African-Americans are victims of systematic racism in the modern day US.
I will be taking the Con stance: that systematic racism does not exist in the United States in the year 2016.
I accept this debate. As JDiamond is the instigator (which usually implies Burder of Proof) but took the con position (which usually implies not having to meet the Burden of Proof), I'm assuming that it's shared BoP.
If this is incorrect please let me know, but regardless I'm assuming that R1 is just for acceptance and we'll both be putting forward our arguments from R2 onwards.
JDiamond forfeited this round.
As my opponent has FF this round, I'll get right in to it and hopefully he can get involved from R3 onwards.
The argument for current systematic racism
There are too many instances of systematic racism to list and as I'm a bot worried my opponent might not post again, I'd prefer to keep it short and focus on just one example.
Redlining is "the practice of denying services, either directly or through selectively raising prices, to residents of certain areas based on the racial or ethnic makeups of those areas"
It gets its name from the historic practice of insurance companies, housing companies and banks agencies circling entire (largely black or other minority) areas of a city on a map and refusing to do business with them, which in some early cases was done with a red pen.
Though the name is historic, it is still occurring in the present and Patrice Ficklin, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's assistant director of fair lending has said "they are finding more redlining in the wake of the financial crisis" and ""We've done a lot of work to try to identify the folks who deserve our attention and there are a number of lenders who seem to be choosing to market differently in white areas than minority areas. And we've got a number of those investigations going on."
This is not a case of an individual employee happening to be be racist, but institutional policies present in multiple organisations which effect racial minorities across entire areas. It is a clear example of systematic racism in action.
This even has further implications beyond access to financial services and housing. One study, for instance, has shown that the knock-on effects of living in a more highly segregated redlined areas leads to additional stress and negative effects.
The argument from past systematic racism
Social mobility, even in a hypothetical race blind world, is effected by numerous factors. One of the most important factors in a Capitalist society is the status you are born into.
A child born into a rich family tends to be rich as an adult and a child born into a poor family tends to be poor as an adult. The same with well-educated and poorly educated families. These aren't ironclad rules, but they are real tendencies.
Hopefully this makes intuitive sense to most people, as being born into a rich family gives a whole host of advantages to the child. However, if it doesn't then this except from an OECD report on social mobility may be of use.
For those who aren't familiar with this type of chart, the Y axis goes between 0.0 and 1.0 so readings of 0.4 are pretty high. Nothing tends to reach 1.0 as that would be a country where there is no social mobility at all and everyone always maintains exactly the same educational background and earnings as their parents.
I don't think it can be disputed there was systematic racism in the past, but just in case; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a key landmark in the rights of People of Colour. It was this act which made it illegal to discriminate in employment based on race. Indeed at the time it was widespread and systematic discrimination in employment which was thought to be "the most widespread and undoubtedly the most harmful to its victims and the nation as a whole."  This is a key indicator that before 1964 there was widespread systematic racism.
Based on this, we can see that the systematic racism of the past still effects African-Americans today. Even if we assumed that society is Utopian today, the negative effects of past systematic discrimination do not simply disappear. African-American families in the 60's would have been poorer and less well educated due to the systematic discrimination they face. This means that regardless of anything else, the generations to come would also be disadvantaged by starting off from a much weaker position.
To be honest, even the social mobility data isn't strictly necessary. People who were working several decades ago are still alive today and African Americans who were discriminated against didn't magically get money or education to make up for their losses once laws like the Civil Rights Act were passed. They are therefore still worse off and still victims.
Another more recent example is drug policies. Up until a few years ago there were inconsistent drug policies with cocaine (predominantly a drug used by black people) being treated far more leniently than crack cocaine (disproportionately a drug used by black people). "Under the current penalty structure, established during the so-called "crack epidemic" of the late 1980s, possession of crack can carry the same sentence as the possession of a quantity of cocaine that is 100 times larger. The Controlled Substances act established a minimum mandatory sentence of five years for a first-time trafficking offense involving over five grams of crack, as opposed to 500 grams of powder cocaine." A bipartisan committee instituted laws to remedy this in 2010, but that does not allow those who have already been sentenced to get back the time in jail that they had to suffer through.
In other words, this: http://goo.gl...
I apologize for FF my last round. There was a major death in my family, and I needed to travel out of state. While I enjoy these discussions, family always comes first. Obviously points will be taken off because of my absence, but I hope both my opponent and the voters can understand the position I am in. Now on to my argument.
