Systemic Racism Fundamentally Causes Health Care Disparities in the US
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
They say the more specific a debate is, the easier it is to win. Let's see if my health care point was correct or not.
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.
Health Care Disparity information: "Although the term disparities is often interpreted to mean racial or ethnic disparities, many dimensions of disparity exist in the United States, particularly in health. If a health outcome is seen to a greater or lesser extent between populations, there is disparity. Race or ethnicity, sex, sexual identity, age, disability, socioeconomic status, and geographic location all contribute to an individual’s ability to achieve good health. It is important to recognize the impact that social determinants have on health outcomes of specific populations" [https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/about/foundation-health-measures/Disparities]
Fundamentally: Systemic Racism inevitably leads to health care disparity (even if it may not be the sole cause or main cause)
Con cannot use the bible, simulation-ism (argument that the world is merely a simulation), or quantum physics
Coal cannot accept this debate.
Burden of proof is shared.
Before delving into the most political side of systemic racism, it’s important to think about why people have unconscious biases in the United States on a large level. From the study “Polluting Black Space” from the Standford University, Eberhardt demonstrates that the physical spaces that were associated with Blacks attributed to the negative racial stereotypes. [PSY1] Through the assumption that they are impoverished, crime-ridden, and dirty, we ironically perpetuate our stereotype. We have all heard of the Golem Effect, where assuming negative outcomes leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Indeed, the study finds that the stereotypes contribute to the racial disparity in wealth and even overexposure to pollution.
As this is not a mainly psychological topic, I will only provide key takeaways from the article. Researchers explain that personal perceptions have feedback in terms of social reactions. In particular, people will distance themselves from each other, and view their surroundings as tainted.
- More Health issues, existing even in Artificial Intelligence, "such that Black patients assigned the same level of risk by the algorithm are sicker than White patients". [HC8] Scientific Magazine also stacks upon an agreement: "Algorithms designed to make decisions about health care incorporate biases that limit care for Black patients." [HC9] Hence the structure of the health care decisions is inappropriate and unjust.
- 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 ... can be seen in the prevalence of chronic health conditions...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… the federal government’s failure to adequately collect race and ethnicity data on COVID-19 testing, hospitalization, and deaths." [HC10] With the government failing to take action in favor of minorities, health inequalities increase. We must take action here and now on a nationwide level to continue saving these innocent lives.
- This is not only supported by the collection of data but the real-world news. Yet another study highlighted that during COVID, "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] nine times higher for African Americans than it is for whites" [HC11]. Indeed, we already see that the lack of sufficient care for minorities results in needless suffering.
- The large political, social, and economic forces combined are 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. Like deja vu, we see additional problems within the COVID-19 situation alone. My researcher further explains, "in COVID‐19 treatment ...discrimination in healthcare settings adversely affects the management of chronic conditions like diabetes."
- 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 systemic inequality. [HC12]
Fruit_Inspector:"Which way should your resolution be interpreted?Systemic racism exists today and is currently causing real health disparitiesORIf systemic racism exists in any time or context, it would theoretically cause health disparities" 
Fruit_Inspector:"I'm not looking for a technical rewording. I'm just trying to get a general sense of whether your argument is dealing in our current reality or hypotheticals." 
Undefeatable:"the first one [Referring to 'Systemic racism exists today and is currently causing real health disparities']." 
Gary Gerdemann, a spokesman for KFC, told Scripps Howard News Service that the campaign was an attempt to attract more black customers. “This is a marketing concept that was designed to put us closer to the communities we serve,” he said. “We started looking at our customer base and found an opportunity to align ourselves with the African American community.”
- 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 ...." [EDU1]
- "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. [EDU5] As a result of this educational racism, a very high proportion of minorities are also dropping out of school. [EDU6] How does Con explain this, if this is not due to the problems I've listed?
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 ... the federal government’s role in creating Black ghettos, and how racialized space still perpetuates structural inequality today (cf. Bonam, et al 2015)", [SUM2] and as a result, they were able to further the battle against Systemic racism today, changing people's point of view for the better.
It is near impossible that so many experts and news articles would waste time about an already-resolved problem. It would be even more unlikely for major corporations and powerful people to invest in the name of equality. With so many credible people speaking up about systemic racism in the US, it’s undeniable that it is a significant problem.
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. [SUM3] Police and judges have not self-reflected or educated themselves enough, and the evidence I have provided is as resounding as any scientific theory. 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 has established a baseline with Brown V Board of Education. But it takes more than 12 to change the world and to demonstrate the lack of systemic racism.
- White people cannot be the victims of systemic racism in any circumstance. Since systemic racism is caused by white people (or more specifically, the perpetuation of whiteness), they cannot be victims of their own oppression. In fact, any negative outcome would likely be viewed as a form of cosmic retribution carried out by the gods of social justice (I mean this figuratively...kind of).
