Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

Systemic racism exists in America

Status
Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Required rating
100
Contender / Con
14
1675
rating
74
debates
68.92%
won
Description
~ 748 / 5,000

Pro: Will argue that systemic racism exists in America
Con: Will argue that systemic racism does not exist in America

Structure:
rounds 1 & 2 - opening arguments + Defence +rebuttals
round 3 - No new arguments + Rebuttals + defence + Closing statements

Definitions:
Systemic racism - A form of racism that is embedded through laws and regulations 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.

Racism - Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

Round 1
Pro
Systemic racism in United States

Framework:
By its definition, systemic racism is a form of racism that is embedded through laws and regulations 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. Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized. The ignorance and actions of the government and actions of the individuals combine to the systemic racism in the United States. There doesn’t need to be any explicit laws that allow for systemic racism.

I will now present my arguments below where you will see many different studies.

○      Studies seem to indicate about 61-80% of black overrepresentation in prisons can be explained by higher black crime rates, with the unexplained portion largely attributable to racial bias.
○      Remember - the factors which lead to disproportionate criminality amongst black Americans are also in large part a product of racial bias. Underfunded public programs, redlining, generational poverty, bad schooling, and myriad other factors which influence criminality can also be traced to racial bias.
 
○      Between 2012 and 2014, black people in Ferguson accounted for 85 percent of vehicle stops, 90 percent of citations and 93 percent of arrests, despite comprising 67 percent of the population.
○      Blacks were more than twice as likely as whites to be searched after traffic stops even after controlling for related variables, though they proved to be 26percent less likely to be in possession of illegal drugs or weapons.
○      Between 2011 and 2013, blacks also received 95 percent of jaywalking tickets and 94 percent of tickets for “failure to comply.” The Justice Department also found that the racial discrepancy for speeding tickets increased dramatically when researchers looked at tickets based on only an officer’s word vs. tickets based on objective evidence, such as a radar.
○      Black people facing similar low-level charges as white people were 68 percent less likely to see those charges dismissed in court. More than 90 percent of the arrest warrants stemming from failure to pay/failure to appear were issued for black people.
 
Biases in Stops, Searches & Arrests
 
○      While White & Black Americans admit to using and selling illicit drugs at similar rates, Black Americans are VASTLY more likely to go to prison for a drug offense.
○      In 2002, Black Americans were incarcerated for drug offenses at TEN TIMES the rate of White Americans.
○      Today, Blacks are 3.7x as likely to be arrested for a marijuana offense as Whites, despite similar usage.
○      97% of “large-population counties” have racial biases in their drug offense incarceration.
 
○      Police militarization does not lead to a decrease in crimes committed or officer injuries, may actually increase both.
○      Police militarization (including the adoption of SWAT teams) decreases public trust in police, which may contribute to increases in crime.
○      Militarized police are disproportionately deployed in African American communities, even when accounting for crime rates.
 
○      This ACLU report reviews 5 months’ of data from DC police stops & searches by race and outcome.
○      The black population of DC is 25% greater than the white population, but black people were 410% more likely to be stopped by the police than white people
○      This disparity increases to 1465% for stops which led to no warning, ticket or arrest and 3695% for searches which led to no warning, ticket or arrest.
○      This data indicates the disproportionate stopping and searching of blacks in the DC area extended massively beyond any disproportionate rate of criminality.
 
○      Analysis of 4.5 million traffic stops in North Carolina shows blacks and Latinos were more likely to be searched than whites (5.4 percent, 4.1 percent and 3.1 percent, respectively).
○      Despite this, searches of white motorists were the most likely to reveal contraband (32% of whites, 29% of blacks, 19% of Latinos).
 
○      Between 2011 and 2015, black drivers in Nashville’s Davidson County were pulled over at a rate of1,122 stops per 1,000 drivers — so on average, more than once per black driver.
○      Black drivers were also searched at twice the rate of white drivers, though — as in other jurisdictions — searches of white drivers were more likely to turn up contraband.
 
○      Enormous study of nearly 100,000,000 traffic stops conducted across America.
○      Analysis finds the bar for searching black and Hispanic drivers’ cars is significantly lower than the bar for white drivers.
○      Additionally, black drivers are less likely to be pulled over after sunset, when “a ‘veil of darkness’ masks ones’ race”.
Biases by Judges, Juries& Prosecutors
 
○      Extensive multivariate regression analysis indicates black male offenders receive 19.1% longer federal sentences than similarly-situated white male offenders (white male offenders with similar past offenses, socioeconomic background, etc.)
○      This disparity seems to stem mostly from black males being 21.2% less likely to receive non-government sponsored downward departures or variances.
■      Non-government sponsored departures and variances refer to deviations from standard sentencing guidelines due to judicial discretion.
○      Black males who do receive non government-sponsored departures and variations still serve16.8% longer sentences than white males on average.
○      In contrast, when sentencing length follows standard guidelines, that disparity is only 7.9%, and a substantial assistance departure for both groups nullifies that disparity.
○      IN SUMMARY - much of the sentencing disparity between similarly situated black males and white males comes down to judicial discretion to deviate from standard sentencing guidelines.
○      BONUS - regression analysis suggests violence in a criminal's history does NOT explain sentencing disparities between black males and similarly situated white males - the effect of that factor seems to be statistically insignificant.