Systemic Racism Refute
The practice of redlining does not necessarily equate to making decisions based on the race of the particular inhabitants.
Based on information from information gathered from the US Office of Bureau Statistics (Source 1) property crime rates in black communities are exponentially higher than in other minority communities. Banks and businesses refuse to do business in those areas not on the basis of skin color, but rather on the statistical likelihood of robbery, looting, and other forms of property damage. If prices are being selectively raised in these communities, it is likely to pay for security systems and/or replacement of damaged merchandise. It would be nonsensical for a company in a profit-driven economy to deny people service based on the color of their skin. It makes no sense for businesses and banks to refuse the money of people based on their skin color alone, as to do so would be to turn away potential profit. If inner-city black communities carried the same low financial risk factor as other areas of the country, those institutions refusing to do business in those communities would take a tremendous loss. Surely, another “non-racist” company or bank would come in and profit off of this untapped reserve of wealth and safety, but this is not the case. In short, any avoidance of black communities is based on security and risk-factors, not skin color.
Discrimination in Loans
Perhaps the most famous of supposed evidence of “Institutionalized Racism”, the charge that banks unduly deny blacks access to loans does not hold up to scrutiny. According to a study conducted at the University of Iowa in 2010, banks are most likely to deny loans to black males and white females. On the other side of the equation, white males and black females were lent to at virtually the same rate (Source 2). Unless we are to assume that there is a grand conspiracy amongst banks to elevate black females and white males into the realms of home ownership, it seems the problem lies outside of discrimination.
It was this perception of mass racism in the banking industry, however, which caused President Clinton’s Bureau of Housing & Urban Development agreed to allow the “quasi-governmental agencies” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac access to affordable housing credit in exchange for buying subprime securities from low income clients. Shockingly, putting people who had no money and bad credit into houses they could not afford backfired dramatically, causing the 2008 global economic meltdown known as the “Great Recession”.
Argument of Past Systematic Racism
My opponent is correct in his assertion that systemic/institutional racism existed in the US in the past, however I disagree with his assertion that injustice 52 years ago equates to injustice in the present day. Remember that we are debating whether systemic racism exists in the modern day US, not on the effects of past injustice.
Nonetheless, I believe my opponent’s view of race/poverty related economic mobility is exaggerated. There is no question that it is easier for those born into rich families to succeed. This propensity for success, however, does not handicap the less wealthy from achieving their own social and economic mobility.
For example, to use data from a time in which systemic racism was fresh in many people’s memories, If you track individual income mobilities of family structures from 1975 to 1991, you’ll find that 95% of families who were in the bottom 20% in 1975 were no longer there in 1991. If you track this data by ethnicity only, you’ll find that 69% of African-Americans who were poor in 1975, had moved out of that bottom 20% by 1991 (Source 3). Recent studies from 1996 to 2013 show these numbers holding steady (Source 4).
Source 1: http://www.bjs.gov...
Source 2: http://now.uiowa.edu...
Source 3: http://object.cato.org...
Source 4: https://www.treasury.gov...
Sorry to hear about that JDiamond. Commiserations on your loss.
Contrary to Con's assertion, the practice of redlining does equate to making decisions based on the race of the particular inhabitants.
As per my source last round which I provided to summarise and define redlining: "redlining is the practice of denying services, either directly or through selectively raising prices, to residents of certain areas based on the racial or ethnic makeups of those areas." So the question is, are they redlining or is it just a colour-blind business decision based on characteristics like crime in the area for insurance or is is race a factor where black people are discriminated against?
Well there are a few problems with CON's argument.
1) CON's source shows that different socioeconomic factors can be generalised for different races and ethnic groups. However it does not provide evidence that this accounts for the difference in outcome seen in the instances cited in my R2 post, which is CON's own hypothesis and not mentioned or backed up by the source in any way. That economic disadvantages persist in different ethnic groups does not automatically mean that any changes in outcome are due to these economic factors rather than racism.
I think that this argument fails to contest my source as presented in R2 where an expert, Patrice Ficklin, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's assistant director of fair lending ,assessed that redlining was occurring. As this is an expert analysis based off specific cases rather than an amateur hypothesis based off assumptions, I feel CON does not contest my argument.
2) However, even if it was thought that CON's argument may have a point, studies have specifically looked into this to see if there is a racist factor or if it is just due to correlated socioeconomic factors.