- All racial disparities are caused by systemic racism, except those that are detrimental to white people. When white people benefit from the system, that proves the system is rigged in their favor and that systemic racism exists. Detrimental outcomes for white people are simply unintended consequences of their own oppression; while systemic racism did not cause these types of disparities, they still prove the existence of systemic racism. Conversely, detrimental outcomes for minorities prove the system is rigged against them and that systemic racism exists. When minorities experience positive outcomes, those are just unintended consequences of oppression that further prove the existence of systemic racism. So every outcome, whether good or bad, is proof that systemic racism exists. There are no alternatives.
- This leads us to conclude that systemic racism, as believed by PRO, is an undeniable epistemological truth. Rather than asking if a disparity was caused by systemic racism, we should start by asking how a disparity was caused by systemic racism. It is woven into all parts of society so that race becomes the predominant factor that defines every facet of our human experience.
- Do you believe that implementing laws or policies like these would help reduce or eliminate systemic racism, or at least mitigate the effects of it?
- Could these solutions possibly lead to the creation of a system where white people become the oppressed victims of systemic racism?
An in-depth paper explains that institutional racism has been a long cause of this wealth gap. The accumulated wealth from past family travels from generation to generation, propelling an unstoppable quest for a fortune for privileged people. The unique power of wealth ensures that "this intergenerational transmission create[s] an unequivocal link between the present and our racialized past of enslavement, extermination, and expropriation". [GAP1] In other words, the cycle of money loops back to help white males who are treated well and will be treated well, while the blacks who were treated poorly in the past are doomed to repeat their mistakes. The obstacles in the way inherently prevent them from reaching the goal.
If this wasn’t enough, a 2010 study conducted by Shapiro also agrees with the same idea. The difference between blacks and whites was not caused by market, family, personal attributes, but rather direct and indirect effects of discrimination, especially homeownership. [GAP2] The present housing discrimination overcomes the similar income and work history and results in our current economic disparity.
Even if readers don't buy this, I have another source that speaks of a vast social transformation as the main solution. Don't focus too much on the economic aspect. On a report of the wealth gap, the source opens up with "There are no actions that black Americans can take unilaterally that will have much of an effect on reducing the racial wealth gap" [GAP3]. Already, something is suspicious. If the wealth was caused by problems of capitalism, surely all you'd have to do would be work harder, or get lucky with education, or have connections. But no. This problem has gotten out of the hand of citizens. This is the true extent of the systemic level of racism.
Of course, this is not to say that racism is the sole cause of the disparities demonstrated in this paper. A famous paper from Sowell argues that statistical disparities are inherently common in the US and that the system alone doesn’t create barriers to economic prosperity. However, as fee.org also warns, “nobody is arguing that racial or ethnic discrimination has been eliminated”. [GAP4] In addition, Sowell’s main argument was against unnecessary government interventions, rather than addressing the vast mistreatment in different sectors. The mere economic standpoint is rather weak when measured up against my argument overall. His lack of engagement with current theory and empirical evidence ultimately falls short of disproving any part of my case.
"Racism is power plus discrimination. The parameters of discrimination based on race are distinguished by the power dynamics. Reverse racism is not, therefore, a reality if people of color are not in positions of power and perpetuating the discrimination." 
- White people cannot be the victims of systemic racism.
- All racial disparities are caused by systemic racism, except those that are detrimental to white people.
- Systemic racism is an undeniable epistemological truth.
"a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities, and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism).
Assuming things continue as they are today, is it inevitable that black people living in the United States will have inferior reading and critical thinking skills, be more poorly educated, have higher rates of obesity, be less qualified for jobs, have less money, and commit crimes at a higher rate than white people proportionally?
If the answer is yes, then I don't think it would be unfair to say that the concept of systemic racism referred to in the debate resolution is a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities, and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp1Q-X-M-mI. This explains BLM and white SJWs perfectly.
I can kinda get where you're coming from haha...
Since voting is over perhaps it is now more appropriate to ask this question: do you see the conclusion that Critical Race Theory, which is the position you are arguing from, is actually racist?
I think one only gets like 30 minutes to delete a vote
I am unbiased. If I vote and it contradicts yours, will you remove yours?
One day remains for voting.
After reviewing these arguments, and much as I would like to vote on the proceedings, I find that I am, after all, too biased to offer a fair vote. The reason: meta-analysis. For the uninitiated, meta-analysis is simply the combination of several different studies on the same topic and applying so-called statistical analysis to the collected sets of data into one, super-analytical report. While to the ordinary, typical person, this may make sense, in actuality, the way statistical science operates, the more individual studies's data are combined, there is an inverse of accuracy resulting in the meta-analysis: as the number of studies combined increases, the statistical accuracy decreases. It's the nature of the beast, and no one can alter the fact that such combinations are disastrous in proving a super-resulting "statistic." In summary, it is not statistical at all; it's merely playing with numbers. Worse that the play is driven by an agenda, which is anathema to any statistical effort. Since I know too much about that phenomenon, I cannot be an unbiased voter because my own knowledge on the subject, which is an unfair problem brought to the voting protocol, because it brings in outside content to the vote, would bias my analysis of the arguments. Meta-analysis is simply the wrong data set to present.
