logicae

I do not vote too often, because I enjoy the exchange of ideas more than I do the competition. But I must say something in regards to the last vote and also give my own analysis. Whether intentional or not, TheHammer seems to gloss over the issues and focuses on a single grammar mistake by con. This is totally fine, but TheHammer did not touch the debate itself, which I think is missing the whole point of voting.

Now on this debate. Great topic guys! Relevant, important, and needs more conversation. Let's not let the politicians beat us to it!

First off, Pro does a great job setting up the status quo view of systemic racism and I am glad he gives the important distinction from the individual and collective, while maintaining the "system" in question must be viewed in terms of individuals. A point usually missed these days. Pro also makes a good point that racism is indeed a factor in people's lives. I'm sure we can all agree there.

There is a point that I think was missed though. (Con hammered on this hard) That even though there is racism on the individual level and there are disparities in health care, the prison system, and education, that does not mean these are linked to racism itself. Pro does an excellent job pointing out the troubles black Americans and minorities face however and I think these problems should be further analyzed.
Now to Con. This debate was well handled and though I do not care much for evidence critiquing, I applaud you for showing the missing link in Pro's reasoning, that "Disparate outcomes do not evidence systemic racism" (Sowell). Well played, but true none the less. I do not see a direct refutation of this reasoning, but instead Pro adds on inherited racism and occupational racism to the mix. Con's response encapsulates this debate round. He points out that other factors including the overwhelming problem of black single motherhood are understood as key issues which might explain the higher crime rates, poorer education, and other key disparities. It shows that the focus of Pro is on correlation, but not on the causation of those bad outcomes.
There is of course much more refutation, but my poor analysis can not cover every last detail. I choose not to dip into the evidence battle, because reason takes precedence over data and the lapse of causation is most important.

In conclusion, though Pro makes an excellent case for serious problems in black and minority communities, Con holds Pro hostage to prove that these problems are the result of systemic racism. Con makes a positive claim that these problems are the result of other key factors and this remains the issue at large.

My thoughts on the issue: (Skip if you wish ;D)

I agree with the con side of the issue, at least for the most part. But I think I am fatefully wrong. Cons mentioned single motherhood as a major cause of these terrible disparities, but why did single motherhood jump to such high levels so quickly? There is indeed something to be said for systemic racism, in that, our government largely encouraged and encourages family breakup at the minority level. They do this with housing projects, child subsidies, unemployment, and planned parenthood, all of which largely target poorer and minority communities who had just escaped the previous racist Jim Crow system. This would be an interesting line of argumentation for Pro and I would like to take a look at this more myself.

Anyway.
I give the argument portion to Con, but I give good conduct to both sides. A great debate and I will be watching both of you guys in the future.

To Truth!
-logicae

I was surprised by the level of clash from both Pro and Con. Nice to see a great debate on WW2.

I think Pro did himself a disservice by only focusing on Russia in this debate as Germany was fighting on many fronts.

Pro I think wins this based on his responses.
Well done by Con to point out Germany's combat strength and technological superiority. Pro however did an excellent job of pointing out that this advantage was second to Russia's numbers and growing strength. The disaster at Stalingrad could have been mitigated by pro, as it did not happen until 1943, not relevant to this debate, but conceded none the less.
Con's argument about GDP was also excellent, Pro could have just brought up German's other enemies (mainly US).
The oil argument does not carry much weight for me. It went back and forth, but I am still confused about how much in numbers did this really affect Germany.

I would like to see a similar debate on 1941 Germany, that would be impressive.

Well done chaps,

To Truth!

-logicae