Credit Card Redlining by Ethan Cohen-Cole for instance found that even "After controlling for the influence of such other place-specific factors as crime, housing vacancy rates, and general population demographics, the paper finds qualitatively large differences in the amount of credit offered to similarly qualified applicants living in Black versus White areas. "
Indeed, this study is not alone and it's statement that "A relatively broad consensus in the literature is that in spite of federal legislation prohibiting discrimination in the home-buying process, minorities nonetheless continue to face significant barriers to buying homes" is backed up my many other pieces of research.  For instance "The Colour of Money" Geographically contingent mortgage lending in Atlanta posits based on its research that there is "exclusionary discrimination by lenders in predominantly white suburbs".
This doesn't mean that geographical issues aren't a factor, it means they can't account for the disproportionately poor treatment of African Americans. Redlining Revisited: Mortgage Lending Patterns in Sacramento 1930–2004 for instance explains that trying to blame it on market factors simply isn't viable, specifically warning "Social and economic inequities must not be seen as solely the result of free market practices and individual deficiencies."
3) Even it it were based on solid evidence, CON's argument can't be extended adequately. In insurance, criminal activity is a factor. as mentioned this doesn't mean it is a factor which accounts for the difference, but it is a factor. What about the other services such as loans. What does the racial breakdown of an area have to do with an individual person's credit history and worthiness for a loan?
4) CON's second source supports my claim. CON admits explicitly says that African American men are discriminated against. That African American women aren't discriminated against is neither hear nor there. There is still discrimination against African Americans, whether this is happening is the central issue of this topic and CON has conceded that it is happening.
As the source says, other factors like education "didn’t wipe out the impact of gender and race” and that "African-American men were viewed as least competent and received the least amount of funding, followed by white women. In comments, the lenders reported they had held these two groups to a harsher standard, and perceived them more negatively." 
Indeed even with African American women who weren't shown to suffer in this particular set-up, the study still indicated the existence of racial stereotypes and prejudice applied to them - which simply didn't happen to act as negatives in this particular context and instead allowed them to be treated equally with white men.
Past Systematic Racism
CON argues that my references to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are too old to qualify. Several issues this this:
1) He completely ignores my example of drugs from just a few years ago. He does not try to argue this point at all and there is no rebuttal to it. The argument that it is not modern would hardly seem to apply here.
2) CON states we are debating if "systemic racism exists in the modern day US". I refer him to the debate title. We are arguing if "African-Americans are victims of systematic racism in the modern day US."
To be a victim is to be "a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action." As CON seems to accept, the effects of racism in 1964 still affect African Americans today. Therefore:
They are African American. They are victims of systematic racism. Their victimisation continues now in the modern day US. They are therefore "African-Americans who are victims of systematic racism in the modern day US."
I did not think this would be contentious at all in terms of relevance, but I think CON was not clear in his debate title and that what he wants to debate would be more properly titled "African-Americans are victims of modern day systematic racism in the US", with the exclusions he now wishes to set being added too late.
Generational vs Household
Due to misunderstanding either his own evidence or mine, CON's evidence does not support what he thinks it does.
Although he claims source 3 shows that "If you track this data by ethnicity only, you’ll find that 69% of African-Americans who were poor in 1975, had moved out of that bottom 20% by 1991" and source 4 backs this up, the linked source contains absolutely no breakdown on racial factors and in no way states what he claimed. It's not that I disagree with the claims, it's that the claims simply don't exist in the sources presented as far as I can see.
I can only assume he C+Ped the wrong links - however I would be very hesitant against trusting the third source even if it were relevant as it is not a peer reviewed academic study but a policy piece from an economically far-right think tank. It is therefore not neutral on this matter as there is a pre-existing ideology and a lack of scientific method to account for this and neuter it.
Also even if the fourth link (which of the two seems more on-topic) were to support his claims about race, it would still not be pertinent. That report is about individuals over time, my point is about generations.
A person can start off on a $9 (in modern money) an hour job when they're young and twenty years later be earning $18 p.h as they've gained experience, progressed, got promoted, etc enough to get them up a quintile (with median earnings being say $15 p.h).
This in no way stops their children from being likely to follow the same career trajectory of starting off around $9 ph and ending up around $18, as opposed to people born into a richer family who will be likely to start off at say $20 an hour and end up on $100 an hour.
The point raised does not counter my own and in fact CON accepts my point even if he believes it is "exaggerated", he still admits it does exist.
