Resolution: Systemic racism exists in America
I regret that my opponent has been banned for alt usage until 9/5 and has, therefore, forfeited R2, leaving this round with no additional Pro argument to rebut. However, rather than extend my R1 arguments, I had already prepared R2 arguments, and I will present them.
I Argument: Claiming the U.S. Constitution was based on slavery was and is a total fabrication and historic nonsense
I.a Some proponents of alleged U.S. systemic racism allege that the U.S. Constitution was based on slavery
and that most of the members of the Continental Congress who ratified the Constitution were slave owners.
I.a.1 The second phrase, that the majority in the Continental Congress were slave owners, is true. However, one must recall that of the former British Colonies [remembering that Great Britain had engaged slavery since their unwilling participation in the Roman Empire, and only abolished it successfully by act of Parliament in 1833
] that became the original 13 United States upon ratification of the Constitution, 8 States [62%] were slave states.
I.a.2 The first phrase, that the Constitution was based on slavery, is a total fabrication. The term, slavery, and any variation of it, does not exist in the Constitution as originally ratified in 1788, and its first mention does not occur until the XIIIth Amendment was ratified in 1865, abolishing slavery. Until then, any mention of official, legislated statutory law, and/or procedural policies allowing racial prejudice was in lower level documentation in federal, state, and local jurisdictions, none of which established the United States of America. That establishment is due entirely, and exclusively, to the Constitution.
I.a.2.A An associated allegation, that the United States was established in 1619 on the occasion of the first arrival of African slaves on British Colonial shores of what would be the United States,
is a complete fabrication, as well. Those Colonies remained under British control for at least another 156 years, to 1776, when the Colonies declared their independence from Great Britain. Another 12 years passed before the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1788, officially creating the sovereign United States.
I.a.3 There was a first effort to establish an American government in 1781 under the Articles of Confederation, two years before the Revolutionary War against Great Britain ended. It failed miserably. Notably, the Colonies remained under the sovereign control of Great Britain, and it caused the effort of the Continental Congress to develop a Constitution while continuing the battles of the Revolutionary War. That former document had no mention of slavery in it, either.
I.a.4 With such incorrect interpretations of history, it is no wonder people who do no research of their own are convinced by anyone with a soap box that U.S. systemic racism is just another historic anomaly that abides to this day. As I stated in R1, I.b.1, I acknowledge that this country’s past includes a shameful period of systemic racial animus, but it does no longer. Not systemically. It does, endure individually. But Jim Crow is officially, documentationally, legislatively, and procedurally dead. No claim of JimCrow.2 by anybody, including the current President, who has a soap box, or other federal officials of any brand, can claim it otherwise until Congress acts to make it otherwise. In the meantime, the current statutory legislation and procedural polices outlaw the practice of prejudice by systemic racism. To say otherwise is all fabrication and historical nonsense. Period. The Resolution is defeated.
II Argument: Systemic, legal civil rights actions against Jim Crow laws
II.a As noted in R2, I.a.4, above, so-called “Jim Crow laws,” which were established by the defeated, postbellum pro-slavery movement, were ultimately, legislatively and procedurally abolished, but the effort occupied the next century to systemically accomplish.
The effort, also noted in my R1, I.b.1 [though not identified as “Jim Crow,” but were, nevertheless, racially discriminating laws and policies], and R2, I.a.4, did not achieve the desired result on an individually racist attitude in America that persists to this day. But, individual racism is not a topic of this Resolution, by Pro definition [that is, by lack thereof].
II.b.1 1865: ratification of the XIIIth Amendment, abolishing slavery
1868: ratification of the XIVth Amendment, equal protection under the law
1870: ratification of the XVth Amendment, giving Blacks the right to vote. Subsequent to this ratification, “Jim Crow laws” began establishment in the Southern States, and selective discrimination in Northern States, in violation of at least the XIVth Amendment.
1896: Jim Crow laws effectively sanctioned by the disastrous Supreme Court decision of Plessy v. Furguson which precedented “separate but equal” facilities. This was a violation of at least the XIVth Amendment, but that Amendment was ignored by the Court, and was, probably, the Court’s worst historic judicial moment.
1941: President Franklin D Roosevelt issues EO #8802 to open national defense and other government jobs regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, in support of the XIVth Amendment, but then shattered it with Japanese, German, and even Italian internment camps of American citizens of those nations’ origins in America during WWII.