 
○      Examination of federal data indicates Black Americans spend about 10% more time in prison when compared to comparable Whites who commit the same crimes.
○      Additionally, Black arrestees are 75% more likely to be charged with a crime carrying a mandatory minimum sentence.
○      Prosecutors contribute massively to this undeniable racial bias.???
 
○      Between 1990 and 2010, state prosecutors struck about 53% of black people eligible for juries in criminal cases, as opposed to 26% of white people. The study’s authors testified the odds of this taking place in a race-neutral context were around 1 in 10trillion.
○      After accounting for factors prosecutors select for which tend to correlate with race, black people were still struck twice as often.
○      North Carolina’s state legislator had previously passed a law stating death penalty defendants who could demonstrate racial bias in their jury selection could have their sentences changed to life without parole. The legislature later repealed that law.
 
○      In this study, two groups of mock jurors were given a collection of race-neutral evidence from an armed robbery, with one group’s alleged perpetrator being shown to be light-skinned and the other dark-skinned.
○      Jurors were significantly more likely to evaluate ambiguous, race-neutral evidence against the dark-skinned suspect as incriminating and more likely to find the dark-skinned suspect guilty.
 
○      Government aggregate of data on plea and charge bargaining.
○      “Studies that assess the effects of race find that blacks are less likely to receive a reduced charge compared with whites.
○      “Studies have generally found a relationship between race and whether or not a defendant receives a reduced charge.”
○      The majority of research on race and sentencing outcomes shows that blacks are less likely than whites to receive reduced pleas.
○      In short, collected data strongly indicates a racial bias against blacks with regards to sentencing and plea bargains.
 
○      Black men are twice as likely to have charges which carry mandatory minimum sentences filed against them than similarly-situated white men.
○      This article recommends against the tightening of judicial discretion, arguing that process has historically led to greater racial sentencing disparities.
 
○      Black defendants with multiple prior convictions are 28% more likely to be charged as “habitual offenders” than similarly-situated white defendants.
○      Assessments of dangerousness and culpability are linked to race and ethnicity, even after offense seriousness and prior record are controlled.”
 
○      A study of first-time felons in Georgia found black men received sentences of on average 270 days longer than similarly-situated white males.
○      However, when black males were differentiated by skin tone, it was found light-skinned black men saw virtually no disparity in their sentencing while dark-skinned black men actually saw a disparity of around 400 days in prison.
 
○      A study of bail in 5 large counties found blacks received significantly higher bail than whites who had committed similar crimes.
○      The bail was $7,000 higher for violent crimes, $13,000 higher for drug crimes and $10,000 higher for crimes related to public order.
 
○      The Urban Institute analysed the histories of four probation offices and found black people were 18-39% more likely than similarly-situated white people to have their probation revoked.
Biases in Death Penalty Sentencing
 
○      Analysis of 33 years of data from Washington State to determine which characteristics best predict the decision to implement a death sentence.
○      Black defendants are 4.5 times as likely to receive a death sentence as similarly-situated whites.
○      Other factors (presence of aggravating circumstances, involvement of sex crimes, hostage-taking, etc.) explain only a small fraction of the disparity in prosecutors’ and juries’ decision to invoke the death penalty against black defendants.
○      Race was by far the most influential statistical factor.
 
○      Analysis of the relationship between racial stereotyping and death sentence convictions.
○      Black defendants who possessed darker skin and more “stereotypically black” features were twice as likely to be given the death penalty when accused of murdering a white person, as compared to lighter-skinned blacks with less “stereotypically black” features.
○      This disparity disappears completely when the murder victim is black.
 
Implicit Bias
 
○      Photos of capital inmates shown to entry-level criminal justice students for them to evaluate the trustworthiness of the faces.
○      Students rated pictures of light-skinned inmates as more trustworthy when they preceded pictures of dark-skinned inmates.
○      Most study participants (79.9%) were white, but the study predicted that this wasn’t a major factor - “When controlling for race, no statistically significant result was found. This suggests that each race, White and non-White, were consistent in their rating outcomes. Prior research has found similar results, where Whites and light-skinned Blacks are likely to share similar attitudes towards darker-skinned Blacks”
 
○      Students and police officers participated in tests to determine levels of racial bias and perception of innocence.
○      Black boys as young as 10 are more likely to be considered criminal or untrustworthy, and more likely to face police violence.
○      Police officers were tested on dehumanization of blacks by comparing people of different races to animal groups. Police who engaged in higher levels of dehumanization were more likely to use violence against black children.
 
○      Results from three separate studies on perception and racial bias show people have a tendency to perceive black men as larger and more threatening than similarly sized white men.
○      Participants also believed the black men were more capable of causing harm in a hypothetical altercation and police would be more justified in using force to subdue them, even if the men were unarmed.

○       As shown through the Law of Crime Concentration and Broken Window Theory policing, police efforts isolate and target lower-income housing and impoverished communities without ever making efforts to reform the communities themselves. This allows for disproportionate arrest rates for similar crimes, and vastly disproportionate sentence lengths on identical crimes for black men.
○         Black men get sentences ranging from 5 – 23% longer than white men for identical crimes and cases. Black citizens also makeup for 65% of the population serving life with out parole sentences for non-violent crimes.

That is it for now.
Con
Resolution: Systemic racism exists in America
 
Paper12: Thank you for this debate, and a very warm welcome to the site!
 
I Argument: Systemic racism does not exist in America
 
I.a As defined by Pro, systemic racism is: A form of racism that is embedded through laws and regulations within society or an organization.”
 
I.a.1  “Embedded” implies that racial animus, or prejudice, officially exists within  currently  legislated legal statutes and departmental government and private industry published policies. 
 
I.a.2  If “embedded” current legal statutes and policies existed, Pro should have cited examples of such statutes and policies. Pro did not do so, but offers merely academic, institutional, and journalistic studies and reports alleging that such official, systemic animus exists.   
 
I.a.3  I offer, and sustain my BoP upon this lack of evidence, noting that opinion pieces, and even data-driven reports are not acceptable evidence without meeting Pro’s own definition of the necessity of “embedded” legislated statutes and procedural policies. Evidence is a necessary element that takes us beyond individual and public opinion, or even data – data which does not reference any statute or policy  -  on the allegation. In fact, I’ll cite Federal Protections Against National Origin Discrimination,[1]   which adds  lending, public accommodations, law enforcement, and voting to Pro’s list  [which Pro allowed had additional examples] as repeated in my R1, I.c, below.
 
I.a.3.A  That there are individuals within such organizations, as are cited in the Description definition of systemic racism by Pro, who personally interpret legal statutes and policies as having the language of racial animus, when it is not there, do so on their own recognizance and stray from what the statutes and policies that are documented actually stipulate. That they have to invent the language that is not there in order to justify their actions is not evidence, either. Those individuals, and not the system, itself, are responsible for such animus. 
 
I.a.3.B  The system is documented, legislatively and procedurally to prohibit racial discrimination. Individual racism is not so documented. There is a reason why Pro cannot cite current statute/policy evidence of systemic racism; it does not exist.
 
I.b  What Pro should have proposed is that there is  individual racism  apparent in our American society, that even individuals within government and private industry do bare racial animus against citizens [and non-] of a different racial/ethnic background than their own. I concede individual racism, but such individuals do not  properly represent the system [government or private industry] in any official capacity.
 
I.b.1 I will even concede that, at one time, in America, racially discriminating legal statutes and policies did exist, but these have all been abolished and do not currently exist and are not officially, systemically, enforced. That individuals do so is outside the scope of this debate Resolution, and cannot, therefore, be argued by Pro. That is entirely another debate, wherein an  individual racism Resolution, would be, in effect, a truism. It matters not that such individuals may number at any number whatsoever; they act of their own, and not of any statutorial or procedural basis.
 
I.c I therefore challenge Pro to demonstrate  current legislated statute or procedural department policy that expresses clear, definitive language allowing racial animus of any kind, affecting   “criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power, and education,”   as cited by Pro in his Description definition, or with the addition of the list I offered above, R1, I.a.3.
 
II Rebuttal: Pro’s R1: Definition creep
 
II.a  In Pro’s R1 framework prior to giving any argument, Pro engaged in definition creep. The definition of  systemic racism  is identical to that offered in the description, by which I accepted the debate. I agree with it, but it is my BoP to demonstrate the fault of its application to the Resolution. However, the definition of  racism  crept from that offered in the Description by the addition: The ignorance and actions of the government and actions of the individuals combine to the systemic racism in the United States. There doesn’t need to be any explicit laws that allow for systemic racism.”  I agreed to the debate as defined in the Description, which does not include this addition. Pro cannot have it both ways. He cannot apply the necessity of “explicit laws” [or procedural policies] in one definition, and withdraw it in another.
 