I had typed an entire refute to PRO’S arguments, a feat which took me approximately 45 minutes to an hour to complete on my iPad. I briefly opened another tab to acquire a source, and when I returned, my entire argument was gone. I now realize that I should have backed up my argument on Microsoft Word. I do not have time to rewrite my entire argument, so I do not expect to meet the deadline. Given that this will now be my second FF, I fully expect PRO to win this debate on pure conduct (which, admittedly, has been lacking on my part). On pure principle, however, I will post a rewritten argument in the comment section within 24 hours, and our debate may continue from there.
Referencing my opponent's argument in the comments section as he missed the deadline for R4:
My opponent has already conceded that racism did exist previously within the USA (which is Capitalist) so his argument can be ignored as inconsistent with his own statement as well as with even the most superficial examination of the USA's history, where there's a long past of businesses discriminating based on a whole variety of things including colour.
JDiamond makes the twin mistakes of assuming people are entirely logical and that the logic is static and the same for all people. If someone values racial purity more than personal wealth, it's in fact logical for them to discriminate. Not that it really matters why he's wrong, as the fact of him being wrong is a matter of obvious historical record.We know is perfectly possible for businesses to discriminate against customers in a capitalist society.
Policy, not individual racism
My opponent will hopefully note that all issues raised, including the ones are all issues of systematic racism. Whether it's the banks or credit card companies having different criteria for minority neigubourhoods or actual laws being implemented, every single one of my examples has been about systematic racism.
As he fails to point out any part of my arguments which would not qualify, I can hardly respond here.
University of Iowa Study
My opponent seems no to have actually read the study he cited in R3 which can in no way be said to prove "that any sort of bias in lending transgresses race".
In fact the author explicitly says the opposite and that race IS a factor which biases responded:
“It didn’t wipe out the impact of gender and race,” said Harkness. Some cultural stereotypes consistently influenced how much money the study participants were willing to lend.
For example, African-American men were viewed as least competent and received the least amount of funding, followed by white women. In comments, the lenders reported they had held these two groups to a harsher standard, and perceived them more negatively.
The author specifically says that African Americans tended to be treated negatively due to their race.
The claims made by CON are utterly unsupported and completely contrary to the statements of the author. He can't even say that he's making a reassessment based on the details of the study as the details to do that aren't present! The link CON provided is just to an article fo the study - not a paper on the study itself explaining it's methodology, results, etc. As the only thing to go on is the author's statements and she explicitly states people were judged negatively based on their race, the only reasonable conclusion is that people were judged negatively based on their race.
I'm unsure what CON thinks his link does to support his claims.
It shows that the congressman sponsoring the bill was white as were an overwhelming majority of the co-sponsors. Not entirely sure how that backs up his point in any way whatsoever.
Two firther problems:
1) CON does not argue against the claim that the effects of the law don't unduly and doisproportionately effect black people, merely stating that it can;t ppossible be racism because black people were (supposedly) involved in setting up the law. This is quite a claim and this distinction is not found anywhere in the definition of systematic racism offered in R1. It's therefore irrelevent.
2) Even if my opponent in his reply clarifies his position with relevent evidence, it hardly matters. There is a steady accumulation of drug laws which heighten the distinction between how the drugs are treated. Two years later when the distinction between crack and powder cocaine was strenthened due to a law getting passed that made "crack cocaine the only drug with a mandatory minimum penalty for a first offense of simple possession", would CON argue that Reagan (who pushed for this) was an African American?
My opponent is either did not read the study or is cherrypicking data to make it seem like the study supports his point. In fact the study he provides states:
"Trends show that median family incomes have risen for both black and white families, but less so for black families. Moreover, the intergenerational analysis reveals a significant difference in the extent to which parents are able to pass their economic advantages onto their children. Whereas children of white middle-income parents tend to exceed their parents in income, a majority of black children of middle-income parents fall below their parents in income and economic status."
It's easy to take a single out of context figures without relating them to anything else. Is 63% good? Is it bad? Con would have you think it's good, but when you actually look at the aritcle you can see there is a clear distincion. As the study shows, it's overall negative for black people in comparison to white. For instance: "White children are more likely to move up the ladder while black children are more likely to fall down. "
Moreover this is looking at family incomes and as it points out the positive changes seen are driven by the fact that women are working more than they did 40 years ago and so contributing to household income, not by the fact that there is a lot of social mobility and a child's income isn't strongly linked to parental income. In fact if it weren't for women as a whole being treated better taking up some of the slack, the results would be even more striking for race as it says that "The lack of income growth for black men combined with low marriage rates in the black population has had a negative impact on trends in family income for black families."
