Instigator / Pro
4
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Topic
#3037

THBT The US Has Discriminatory Political Policies Regarding Minorities

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

FourTrouble
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1502
rating
8
debates
37.5%
won
Description

Full description: whether explicitly or implicitly, the US [United States] currently has political policies that unfairly treat minorities (blacks, Hispanics, Indians, and other under-represented groups).

Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

I was curious whether the crux of my Systemic Racism was flawed or not. Anyone other than Coal is free to accept.

-->
@Barney

Yes, well said.

-->
@coal

Yes. I try not the judge why when handling reported votes, but sometimes 'Why?!' goes across my brain.

-->
@Barney
@Undefeatable
@FourTrouble

Someone seriously reported my vote?

-->
@coal
@Undefeatable
@FourTrouble

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Coal // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:

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

It's a solid vote, especially when factoring in the extra commentary offered.
**************************************************

-->
@Undefeatable

Didn’t keep up with the arguments. Gimme a bit to read through it and I’ll get back to you.

-->
@whiteflame

any feedback? Did I choose a bad premise?

3 of 3.

In R3-R4, PRO largely repeats the same arguments (with one ostensible exception I note below), with cumulative sources in support, while claiming (as he did in earlier rounds) that CON "dropped" arguments that CON did not "drop." I have admonished PRO about this misbehaviour in the past, and it seemingly has fallen on deaf ears. (Tangentially, I note my irritation with this species of misconduct, and would subject him to the same sort of corporal punishment I advocated for in American public schools, if he continues this recalcitrance and I was presented with the opportunity to do so. I nevertheless decline to award his opponent the conduct point, because the misbehaviour on PRO's part was, while egregious enough to merit discipline, not so egregious to tip the voting scale --- despite his lexicographical obnoxiousness, e.g., "completely and utterly dropped." A paddling is certainly well merited.) The one exception to PRO's cumulative arguments/sources was his newly introduced bit on criminal racial profiling, which though distinguished under a separate heading in R3, is really just the same thing he said in his immigration points.

In R3-R4, CON's rebuttal is refreshingly brief and to the point. A conspicuous difference from an otherwise long, tedious and often circuitous series of arguments from PRO. To wit, CON observes that, either generally or specifically with respect to housing, immigration, voting and racial profiling, "[p]ro still hasn't identified a current US policy that unfairly discriminates, or causes unfair discrimination, or even perpetuates it, and therefore Pro still hasn't come anywhere close to meeting his burden."

And I agree.

2 of 3.

In R2, PRO rebuts, contending that (i) with respect to housing, "policies allow for racism to continue to exist in the[ir] current implementation and action," and according to the Brookings source cited by CON, some form of de facto redlining still exists, which is itself discrimination; (ii) with respect to immigration, "direct criminalization of immigrants, and therefore racist policy, fulfill the premise of being a discriminatory political policy," and PRO claims his sources support his points; and (iii) with respect to voting, minorities experience disparate outcomes, which means that "[t]he progress that Con claims to have made are near to none in actual showing." PRO endeavors to state a definition for systemic racism, and substantiate his claim that it is the case in the USA. CON, on the other hand, states in R2 that "Current laws, regulations, & executive orders are the primary source of evidence for determining what US policy is, and taken together, this evidence shows that current US policies strongly oppose unfair treatment of minorities." According to CON, merely allowing racism to exist is not identification of " any current policies that unfairly discriminate against minorities." As applied in the contexts cited by PRO, (i) there is no evidence, based on the examples alluded to by PRO, that the state of affairs in housing is the result of discrimination, and, based on CON's subjective experience, alternative explanations apply, such as people's preferences in where they live; (ii) with respect to immigration, "Pro doesn't actually identify any enforcement policies that are discriminatory"'; and (iii) with respect to voting, the policies identified by PRO result in "no unfair discrimination of minorities" in the present, based on the evidence to which PRO cites. Systemic racism is once again addressed.

1 of 3.

PRO argues the US does while CON argues that the US does not. Generally, PRO's argument focused on past discrimination which, he contends, "continue to legally or informally uphold segregated realities for . . . minorities." In support, PRO cites (i) housing, (ii) immigration and (iii) voting. In rebuttal of PRO's R1 arguments, CON notes (i) housing discrimination in the form of redlining (as identified by PRO) is not the current policy of the United States, by law or happenstance; (ii) the state of affairs in the world does not evidence discriminations against minorities based on (a) PRO's own sources and (b) the current leadership of certain companies; and (iii) voting discrimination of the type identified by PRO is prohibited by, at least, the executive order to which CON cites and the "poll tax" identified by PRO is no such thing. CON notes that PRO's references to systemic racism lack clarity, though as that term is commonly understood he provides no evidence in support.

My vote notwithstanding, I note, however, that PRO does seem to be getting a little bit better at debating as time goes on. And he should heed the feedback he has received from others, including Whiteflame and myself, in future debates. In my opinion, PRO did better here than he did in his debate against me on a similar subject. So there is improvement, and improvement is good.

-->
@FourTrouble

sorry about introducing so many new arguments, I realize I've been researching too many historical ideas and not enough current issues. Hope it's okay.

-->
@FourTrouble

POL.H4's citation link is broken. Take a look at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d3sKrct__5djaXh-e0fFa7EvH1flWS0y/view?usp=sharing if you need to see the actual supreme court decision. [Hereby called POL.H5]

Sources:

POL1. https://v.gd/racialformation
POL.H1. https://v.gd/redlining
POL.H2. huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Americas-Homeownership-Gap.pdf
POL.H3. https://www.epi.org/publication/making-ferguson/#epi-toc-3
POL.H4. https://www.demos.org/blog/why-disparate-impact-claims-are-essential-racial-justice
POL.I1. https://v.gd/immigrationracism
POL.I2 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953614001026
POL.V1.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2019/08/07/473003/systematic-inequality-american-democracy/
POL.V2 https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020/

OV1. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4133127/
OV2. https://v.gd/SystemicJimCrow
OCC1. https://v.gd/journalhealthracism
SUM2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1948550617751583
SUM3. raliance.org/6-companies-taking-action-to-confront-systemic-racism/

-->
@FourTrouble

Oh no... I suspect I made a terrible mistake.

Had I not already completed a debate with Undefeatable on this very subject, I would take it up, but everything I have to say on the subject was said then. Besides, there have been other debates on this issue by other members, and they have seldom drawn much interest by voters. I conclude it is not now a hot button, if it ever really was. Personally, I suggest we give the Left a break and ignore this red herring excuse for social unrest. It is a sufficiently whipped talking point and I wish BLM would just SYF, and the 1619 project would join 2021.

-->
@coal

He also included in the description that the policy could be "implicitly" racist. Which means he will simply find any policy where one's personal interpretation leaves the possibility of implicit racism. Then he will give an example of a negative outcome, claim that it was caused by the implicit racism of the policy, and accuse you of victim blaming if you try to attribute the negative outcome to something like fatherlessness rather than racism.

When you view the world through the oppressor/oppressed lens of Critical Race Theory, race is everything and everything is racist.

-->
@Undefeatable

The resolution says "has discriminatory policies," not "had discriminatory policies." Few would argue that practices like Jim Crow wasn't discriminatory. Yet, none could even begin to coherently argue that such practices continue today.

-->
@Undefeatable

I slightly disagree, but I don't have enough data, knowledge, or energy to back my position up, so I'll let someone else take this debate.

-->
@coal

just curious, you disagree with the premise right? I'm not 100% clear how you defeated Redlining and immigration, but voters somehow thought you won on that aspect as well.