1948: President Truman issues EO #9981 to abolish discrimination in the military, which was already abolished, but not effectively, by the XIVth Amendment of 1870, nor by FDR’s EO #8802.
1954: Supreme Court overturns Plessy v. Furguson  by Brown v. Board of Education . See above, 1896.
1955: Rosa Parks, who, by authority of the XVth Amendment, and Brown v. Board of Education, sat in a bus in a seat not in the back row designated for Blacks by Jim Crow laws, which marks the modern effort of civil rights, which had, by precedent, already been established by the Court, and the near century-old XIVth Amendment. Lost in the shuffle of this event, is that three other Black passengers, on Rosa’s example, also sat in non-designated seats.
1957: Civil Rights Act passed and signed, prohibiting voter prevention efforts, which should have already been enforced by the XIVth and XVth Amendments. By the way, these same Amendments prohibit what are alleged to be voter suppression proposed legislative efforts today.
1963: Rev. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial.
1964: A new Civil Rights Act passed and signed, officially abolishing Jim Crow statutory laws and procedural policies in federal, state, and local jurisdictions. This marks the end of systemic racism in America, though individual racism, on lower jurisdictional levels, still occurs. Therefore, the Resolution is defeated, being stated exclusively as systemic racism.
III Rebuttal: Militarization of Police Departments
Continuing rebuttal from my R1 on Pro’s list of accused systemic racism examples:
III.a Pro’s 4thsource sounds like a blitzkrieg of law enforcement against the poor, victimized criminal element in this country. An alleged overkill. Like bringing a gun to a knife fight. Unfair? Pro would have you think so.
III.b The fact is, however, that the criminal element is very nicely armed, thank you. Police agencies around the country are often overmatched by criminals using, typically, stolen firearms from simple handguns to automatic weapons.
25% of weapons used by criminals are semi- to fully-automatic weapons.
III.c Another myth is that the militarization of police amounts to weaponry, giving police a bad reputation, as alleged by Pro’s source. However, according to the Law Enforcement Support Office [LESO] which administrates the 1033 program of 10 USC 2576a, “Of all the excess equipment provided through the program, only five percent are small arms and less than one percent are tactical vehicles.”
III.d In the final analysis, the 1033 program has no example of documented statutory law or procedural policy in support of racism of any kind, and none are cited by this source.
IV Rebuttal: Stop & Frisk
IV.a As a general program, applied regardless of targeted constitutional right, stop and frisk reduced crime in NYC when initiated by Mayor Giuliani. That Pro targets race as a qualifier of the practice is, indeed, problematic, but is it systemic? Pro’s fifth source, https://www.acludc.org/sites/default/files/2020_06_15_aclu_stops_report_final.pdf
, is, unfortunately, a bad reference resulting in “page not found,” but, one can imagine, like the previous four, this source does not cite a single legislated statute or procedural policy, in this case, police department policy, that stipulates racial animus. Again, individual racism, only, is on display.
V Rebuttal: Outcome tests for discrimination
V.a The sixth source, an academic study by Stanford University,
offers lots of math and lots of graphs [we’ve seen this before], but not a single reference to [unfortunately for Pro, you’ve also seen this before] any statutory law or procedural policy that approves the outcomes being tested. More individual racism.
I’ll do one more for you, but it is a broken record I invite readers to try to play; your results for the rest, as I have already seen…
VI Rebuttal: Different shades of bias
VI.a This happens to be the 12threference by Pro; another academic study, this from West Virginia University, looking at skin tone bias. Actually, the study says it comes from the University of Hawaii, but I’ll let Pro explain that. Being a study of over 300 pages, it’s a long read. We’ll advance to the Conclusion, Section VI, and citations.
VI.b The Conclusion’s first sentence is entirely revealing: “Because only a few empirical studies have investigated implicit bias in the legal context,196 future research must continue to investigate the ways in which implicit bias leads to racial injustice in the legal system.”
One might think the first step might be, as I suggested in R1, I.a.2, to see if there are current legal statutes and departmental and private industry policies that approve of “implicit bias,” but, that’s current academic bias for you; they don’t bother. None of Pro’s references bother to do that research.
