Black Culture in the United States

I will spend this round responding to my opponent's opening case.OverviewAs a judge, in order to understand how to evaluate this debate, I feel I must offer you an explanation of necessity and sufficiency in context of the resolution. The resolution states: Black Culture in the United States of America necessarily maintains the foundations of racial thinking required for racism to exist.Necessity in context of the resolution means that the maintenance of the foundations of racial thinking required for racism to exist necessarily, or is determined to - in the same vein as inevitability - occur due to Black Culture in the United States of America. In other words, I am arguing that this sort of racial thinking is ALWAYS sustainable by Black Culture. I am not, however, arguing for sufficiency. In other words, while Black Culture necessarily allows for this racial thinking to occur, I do not have to hold that this racial thinking is sufficient for racism to exist, or that other causes of racism themselves are NOT sufficient for racism to exist. Let me explain:1. The resolution does not state that Black Culture causes racism, but that it allows for racism to exist. Therefore I do not have to prove that Black Culture is sufficient for racism to exist, and I don't even have to prove that Black Culture is necessary for racism to exist (that racism cannot exist without Black Culture), but I only must prove that the foundations of racism necessarily exist whenever Black Culture exists as it does in the United States.2. If my opponent proves that culture or neurology are sufficient for racial think and therefore sufficient for racism, which is the essence of his argument, that is not enough to negate the resolution as the resolution does not demand that I prove Black Culture is the only concept providing a foundation for racism. I only must prove that such a foundation necessarily exists due to Black Culture. Therefore my opponent's entire case is irrelevant, as his burden, rather than proving alternative pathways to racism, is to prove that the racial think that allows for racism to exist is not necessarily entrenched in black culture.With that said, I have 8,000 characters left and will be addressing my opponents sources at the very least.Con Sources1. This isn't the KKK website. This is the party of The Knight's Party, a political party in the United States. They even say in their FAQ that they are a political organization and that the Ku Klux Klan is a public domain term usable by anyone. Furthermore, the idea that they admit on their website that racism is past down generationally in their organization is a blatant lie. They state, also in the FAQ, that they do NOT believe in racial supremacy and do NOT support the killing of blacks, but actually reject those who killed blacks in the past under the guise of the KKK as radicals and not true klansmen. The website my opponent uses argues that the goal of the KKK is to preserve the existence of white Christians, whom they believe to be under attack due to the easiness of negatively stereotyping whites and Christians making for a deadly concoction of stereotypical thinking that could be used to assault the White Christian image. In fact, they are fighting AGAINST racial thinking and are fine living alongside blacks, so long as those blacks don't try to destroy White Christianity. They argue that Christianity is beneficial to ALL races, and the ability for a White person to uphold Christian values should not be destroyed. Whether or not The Knights Party upholds the traditional conception of the KKK is irrelevant, as this is the source my opponent provided.2. Nowhere in this source is either clause of my opponent's statement, "Being taught like this from early childhood is hard to break out of, parents impact their children hugely", or the following derivative statement, "If your parents and those around you all strongly believe, and tell you something from an early age, you are most likely to follow en suite" proved to be true. The source literally says, and I quote, "For some, prejudice can be a family value." