My vote contained an error of identification. I said, "The killer for Pro was accusing Con the lack of sourcing; something Con failed to do himself." The error was at the last phrase, which should have said "...Pro failed to do himself." Sorry for the confusion. Does not change the vote result.
"Please keep with the spirit of this debate and do not try to win by any loopholes or underhanded means." I agree with Sum1hugme; a laugher, particularly after Puachu makes the claim, "...and you must concede this [pigs fly] in your first round or automatically forfeit the entire debate." Cheeky. I offer the following non-syllogism:
P1 Birds fly
P2 Camels walk
C: Therefore, butterflies swim.
Notice: I would have left this until my frame of R4, but I don't want to mislead anyone, particularly my opponent. In my R3, I made an error of identification in argument X.a.3, which said, "...and Con has said it within his own definition of similarity..." I meant to say that Pro said this.
Yeah, this should be a good debate. However, I totally disagree with both definitions of 'state,' and not only because of my well-known disgust with Wiki. While you do acknowledge that no definition is undisputed, I do not see a state as necessarily an enforcer, nor as a nebulous sovereignty of land, either.
Defined in my R4, a personal acronym meaning "without evidence cited, but merely by opinion"
You know how big I am on citation of evidence, aka sourcing.
In the case of this debate, since it has now finished the argument phase, I'll admit, as I do in R5, that some misdirection occurred, relative to sourcing, but I clarified in R4 by delay of one source, my final source, until R4, and then defended in R5, because R4 was a net, and R5 yielded a catch. Yeah, vague on purpose. Got to read the arguments. I'll agree, they grew more characters than necessary, because somebody decided to make the Resolution a block party instead of quite dinner for one; the one named in the Resolution.
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.
There is a debate in voting https://www.debateart.com/debates/3049-drunk-driving-should-be-legal between Pro and myself on the identical topic which was launched on 5/10. So far, a no-vote tie, but there's still 20+ days left to vote. Consider this a bump.
You have no idea what influences voters. Comments shouldn't, but that does not mean they don't. Best to stay clear of the possibility. After all, it's a debate in which I am a participant. Go corrupt your own.
Do you mean the military and police are the most important agencies run BY the government, as opposed to some other agencies, such as EPA? I choose that one at random just as an example, and one which I find effectively too political in its current guise to be legitimate.
i disagree with leaving definitions to the argument phase. Initiator-limitation of waiting for definitions until argument phase leaves an impression that the initiator is holding cards too close to the vest. No. Either definitions are revealed in the Description, or don't bother with them. We have opportunity to contest given definitions in Comments before accepting debates. I learned in my very first debate that even with definitions offered in Description, an opponent may still challenge them, using the challenge as a debate tactic to overwhelm the other side. Better to put definitions out there and obtain agreement prior to argument phase.
That said, I, too, am troubled by the Topic/resolution. I'm left thinking, of course a human fetus is human; it smacks of a truism, and I don't think that's what you mean. As Ragnar said, the distinction between human and person [even though we can equate the two, but not cleanly] muddles the topic. Worse that I think that is exactly your resolution, that a fetus is a person. If that is what is meant, say it. Or, stick with what is said, and be prepared for a barage of argument from Con, who ever it is. Not going to be me.
To clarify my own understanding, your Pro position [BoP] is that the concept of God compares to unknown information, and Con's position [BoP] is that the concept of God compares to known information? If I have the dichotomy of the positions correctly understood, am I correct in the assumption that while Con may present holy writ of whatever source as evidence, you may not consider it as valid sourcing compared to, say, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and it's up to voters to determine which argument/sources are more valid? https://plato.stanford.edu/
Completely understandable given your current debate on a similar subject. Good luck to you on that one. As this one may be complete through voting before yours ends, I may be able to vote on it.
I would really like to vote on this debate, but I am in such broad disagreement with David's argument here, particularly in view of my previous commentary #4, and that this is a clear full forfeiture for which others have already voted sufficiently to assure David the victory on that basis, alone. My vote would merely add to my stats without real benefit to David. Sorry, David, but I'm sure you understand my position. I would have really enjoyed having the debate myself. If you want to revisit it, I'd be glad to engage, even though I've offered up one argument, already. I'd really be interested in. your rebuttal. Interested at some point in the future?
Re" your #4, I'll take that under advisement because I really am passionate about the subject [can't you tell?] and would appreciate a robust debate from a contrary opponent. I get your hesitation, because it is, almost, a truism, but, there is certainly plenty of argument in favor of the abolishment, and, after all, it's not like an amendment to change the convention is impossible to make happen. So far, the efforts have been clumsy. Besides, the potential of an amendment takes it out of a truistic sense, I believe.
Thank you for your four full rounds of debate. I will be entering my 4th round soon, working on it now, with a first draft complete. I appreciate your attention to this debate with serious arguments offering good challenges. Well done.
Either of you; if you disagree with the vote, don't complain to me; I can do nothing to a submitted vote; I would not do it anyway simply by your complaint, even if I could. Go to a Mod. You do so by reference to the debate [copy/paste its URL] and PM a Mod with your complaint, requesting my vote be removed. The Mod will review and render judgment.
Your R3: "My opponent has forfeited, leaving my argument unrebutted." Con rebutted your argument in his R1, and R2, demonstrating your own wandering argument, as I said in my RFD. And, as I said, the Voting policy allows a single forfeit, yet you declared a forfeit [I took that as a declaration of victory] ignoring that Con had an additional round left to enter. I call that a premature call of victory, because Con did have a remaining round to offer rebuttal.. So what if he forfeited R3?
Con notes in his R1: "Pro notes that he and many people think budgies are *beautiful*, not merely cute. He has not proven that Budgies have traits that are common to youthful or childish animals." MY RFD advised the bad choice to add adjectives to your original elements of "childish, youthful, and delicate," particularly when, in R2, as my RFD recognized, you argued that, "Childishness, youthfulness and delicateness are not requirements for being called cute." You tanked your own argument.
Yes, and you even noted that the debate should attract atheists, which I took to mean as debate opponents, but that probably might have extended to voters, as well. I'll try to make comment further after the vote is finished.
I would normally be very interested in voting on this debate, but I am too close to the subject, and have too many personal thoughts on it that I'm afraid they would sway a fair, unbiased vote, so I think I'll pass on this one. Besides, I am currently involved in a debate with Benjamin that is much the same subject that would further influence my vote, I'm afraid. Sorry, guys. I'm sure this will attract sufficient voters to compensate. Good luck to both.
Thank you. I should advise that, during a debate, I tend to avoid comments so that voters are not influenced by any commentary outside of the debate, itself. Strictly a personal rule b y which I mean no offense. The only exception I try to make is if I need to add my sourcing outside of the debate to conserve all characters/spaces needed within the debate, for the debate, which is allowed by DArt policy.
1. Of course you think your argument was more convincing, but your argument chiefly attacked military weaponry, and, as Pro pointed out, there's more to militarization of police than just weapons. You raised the training time issue, noting the increased hours of training of military personnel over the police, but manage to avoid the fact that all military training is not on weapons; your chief complaint in this matter.
2. The number of your arguments vs. your opponent is not a valid argument since, A, there was just one round of argument, even by you, B. The number of arguments, as with sources, is not the critical analysis.
3. Your argument had a rebuttal because Con offered the first argument and had nothing to rebut in R1, whereas, you did. But rebuttal fits under the generic description of "argument," as does defense; it is not a separate judgment matter that, in an effectively 1-round debate, has value.
4. Look, you won the debate, by what point value is not the issue and is not a rating factor, so, what's the beef? I didn't have to say anything other than a default win by full forfeiture. Dude.
Actually, I have one. The PhD, that is, in English Lit. And in that process of education, I took a couple of classes examining the Bible strictly as a piece of literature; a different perspective. Sorry, can't help what I bring to the table.
Just wanted to break with tradition [by making comment during a debate] to tell you that this one is very enjoyable. You're making some challenging points [of course, I disagree, but I remember that you are playing devil's advocate]. Hope you're having fun, too.
Thanks fore voting. Yeah, the history bit was a questionable feature, but, I had 3 rounds to fill in what could have been a 2-round debate, and, you know me; I'm going to fill them. Being challenged to a 500 word debate per round would, indeed, be a challenge. I simply don't take them, but it should be a good exercise. Someday. Anyway, good analysis. Thanks.
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 [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.
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.
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."
My vote contained an error of identification. I said, "The killer for Pro was accusing Con the lack of sourcing; something Con failed to do himself." The error was at the last phrase, which should have said "...Pro failed to do himself." Sorry for the confusion. Does not change the vote result.
I will vote soon
Thank you for voting
Thanks for voting
Thank you for voting
"Please keep with the spirit of this debate and do not try to win by any loopholes or underhanded means." I agree with Sum1hugme; a laugher, particularly after Puachu makes the claim, "...and you must concede this [pigs fly] in your first round or automatically forfeit the entire debate." Cheeky. I offer the following non-syllogism:
P1 Birds fly
P2 Camels walk
C: Therefore, butterflies swim.
Notice: I would have left this until my frame of R4, but I don't want to mislead anyone, particularly my opponent. In my R3, I made an error of identification in argument X.a.3, which said, "...and Con has said it within his own definition of similarity..." I meant to say that Pro said this.
Yeah, this should be a good debate. However, I totally disagree with both definitions of 'state,' and not only because of my well-known disgust with Wiki. While you do acknowledge that no definition is undisputed, I do not see a state as necessarily an enforcer, nor as a nebulous sovereignty of land, either.
this is not the place for this discussion. Either delay until after voters have voted, or forget it. Too much said already
Defined in my R4, a personal acronym meaning "without evidence cited, but merely by opinion"
You know how big I am on citation of evidence, aka sourcing.
In the case of this debate, since it has now finished the argument phase, I'll admit, as I do in R5, that some misdirection occurred, relative to sourcing, but I clarified in R4 by delay of one source, my final source, until R4, and then defended in R5, because R4 was a net, and R5 yielded a catch. Yeah, vague on purpose. Got to read the arguments. I'll agree, they grew more characters than necessary, because somebody decided to make the Resolution a block party instead of quite dinner for one; the one named in the Resolution.
Thank you
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.
No prob. It is just for that reason that I prefer a week [some want longer] just to allow for contingencies.
There is a debate in voting https://www.debateart.com/debates/3049-drunk-driving-should-be-legal between Pro and myself on the identical topic which was launched on 5/10. So far, a no-vote tie, but there's still 20+ days left to vote. Consider this a bump.
I will accept this debate on condition that the time for argument is extended to one week, and the voting period reduced to 2 months.
Thank you for voting
You have no idea what influences voters. Comments shouldn't, but that does not mean they don't. Best to stay clear of the possibility. After all, it's a debate in which I am a participant. Go corrupt your own.
Your conversation prior to end of voting is not appropriate in this venue because of its potential to influence voters. Keep it in PM.
I'm taking the chance that I understand gugigor's premise. Looking forward to a good debate.
Thank you. It was a good debate. Well done.
Do you mean the military and police are the most important agencies run BY the government, as opposed to some other agencies, such as EPA? I choose that one at random just as an example, and one which I find effectively too political in its current guise to be legitimate.
Here are my sources for R3:
1 https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=understanding-alcohols-effects-1-2860
2 https://reason.com/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws-2/
3 https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
4 https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/usdot-releases-2016-fatal-traffic-crash-data
5 https://www.sallerlaw.com/20-facts-to-understand-a-dui-arrest/
5 https://driversed.com/trending/driving-under-influence-do-strict-dui-laws-really-work
7 https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fmotorvehiclesafety%2Fimpaired_driving%2Fimpaired-drv_factsheet.html
8 https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
9 https://www.responsibility.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/FAAR_3974_State-of-Drunk-Driving-Fatalities_Shareable_JPGS-V2-Pg10.jpg
10 https://www.alcoholrehabguide.org/alcohol/crimes/dui/
i disagree with leaving definitions to the argument phase. Initiator-limitation of waiting for definitions until argument phase leaves an impression that the initiator is holding cards too close to the vest. No. Either definitions are revealed in the Description, or don't bother with them. We have opportunity to contest given definitions in Comments before accepting debates. I learned in my very first debate that even with definitions offered in Description, an opponent may still challenge them, using the challenge as a debate tactic to overwhelm the other side. Better to put definitions out there and obtain agreement prior to argument phase.
That said, I, too, am troubled by the Topic/resolution. I'm left thinking, of course a human fetus is human; it smacks of a truism, and I don't think that's what you mean. As Ragnar said, the distinction between human and person [even though we can equate the two, but not cleanly] muddles the topic. Worse that I think that is exactly your resolution, that a fetus is a person. If that is what is meant, say it. Or, stick with what is said, and be prepared for a barage of argument from Con, who ever it is. Not going to be me.
To clarify my own understanding, your Pro position [BoP] is that the concept of God compares to unknown information, and Con's position [BoP] is that the concept of God compares to known information? If I have the dichotomy of the positions correctly understood, am I correct in the assumption that while Con may present holy writ of whatever source as evidence, you may not consider it as valid sourcing compared to, say, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and it's up to voters to determine which argument/sources are more valid? https://plato.stanford.edu/
Completely understandable given your current debate on a similar subject. Good luck to you on that one. As this one may be complete through voting before yours ends, I may be able to vote on it.
I would really like to vote on this debate, but I am in such broad disagreement with David's argument here, particularly in view of my previous commentary #4, and that this is a clear full forfeiture for which others have already voted sufficiently to assure David the victory on that basis, alone. My vote would merely add to my stats without real benefit to David. Sorry, David, but I'm sure you understand my position. I would have really enjoyed having the debate myself. If you want to revisit it, I'd be glad to engage, even though I've offered up one argument, already. I'd really be interested in. your rebuttal. Interested at some point in the future?