Misunderstanding Jim Crow
My opponent’s argument represents a clear misunderstanding of the nature of Jim Crow laws. The inclusion of the word “law” in that phrase easily disproves CON’S argument--racial segregation in the south was not a mere product of public zeitgeist playing out among businesses’ profit margins, but of actual state and local laws which required racial segregation in both public and private institutions. The discrimination was de jure, and thus unaffected by the free market. Quite simply, if a private business attempted at integration, the establishment would likely be shut down by state or local authorities.
Furthermore, my opponent is correct in his assertion that one may value racial purity over profits, the problem is that such a mindset runs counter to the point of running a business in the first place. To further expand upon this, I would like to raise the point that denying a person service (in a private institution) resides in a legal grey area. Surely there is no shortage of business owners in, for example, Mississippi, who would be delighted to explicitly ban African-Americans from their stores. But the national outrage and scrutiny such an action would invite prevents them from doing so--such an action would limit profits to an unsustainable level, and they would go out of business.
University of Iowa Study
I never claimed that the University of Iowa study proved an absence of stereotyping among individuals in the lending industry, rather that the fact that African-American women were lended to at the same rate as white men means that race is not a deciding factor. Any rational person can see that an argument for racism is rendered hollow if people of opposing races are treated in an equitable manner.
Does Statistical Disparity Mean Racism?
My opponent seems to be claiming that because the sponsor of the bill was white, it must have been racist. Never does he address the fact that a vast majority of the Congressional Black Caucus supported the bill. To further explain my thinking, here is some commentary by Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy:
“In light of charges that the crack–powder distinction was enacted partly because of conscious or unconscious racism, it is noteworthy that none of the black members of Congress made that claim at the time the bill was initially discussed.” Kennedy added: “The absence of any charge by black members of Congress that the crack–powder differential was racially unfair speaks volumes; after all, several of these representatives had long histories of distinguished opposition to any public policy that smacked of racial injustice. That several of these representatives demanded a crackdown on crack is also significant. It suggests that the initiative for what became the crack–powder distinction originated to some extent within the ranks of African-American congressional officials.”
Furthermore, his implication that drug laws are racist because they disproportionately affect black people is nonsensical. The reason drug laws affect black people disproportionately is because black people, unfortunately, commit a disproportionate amount of drug crimes. For my opponent to claim this as evidence of racism is akin arguing murder laws are racist because black people commit a disproportionate amount of murders. (http://www.bjs.gov...).
The True Cause of Black Poverty
As my opponent objected to my use of the Cato Institute on the grounds of bias, I will do the same with the evidence he took from the far-left Brookings Institute. Nevertheless, I will still address his claim of an increased likelihood of poverty among blacks. In order properly address the plight of black poverty, we must first examine its main cause: single motherhood. Studies consistently show that the number one cause of poverty in America is single motherhood, which has risen among black families from 20% to 70% since 1960. Unless my opponent is to argue that racism in America has significantly increased in the last 56 years, it is apparent that the root of the endemic lies outside his comfortable confine of identity politics. To further my case that single motherhood is the number one cause of black poverty, I present unbiased evidence that African-American two parent households hold a 93% likelihood of living above the poverty line.
Jim Crow laws are "state and local laws enforcing racial segregation in the Southern United States. Enacted after the Reconstruction period, these laws continued in force until 1965. They mandated de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in states of the former Confederate States of America, starting in 1890 with a "separate but equal" status for African Americans."
As Jim Crow relates to legally segregated public services in the southern US, exactly what this has to do with my previous example of private businesses choosing to segregate of their own free will is never explained by CON and his point therefore seems irrelevent.
These businesses were not having their arms forced by law, they were choosing to. As local news put it in relation to the specific theatre I used as an example "White business owners insisted on the right to choose their customers. Black and white protesters insisted on the right to equal treatment."
In fact there is a long history of USA businesses choosing of their own free will to discriminate against not just black people, but also Mexicans, Irish and Italians just to name a few. Hell, even in the modern day we have people discriminating against customers, refusing money because it doesn't meet their personal morality.
This argument from CON is clearly highly iideological and completely inconsistent with reality and so can be ignored.
University of Iowa Study
Con's states "Any rational person can see that an argument for racism is rendered hollow if people of opposing races are treated in an equitable manner."
The problem here is that the study specifically shows that they are not being treated in an equitable manner, but are instead facing racist discrimination. I showed this clearly in the previous round, citing the world of the author of the study from CON's own source which clearly show that it supported there being racism. As COn offers no proof or logic and just reiterates his unsupported opinion without challenging my evidence or reasoning, I feel it can be ignored.