I think there is more that we agree upon concerning the nature of systemic racism than you realize.
I've never seen someone debate like this before. It's unusual to see this much agreement from an opposing side.
Thanks for the response. Just wanted to make sure I understood your position.
No, it's still systemically racist against blacks. Giving out drugs is an accepted right in the US, however controversial it is.
I assume the answer would be no, but it would be helpful to hear it from you so I don't misrepresent you.
I may have missed it, but I didn't see an answer to the question about whether it was possible the health disparity in the opioid crisis could have been caused by systemic racism toward white people.
weird argument. Here's the sources.
in hindsight, it might've been a bad idea to let the guy who beat me twice and was the only one to defeat Oromagi accept this debate. Though I have never seen you argue anything remotely related to health care, so it might be interesting to see how you handle a somewhat scientific related debate.
I don't know if I would want to go too deep into actual health care policy. It seems that it would basically be about who can research the most accurate and relevant statistics regarding quality of care/wait times/mortality rates/etc. While it seems that universal health care falls miserably short in those categories, my main concern is more fundamental than that. In the current US health care system, I pay my own medical bills so my access to health care is really only limited by how much money I can pay for services. Under universal health care, the government pays my medical bills so my access to health care is limited by what the government will allow. The government is now in charge of making my healthcare decisions for me based on what they will pay for. I don't want some government bureaucrat in charge of determining whether or not certain services are medically necessary for me.
While this concept is relatively simply, it would probably be quite tedious to do a formal debate on it.
By the way... how good are you at debating universal health care policy? If you want, we can go for a friendly health care debate after this as this one’s pretty tense and filled with a lot of emotion.
I never expected you to be good at health care debates but here you are.
Sources: PSY1. drive.google.com/file/d/1k7EFYDIoJrc4NroagMLwRfsutlHODkCf/view?usp=sharing
the first one.
I'm not looking for a technical rewording. I'm just trying to get a general sense of whether your argument is dealing in our current reality or hypotheticals.
Which way should your resolution be interpreted?
Systemic racism exists today and is currently causing real health disparities
If systemic racism exists in any time or context, it would theoretically cause health disparities
You got it. The official decision downloaded from LexisNexis https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d3sKrct__5djaXh-e0fFa7EvH1flWS0y/view?usp=sharing
Oh, boy. "Today, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld that the discrimination cases under the Fair Housing Act do not need to show explicit discrimination..." This is the first line of your citation POL.H4 in your other debate. Problem is, in the quote, "upheld that" is a link to the SCOTUS case, only, the link fails. Did you try it to cite it? Come on, I want to see that case. Yeah, I can go look for it, but why should I have to do it? Your link needs to work. Period. See, I'm trying to review your other debate, as asked, but, you're making it difficult.
Bell  is, by self-admission [with spelling error, to boot: “analyses???”] a theory camped on a theory. “In this theoretical analysis… we demonstrate that racial formation theory…” Yeah, real evidentiary, isn’t it? So, where’s the “evidence” in this citation of an Abstract? I have no access to the article. A failed reference. [POL1] merely takes me back to Bell, with its limitations. [POL.H2] references the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which is neither a federal or state official agency in the construct of legislation or policy beyond the duties of individual mayors limited to their local jurisdictions. Further, the paper cited cites no legislation or policy directly to demonstrate the allegations made, and the references the paper does make uses data that is ¼ century old. I’ve asked for CURRENT evidence.
“An expert delivers more detail…” What “expert” and what “detail?” I have not passed through 3 paragraphs of your argument, and I’m already missing your “There are housing, immigration and voting laws taken standard to prove systemic racism. I failed to mention these against you due to lack of research, but I know better know.” Your “research” still fails. Show my the money, man, or I’m done.
Yet, you still fail to cite. What "newest policy debate?" There are several as you seem married to this topic and cannot let it go, but
I am not going to wade through them all.
please take a look at my newest policy debate on this same topic. There are housing, immigration and voting laws taken standard to prove systemic racism. I failed to mention these against you due to lack of research, but I know better know.
