The Instigator
Kelisitaan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jo154676
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Institutional racism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
jo154676
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,007 times Debate No: 98369
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Kelisitaan

Pro

Burden of proof is on pro to prove that there is racism against the aforementioned minority groups in America. The debate is not about whether or not there are a few racist people in the country, that is obvious. I am looking for someone to prove that there is "institutional racism" in America.

Institutional racism- a pattern of social institutions " such as governmental organizations, schools, banks, and courts of law " giving negative treatment to a group of people based on their race.

Structure R1 con arguments
R2 pro rebuttal Pro defense
R3 pro final rebuttal con sacrifices this round as I did not make arguments in R1
jo154676

Con

I will be arguing that there is no institutional racism in America against blacks, hispanics or people who are non straight. Considering that I am con this structure makes no sense so I will sacrifice this round for acceptance and allow pro to make his first arguments in R2 giving me a final rebuttal in R3.
Debate Round No. 1
Kelisitaan

Pro

I quoted the exact text from Con and reposted it into this argument; these were his exact words. The reason I did not accept his version of the debate was that I was unable to do so because of having no debates under my belt.

Having said that, in the original argument (copy/pasted from his words), he never mentioned specific racial groups, rather minorities in general. So, of course, my main evidence would be #1 affirmative action. It goes without saying that affirmative action is racist against Asians. However, since he's changing the argument, we can move onto #2

#2 The reality is, practically EVERYONE is a little biased, and a significant number of people are at least a little bit racist as well. Because of these biases, of course there is institutional racism; almost everyone is a little bit racist or biased.

However, the argument really should be HOW MUCH institutional racism accounts for hardships, not whether or not it exists. Personally, I believe it's rather insignificant (especially far less significant than people believe it is). Nevertheless, the argument is about whether or not it EXISTS, not how SIGNIFICANT it is.
jo154676

Con

First off you did not copy paste and you changed the title of the debate. The exact format I wrote is copied below and can be viewed at the link at the bottom.

"Burden of proof is on pro to prove that there is racism against the aforementioned minority groups in America. The debate is not about whether or not there are a few racist people in the country, that is obvious. I am looking for someone to prove that there is "institutional racism" in America.

Institutional racism- a pattern of social institutions " such as governmental organizations, schools, banks, and courts of law " giving negative treatment to a group of people based on their race.

Structure R1 pro arguments
R2 Con rebuttal Pro defense
R3 con final rebuttal Pro sacrifices this round as I did not make arguments in R1" (1)

"Everyone is a little biased"

Yes this is true but this does not mean that everyone exhibits instutitional racism, people have thought all the time that they do not act on, and they do not necessarily have to let it impact their decisions. For example, if I see a really hot woman at the mall there are going to be thoughts that go through my head, but I can choose whether or not to act on them, and as long as I choose to ignore them then that is harmless. Have I driven through an inner city and been slightly intimidated? Yes but as long as it remains a thought in my head there is nothing wrong and that is not classified as institutional racism. I think you misunderstand the word institutional racism, as nobody denies that people have prejudices, everyone judges everyone that is human nature, the question is whether or not that is manifesting itself in mistreatment towards the groups I mentioned.

1. (http://www.debate.org...)
Debate Round No. 2
Kelisitaan

Pro

I agree that not everyone acts on his or her biases; however, everyone does not need to act on his or her biases in order for there to be institutional racism. As long as some people act on their biases, there will be institutional racism. Will it be significant? Perhaps, and perhaps not, but that's not the argument.

As long as institutional racism is greater than 0 (no racism), even if it is insignificant, it still exists. Even if some people do not act on their biases, there is still institutional racism, although it's obviously less impactful than if everyone were to act on their biases.

In other words, even if only 5% of people act on their biases (when in reality, it's more like 80%+ of people), institutional racism still exists.
jo154676

Con

Ok no because once again institutional racism does not refer to a random person on the street's biases, this is referring to government organizations disciminating against these groups, or banks not giving loans for racial reasons. It doesn't matter if John Smith is scared of black people, it matters if the judge sentences them to longer sentences just because of their color. And the fact of the matter is that this does not happen and you have yet to prove that any institution discriminates based on the color of their skin.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: EXOPrimal// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and S&G were equal. Neither side used sources, because of this I will assume any statistic is false. I vote Con because he has very strong argument about how institutional racism does not exist, and holds his ground. His argument "not everyone acts on his or her biases" made a very good impression on me. Pro's argument is geared towards racism instead of institutional racism, which Con points out in R3. This is an incorrect because in the topic that was defined in R1 there is a line that says "The debate is not about whether or not there are a few racist people in the country" which tears apart Pro's argument.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter explains their decision by pointing to specific arguments made by both debaters. While it is true that the voter ignores the structure of the arguments as posted by Pro in R1, the voter is not required to award points on that basis or to explain why they chose not to do so. This is for 2 reasons. First, Con responds to that structure in the first round, choosing not to post arguments in his first round, and stating clearly that he will post a final rebuttal in the last round. Pro does not address this at any point thereafter. Second, Pro doesn"t establish any specific result of violation of his structure in any round. As it stands, this "rule" could be a suggestion rather than a requirement, and as such, it need not be addressed by the voter.
************************************************************************
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EXOPrimal 1 year ago
EXOPrimal
Kelisitaanjo154676Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and S&G were equal. Neither side used sources, because of this I will assume any statistic is false. I vote Con because he has very strong argument about how institutional racism does not exist, and holds his ground. His argument "not everyone acts on his or her biases" made a very good impression on me. Pro's argument is geared towards racism instead of institutional racism, which Con points out in R3. This is an incorrect because in the topic that was defined in R1 there is a line that says "The debate is not about whether or not there are a few racist people in the country" which tears apart Pro's argument.