Re" your #4, I'll take that under advisement because I really am passionate about the subject [can't you tell?] and would appreciate a robust debate from a contrary opponent. I get your hesitation, because it is, almost, a truism, but, there is certainly plenty of argument in favor of the abolishment, and, after all, it's not like an amendment to change the convention is impossible to make happen. So far, the efforts have been clumsy. Besides, the potential of an amendment takes it out of a truistic sense, I believe.
Thanks for voting. Good to see you back on board.
Thank you for your four full rounds of debate. I will be entering my 4th round soon, working on it now, with a first draft complete. I appreciate your attention to this debate with serious arguments offering good challenges. Well done.
Either of you; if you disagree with the vote, don't complain to me; I can do nothing to a submitted vote; I would not do it anyway simply by your complaint, even if I could. Go to a Mod. You do so by reference to the debate [copy/paste its URL] and PM a Mod with your complaint, requesting my vote be removed. The Mod will review and render judgment.
Your R3: "My opponent has forfeited, leaving my argument unrebutted." Con rebutted your argument in his R1, and R2, demonstrating your own wandering argument, as I said in my RFD. And, as I said, the Voting policy allows a single forfeit, yet you declared a forfeit [I took that as a declaration of victory] ignoring that Con had an additional round left to enter. I call that a premature call of victory, because Con did have a remaining round to offer rebuttal.. So what if he forfeited R3?
Con notes in his R1: "Pro notes that he and many people think budgies are *beautiful*, not merely cute. He has not proven that Budgies have traits that are common to youthful or childish animals." MY RFD advised the bad choice to add adjectives to your original elements of "childish, youthful, and delicate," particularly when, in R2, as my RFD recognized, you argued that, "Childishness, youthfulness and delicateness are not requirements for being called cute." You tanked your own argument.
You're welcome. Good luck in future debates.
Yes, and you even noted that the debate should attract atheists, which I took to mean as debate opponents, but that probably might have extended to voters, as well. I'll try to make comment further after the vote is finished.
I would normally be very interested in voting on this debate, but I am too close to the subject, and have too many personal thoughts on it that I'm afraid they would sway a fair, unbiased vote, so I think I'll pass on this one. Besides, I am currently involved in a debate with Benjamin that is much the same subject that would further influence my vote, I'm afraid. Sorry, guys. I'm sure this will attract sufficient voters to compensate. Good luck to both.
Thank you. I should advise that, during a debate, I tend to avoid comments so that voters are not influenced by any commentary outside of the debate, itself. Strictly a personal rule b y which I mean no offense. The only exception I try to make is if I need to add my sourcing outside of the debate to conserve all characters/spaces needed within the debate, for the debate, which is allowed by DArt policy.
I'll take it, regardless.
FourTrouble: welcome to DArt. Good luck.
Thank you re-voting.
Bigfoot, A.I.
Thanks, Much appreciated. Didn't mean to sound like I was complaining.
Why are you appealing to me? I'm not a mod. That's where you go, but be certain of your position, because I did declare you the winner by default.
1. Of course you think your argument was more convincing, but your argument chiefly attacked military weaponry, and, as Pro pointed out, there's more to militarization of police than just weapons. You raised the training time issue, noting the increased hours of training of military personnel over the police, but manage to avoid the fact that all military training is not on weapons; your chief complaint in this matter.
2. The number of your arguments vs. your opponent is not a valid argument since, A, there was just one round of argument, even by you, B. The number of arguments, as with sources, is not the critical analysis.
3. Your argument had a rebuttal because Con offered the first argument and had nothing to rebut in R1, whereas, you did. But rebuttal fits under the generic description of "argument," as does defense; it is not a separate judgment matter that, in an effectively 1-round debate, has value.
4. Look, you won the debate, by what point value is not the issue and is not a rating factor, so, what's the beef? I didn't have to say anything other than a default win by full forfeiture. Dude.
Actually, I have one. The PhD, that is, in English Lit. And in that process of education, I took a couple of classes examining the Bible strictly as a piece of literature; a different perspective. Sorry, can't help what I bring to the table.
Thank you for voting. Much appreciated
Just wanted to break with tradition [by making comment during a debate] to tell you that this one is very enjoyable. You're making some challenging points [of course, I disagree, but I remember that you are playing devil's advocate]. Hope you're having fun, too.
Thanks fore voting. Yeah, the history bit was a questionable feature, but, I had 3 rounds to fill in what could have been a 2-round debate, and, you know me; I'm going to fill them. Being challenged to a 500 word debate per round would, indeed, be a challenge. I simply don't take them, but it should be a good exercise. Someday. Anyway, good analysis. Thanks.
Thanks for voting, guys.
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 [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.
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.
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."