Your #6 has tied you in a knot. Fruit_Inspector concluded [rightly, I contend] that you must prove the existence of systemic racism, and you begin acknowledging the truth of that, then backtrack in the same post to contend that it does exist, ex post facto. Which is it? Starting with a contradiction will not win the debate. Remember, I'm a potential voter. If your debate contains the same confusion... well, let's just say it will be obvious. As I challenged in our debate on the very subject of its existence, show me the evidence of "systemic" by citation of a current law or gov't dept policy that exhibits racism of any kind, Critical Race Theory, or otherwise. For all its claims, CRT has yet to demonstrate one example of CURRENT law or policy that stipulates, in writing, CRT claims. If you are to prove systemic racism, that remains your objective. Jim Crow, as a legal or policy standard, at this point in history, has but one link: the uncredited name of a crow in Disney's "Dumbo."
Wiggle doesn't giggle by "LOL."
That didn't answer any of my questions.
pretty sure 99% of countries are now under scrutiny of "systemic racism". While I partially agree that Sowell may wipe out about 75% of my sources and arguments, if there are no clear policies, I think other countries should be meeting the standards for Systemic Justice. For example, I think the limited evidence on Japan Systemic Racism highlights that it's far weaker and acceptable than US's ridiculous amount of research.
There are actually a growing number of books dealing with this issue. The two that immediately come to mind are Cynical Theories (Pluckrose, Lindsay) and Fault Lines (Baucham). The problem is that Critical Race Theory flew under the radar for many of us for too long. So now we're playing catch up while trying to keep our cities from burning to the ground during BLM peaceful protests.
But you still haven't answered what the end goal is. You've only provided temporary solutions to lessen, rather than eliminate, systemic racism in the current racist system. Let me rephrase the question. Is it possible that the US will ever reach a state where there is no systemic racism? Or is it possible that white people in the US will no longer be guilty of conscious or unconscious racism?
If so, what is the objective measure to know when this has happened?
In my opinion, coals arguments are simpler too reductive overall. Whiteflame could provide a case more succinct and powerful than mine. While it’s fallacious to assume that the bad outcomes automatically mean discrimination, that doesn’t mean all the studies are using wrong terminology. (Or failing to prove cause and effect)
I get what you're saying, but Utilitarianism is a claim about morality, not epistemology.
When I am “Undefeatable “ I do not care about my personal experiences or emotions, for the most part. I’d gladly be a hypocritical racist if it gained me this much power (read my other debates) and didn’t inflict violence. Remember that I am utilitarian at heart. I merely gather research together and look at the evidence. There are almost no books other than Sowell that disprove systemic racism.
I have. But the evidence is overwhelming. It’s definitely harder to prove than age of earth or evolution, but I think it’s easier to prove than abortion or even gay marriage.
Keep in mind there was that one young age expert who claimed to have 20 arguments disproving old earth but they were each shot down convincingly
Have you considered the possibility that you may just be wrong about the existence of systemic racism in the US?
ACLU has a few good steps forwards making progress (https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/ending-systemic-racism-requires-ensuring-systemic-equality/). Fair housing, fair debt, and other policies ensure that we shouldn’t have any of the core problems in the heart of government. There’s also seldiora’s solution proposed of educating policemen and keeping them up to date on unconscious racism. Significantly reducing racism would definitely help.
I'll note the definition of racism in that document:
"The term 'racism' refers to an organized system, rooted in an ideology of inferiority that categorizes, ranks and differentially allocates societal resources to human population groups (Bonilla-Silva, 1996). It may or may not be accompanied by prejudice at the individual level."
Your suggestion is merely to try and improve a system that is fundamentally racist. If the system itself (rather than individuals) is racist, how can we ever fully end racism?
experts seem to recommend " improved data systems, increased regulatory vigilance, and new initiatives to appropriately train medical professionals and recruit more providers from disadvantaged minority backgrounds." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4194634/)
But the argument can't be narrowed because you're still operating from a fundamentally different worldview. You believe that a system can be racist, even if there are no individuals who are committing racist acts (outside of existing within the racist system). Therefore, any disparity MUST be the result of the racist system. There are no alternative possibilities that could be the root cause. It's an unfalsifiable position.
I wonder though, what system would you replace it with that would be absolutely free from any type of bias? Is there a system that could operate completely free from your idea of racism? Or are you simply a blind man promising us all the grass is greener on the other side?
that's true, but I'm limiting my focus to health problems. My overall argument is too big and clunky to focus on. It's the same debate as before, I just didn't want to be wordy and say "systemic racism not only exists, but it exists in the health care sector specifically". [That's what I'm trying to argue]
I think fauxlaw is right that you will have to resolve the debate of whether systemic racism exists before you can even begin discussing the resolution. Alternatively, you could try to find a fellow Critical Race Theory adherent who doesn't agree that systemic racism causes health disparities. But I doubt such a person exists since anything and everything can be explained by racism.
No thanks. As we fundamentally disagree on the root of the resolution, and that we've already been there before, I've said all I need on the matter.
I see you are guilty of systemic discrimination of Coal
Can’t have disparities if there is no healthcare ;)
This should be easier to fight than my now-16-page-paper on the topic. Care to take a jab?