African-Americans are victims of systematic racism in the modern day US.

Sorry to hear about that JDiamond. Commiserations on your loss.RedliningContrary 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. "[1]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. [1] 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".[2]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." [4]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 RacismPast RacismCON 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 HouseholdDue 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.[1] http://goo.gl...[2]http://goo.gl...[3] http://goo.gl...[4] http://goo.gl...