Instigator / Pro
2
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Topic
#3040

Systemic Racism Fundamentally Causes Health Care Disparities 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
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

Fruit_Inspector
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
12,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1632
rating
20
debates
72.5%
won
Description

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.

-->
@Undefeatable

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp1Q-X-M-mI. This explains BLM and white SJWs perfectly.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

I can kinda get where you're coming from haha...

-->
@Undefeatable

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?

-->
@Wylted

I think one only gets like 30 minutes to delete a vote

-->
@fauxlaw

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.

-->
@Undefeatable

I think there is more that we agree upon concerning the nature of systemic racism than you realize.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

I've never seen someone debate like this before. It's unusual to see this much agreement from an opposing side.

-->
@Undefeatable

Thanks for the response. Just wanted to make sure I understood your position.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

No, it's still systemically racist against blacks. Giving out drugs is an accepted right in the US, however controversial it is.

-->
@Undefeatable

I assume the answer would be no, but it would be helpful to hear it from you so I don't misrepresent you.

-->
@Undefeatable

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.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

weird argument. Here's the sources.

POL.H7.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2019/08/07/472617/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusion-segregation/ \
OCC4.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2017/september/disappointing-facts-about-black-white-wage-gap/
EDU1. scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1376&context=dissertations
EDU5. aclu.org/issues/juvenile-justice/school-prison-pipeline/school-prison-pipeline-infographic
EDU6. racismreview.com/blog/2011/07/12/racism-k-12/

SUM2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1948550617751583
SUM3. raliance.org/6-companies-taking-action-to-confront-systemic-racism/

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

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.

-->
@Undefeatable

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.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

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

HC1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4580597/
HC2. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20983
HC3. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319180809
HC4.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/Planning/docs/trans/EveryPlaceCounts/1_Highway%20to%20Inequity.pdf
HC5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK220347/
HC6. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/JAHA.116.004416
HC7. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000936
HC8.science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6464/447.abstract
HC9. science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6502/351
HC10.pressley.house.gov/sites/pressley.house.gov/files/Anti-Racism%20in%20Public%20Health%20Act%20Summary.pdf
HC11. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7441277/
HC12. academyhealth.confex.com/academyhealth/2019nhpc/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/29586
HC13. news.mit.edu/2020/letter-systemic-racism-mit-0701
HC14. v.gd/encyclo

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

the first one.

-->
@Undefeatable

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

Which way should your resolution be interpreted?

Systemic racism exists today and is currently causing real health disparities

OR

If systemic racism exists in any time or context, it would theoretically cause health disparities

-->
@fauxlaw

You got it. The official decision downloaded from LexisNexis https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d3sKrct__5djaXh-e0fFa7EvH1flWS0y/view?usp=sharing

-->
@Undefeatable

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.

-->
@Undefeatable

Bell [2005] 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.

-->
@fauxlaw

https://www.debateart.com/debates/3037-thbt-the-us-has-discriminatory-political-policies-regarding-minorities

-->
@Undefeatable

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.

-->
@fauxlaw

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.

-->
@Undefeatable

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."

-->
@Undefeatable

That didn't answer any of my questions.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

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.

-->
@Undefeatable

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?

-->
@Sum1hugme

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)

-->
@Undefeatable

I get what you're saying, but Utilitarianism is a claim about morality, not epistemology.

-->
@Sum1hugme

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.

-->
@Sum1hugme

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

-->
@Undefeatable

Have you considered the possibility that you may just be wrong about the existence of systemic racism in the US?

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

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.

-->
@Undefeatable

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?

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

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/)

-->
@Undefeatable

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?

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

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]

-->
@Undefeatable

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.

-->
@Undefeatable

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.

-->
@Undefeatable

I see you are guilty of systemic discrimination of Coal

Can’t have disparities if there is no healthcare ;)

-->
@fauxlaw
@Intelligence_06
@Benjamin
@Bugsy460

This should be easier to fight than my now-16-page-paper on the topic. Care to take a jab?