II.b First, I will rebut by reminding that the actions of government, first, is to legislate statutes and document procedural policies that, currently, forbid government and individual discrimination on the basis of race, and other factors, as constitutionally established. I refer to the entirety of my R1, I argument, which demonstrates this point. 
 
II.c Second, Pro’s claim that government and individuals “combine to the systemic racism” ignores that the “system,” by Pro’s definition, must have the allowance of racism  “embedded through laws and regulations within society or an organization”  This implies that racism must be found in the documentation of statutes and policies issued by the government. That Pro did not offer any examples of statutes and policies that do so is evidence that the racial animus acted on by individuals in government do not do so in accordance with their documented instructions. That is individual racism, not systemic, by Pro’s original definition.
 
II.c.1 That Pro crept the definition of  “racism” to add that  “There doesn’t need to be any explicit laws that allow for systemic racism”  is an entire creep of definition. As II.c, above stipulates, it is absolutely untrue. Such documentation, by Pro’s definition of  “systemic…,”  must have documented evidence of racism.  Show me. Until Pro does, the Resolution fails.
 
III Rebuttal: Pro’s R1: Demonstration of biases
 
III.a As noted above, R1,I.a.2,  where Pro’s BoP must demonstrate current documented statutes and policies, instead he offers academic and journalistic reports and studies of various biases expressed by various agencies, mostly in law enforcement. 

III.b  Pro’s first source indicates a glaring issue with such reports:  “’Black lives matter’ has become a rallying cry in light of evidence that the criminal justice system is failing to uphold this basic truth.  Official data, although woefully inadequate…”[2]  How does inadequate data possibly support Pro’s case? Particularly when the data given is not supported by documented statutes and policies?

III.c  Pro’s second source is a study of the Furguson [MO] Police Dept.[3]  Please note the subject of Chapter 4, “Furguson law enforcement violate the law and undermine community trust…”  Well, doesn’t that indicate there is statutory law, let alone procedural policy, the police department is mandated to follow, but individuals within the department are violating those laws and policies? There’s the system identified, and there’s examples of individuals disregarding the system; individual, not systemic racism, by Pro’s own definition of  systemic racism,  before the creep of racism.

III.d Take a look at a third source; Justice Policy Institute.[4]   This is an exhaustive study of law enforcement related to drug sales and use. It is a selective-researched study, with 89 referenced sources and numerous data-driven graphs. However, among the 89 is a glaring lack: not one source is to a legislated statute, or law enforcement policy that is being violated, or that even exists with racial animus allowance. Why not? Wouldn’t that be relevant to the discussion if we are trying to improve alleged  systemic racism,  per Pro’s definition?  

III.d.1 Worse is that this study engages a pseudo-statistical method called  meta analysis,  which is simply the combination of several separate studies, combining the data into one mega-study which is Pro’s cited source. This method fails because it is statistical suicide to combine the data of separate studies considering that each study is likely to have a different design of experiments than the others, a different set of, and quantity of sample size, margin of error, and polling questions, just to name a few of the critical statistical factors from which a meta analysis merely draws an average conclusion of diverse data points. It is, quite simply, an apples-and-oranges attempt at quantifiable data results. Being a retired, professionally certified Six Sigma Black Belt, a statistical expert, I declare this meta analysis study, and any such study, to be a waste of time, and a total lack of statistical integrity.

III.e I need not review the balance of the studies cited. None of the rest contain what readers should be looking for as evidence supporting Pro’s stated objective for the same reasons as defined in my rebuttal segments, III.a – III.d. Therefore, the Resolution fails.

III.e.1 Pro has failed to meet the requirement of his definition of systemic racism simply by lack of providing evidentiary proof by way of current legislated statutory law and procedural policies exhibiting systemic racism in their documentation. Therefore, the Resolution fails.

I pass R2 to Pro.
 
 
 

Round 2
Pro
Forfeited
Con
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[1]  and that most of the members of the Continental Congress who ratified the Constitution were slave owners.[2]
 
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[3]]  that became the original 13 United States upon ratification of the Constitution, 8 States [62%] were slave states.[4]
 
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,[5]   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.[6]
 
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.[7]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 A history:[8]
 
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.[9]
 
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 [1896]  by  Brown v. Board of Education [1954].   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.[10]  25%  of weapons used by criminals are semi- to fully-automatic weapons.[11]  
 
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.”[12]
 
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,[13]  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.”[14]    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.”[15]   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.
 
 
 
 


[2]ibid
[11]ibid

Round 3
Pro
Forfeited
Con
Forfeited