Indeed, logically there is now no way COn could ever use this source. He claims that any rational person would not consider this to show racism. As the author of the study itself considers that it shows racism either a) It shows there is racism or b) The author of the study isn't rational and so we can't trust the study they conducted. There is now no way he can claim it offers proof for his POV.
Does Statistical Disparity Mean Racism?
My opponent seems to be claiming that because the sponsor of the bill was white, it must have been racist
No, CON's link was to a website whose only clear information was who sponsored the bill. As that was all he contributed, I assumed that was his point.
Never does he address the fact that a vast majority of the Congressional Black Caucus supported the bill.
A patently false claim. To quote his own source "Eleven of the twenty-one blacks who were then members of the House of Representatives voted in favor of the law which created the 100-to-1 crack–powder differential”
This is in fact the slimmiest majority possible which is a far cry from a "vast majority". Indeed in comparison to congress as a whole, black congresspeople were far less supportive of the measure. 73% of congress voted for the measure, but only 52% of black congresspeople did so black people comparitivively did not support the measure. Indeed it would have easily passed by a wide margin if every single black member of congress voted against it.
Also there is a logical flaw that people at the time not being able to see somethign is racist does not mean that it wasn't racist and we can't see it as such 30 years down the line. In fact, as your argument revolves around giving weight to the opinions of politicians as a test of racism in a policy, you must concede that I am right.; After all, all you have to support your view is a vague inference that the lack of stetements from congressmen implies what you think it implies. As shown in my sources in previous rounds, bi-paritsan groups in congress are currently acting on these laws because they explicitly state that they are racist and unfair. Both points of view backs up by congresspeople, but only one has the benefit of hindsight and is explicit (mine) hence having greater weight as evidence.
Lastly, I very much did address the "issue" such as it was, by showing how your distinction is invalid based on your own definitions offered in R1 (as regardless in whether black people were involved in the iomplementation or not, it still fits the definition of "Racism which is structured into political and social institutions. It occurs when organizations, institutions or governments discriminate against certain groups of people to limit their rights.") and how even this argument, as unconvincing as I find it, can't be applied to the drug laws that accumulated on top of and amended the 1986 act, like the 1988 act I cited. In fact it is you who do nothing to respond to these arguments.
In fact, based on the below statement, I think it's clear you've misunderstood what the issue is.
Furthermore, his implication that drug laws are racist because they disproportionately affect black people is nonsensical. The reason drug laws affect black people disproportionately is because black people, unfortunately, commit a disproportionate amount of drug crimes.
This makes it clear you haven't understood the point.
To reiterate what I explained originally in R2 with the source used there still being applicable:
The issue is that when white people are found guilty of using drugs (such as cocaine, which is mostly used by white people) and black people are found guilty of using drugs (such as crack cocaine, which is mostly used by black people) the treatment is startingly different as by some metrics the drug typically used by black people is treated 100 times worse.
It has nothing to do with the overall ethnic criminal breakdown and has never had anything to do with that.
I'd also note that the argument you're making has nothing to do with your original statement you made in the comments. You originally stated the black caucus "pushed" the anti-drug laws. No evidence you have provided supports that and you seem to have shifted to saying "well, they didn't actively oppose it, so therefore for some unexplained reason it can't be racist even if it fits the definition of racism I gave in R1".
CON once again makes an unsupportec claim, his link not going through to anything.
I disagree on all counts and as he hasn't backed up his point with evidence or logic, there isn't really much more necessary to say than that.
However I will point out that he has already conceded that lack of social mobility (people born to rich families being likely to grow up rich themselves, etc) is real, stating "There is no question that it is easier for those born into rich families to succeed".
Therefore this entire section doesn't matter. Even if he had provided something to back up his claim that single motherhood is the main cause, that doesn't stop past discrimination and lack of social mobility from being a significant but secondary cause. Nothing in my argument requires that it be the single biggest determiner and as CON has already conceded on all significant issues relating to it, he cedes the point.
Also in reference to the Brooking Institute - I singled out the Cato Institute as an aside after mentioning and explaining how the article was completely irrelevent and you must have C+Ped the wrong article. Also "In the University of Pennsylvania's 2015 Global Go To Think Tanks Report, Brookings was named "Think Tank of the Year," "Best Think Tank in the World," and "Best Think Tank in the U.S.A." for the ninth consecutive year".