VI.b.1 My favorite movie line offered by a character is in 1984’s “Ghostbusters.”
In a beginning scene, the Dan Aykroyd and Bill Murray characters are lamenting the loss of their university grant in paranormal studies. Bill Murray is nonchalant; they’ll land on their feet. In fact, they do, ultimately, and it’s because of Aykroyd’s cautionary warning: “I’ve been in the private sector. They expect results.”
So do I. From Pro: provide evidence of systemic racism, by your definition, by current legislated statutes, or procedural policies, at any jurisdictional level, that document current systemic allowance of racism. That’s Pro’s Resolution, and it does not speak to individual racism, so let’s give that argument a rest; I’ve already conceded it exists, and probably always will. We’ve seen inadequate academic, institutional, and journalism opinions and studies. Until actual evidence of systemic racism is provided, the Resolution fails.
VII Rebuttal: Pro’s R2: None
VII.a As noted above, it appears, unfortunately, that Pro, Paper12, has been banned for 7+ weeks, which just may exhaust the debate before the ban is exhausted. I regret this action had to be taken; I was looking forward to this debate. Since no argument from Pro was made in an R2, there will be nothing to rebut in my R3, unless Pro is able to present an R3. Pro established the clock; I’ve not needed 2 weeks to load my R1 or R2, and more than 2 weeks will be occupied beyond this R2 posting, so Pro may miss an R3 posting, as well. My R3 will immediately follow, regardless.
Therefore, I close my R2 with assurance that the Resolution is false. Pro's only recourse, now expired since no new argument can be presented in R3, is to have cited any current statutory law, or procedural policy, that expresses explicit, allowed racism; academic, industrial, and journalist studies be damned. They do not constitute statutory law, not procedural policy, as required by the Resolution and Description definition. I hope for the best in R3.
I debated in every single one of the debates that got deleted.
While obsessing over something from so very long ago, you're also committing to a rather obvious false dilemma.
How many obvious spam debates did fauxlaw accept from paper12? And what evidence is there to suggest fauxlaw knew paper12 would be banned?
Currently all signs point to fauxlaw having accepted this single debate in good faith.
I debated type1 on an alt or two and had all of them deleted because they involved a banned user on an alt.
Either Bsh1 was wrong to do this and David is a lying scumbag when he says I did something wrong or you delete this.
Not quite yet in the voting period.
One thing I have realized recently is that most people that argue that there isn't systemic racism would actually change their minds if they thought about it. Of course, they would come to a different idea than most who argue for systemic racism.
Specifically, Reservations. They are a great example of where systemic control causes a people of a certain race to be stuck in poverty, low income, poorer education on average, etc. and the locals have no authority to change it how they desire as Reservations are controlled top down rather than bottom up like the rest of the US.
It would seem unfair to score a "win" simply because your opponent was banned.
Ok now comments #1-3 are pretty funny.
It would appear, based on action taken by Mod [SupaDudz] today, that my opponent has been banned until 9/5 for alt usage, which will cause a forfeiture of at least R2. I have already composed argument for R2, and, as there will be no Pro R2, with rebuttal of my R1, I need no further rebuttal, and I can post my R2 immediately [in 12 days +]. I also have some of R3 composed [not new argument]. Pro may not achieve an R3, either. We'll see. Too bad, I was looking forward to this, as I have had additional thoughts on the matter. What is it about the Internet that fosters aliases? Why can't we just be ourselves? We can't be anyone else; they're already taken.
lol, but seriously I'm not him that would be pointless.
"I gave him permission to add on to my argument"
That seems like a lot of trouble to go to, signing in and out of accounts to ask for permission. Just don't forget to be signed in to the right account when your commenting haha just joking
Honestly, it really doesn't matter to me either way so I'll stop poking fun about it.
I gave him permission to add on to my argument
You know, I had my doubts until the opening argument. Compare to https://www.debateart.com/debates/3121-america-is-a-systemically-racist-country
Am i a joke to you? "Doc’s a bit more of a meme."
I mean, we have "Human" going against himself in the past, so I can't say.
Paper looks like a decently serious debater, I think. Doc’s a bit more of a meme.
i will now write my argument
It occurred to me that paper12 and drlebronski seem suspiciously similar. Then I realized that the comments section would seem kind of funny now if that were true.
fauxlaw would also be good