->
@whiteflame

any feedback is appreciated from your side too. I'm astonished that 40+ sources couldn't prove this topic. I guess I might really need 100 to win this debate...

-->
@logicae

wait, what about the voting laws and housing policies I mentioned? What happened to those arguments?

Try to be a good sport about this. That kind of commentary is misplaced.

-->
@coal

if I lose *THIS* one, mark my words, I can easily destroy you with 20 more sources = 60 sources if we ever meet again...

-->
@coal

I'm sorry for injecting so many emotional arguments, but I'd argue you forced my hand by reducing my ability to show deeper analysis and more arguments. They always say the best way to get through a conspiracy is to use emotional arguments to throw them off their assumptions...

You can concede if you like, but I don't think that agreeing to a tie is worthwhile at this juncture. We're four rounds in.

Nothing wrong with conceding, though. In many respects, it might be best here; and we can debate this again at some other time.

-->
@coal

are you willing to agree to a tie? My case was so complex and filled with research such that my entire "constructive" wasn't nearly done until round 3. I intended to have a 30,000 character limit but forgot to change it. I feel like we're talking over each other, because my case has to be taken as an overall whole rather than small piece of tidbit facts. I'd like an opportunity to rebuild my story and have a more proper debate, because my in-depth analysis of impacts will address your problems if we had 20k~30k characters.

With this debate right now, I don't think I'd be happy even if I won, and I'd be especially frustrated if I lost. My research was more in depth than before but it's very hard to prove Pro's case with only 10k per round plus rebuttals...

Well, thank you. I appreciate that.

-->
@coal

whoeee, you're giving me a tough time here. Good job man. Having to do more research on the policy related side and seeing why Fauxlaw was able to negate all my 20 sources. Well, I doubt you can negate all my 20 other sources...

(Also sorry about my numbering of sources, I lose track of them very easily)

Wish I'd seen that before posting the last round.

-->
@coal

here's the full list (some numbers are not used) if you need them. They're a bit of a mess to organize, sorry about that.

1. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4133127/
2. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4306458/
3. scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1376&context=dissertations
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
25.https://experts.illinois.edu/en/publications/success-and-failure-how-systemic-racism-trumped-the-ibrown-v-boar
26.https://www.businessinsider.com/us-systemic-racism-in-charts-graphs-data-2020-6#similarly-overall-income-for-black-americans-was-about-42-lower-than-for-whites-in-2018-6
27. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/100-statistics-prove-systemic-racism-thing-kelly-burton-phd/
28. https://www.vox.com/2020/6/17/21284527/systemic-racism-black-americans-9-charts-explained
29.https://www.businessinsider.com/how-redlining-kept-black-americans-from-homeownership-and-still-does-2020-6#redlining-reforms-were-passed-in-the-late-1960s-and-70s-but-its-legacy-is-still-felt-today-3
30. https://www.today.com/tmrw/what-systemic-racism-t207878

Where are your sources?

Did you use all of your characters?

Also, I am 100% pro spanking, mostly because keeping black boys in class as opposed to suspending them is the best way to prevent future criminality and maximize lifetime social and economic attainment.

-->
@coal

given your research on corporal punishment in school, I thought for sure you would be Pro sided in this debate...

-->
@Ancap460

here you go.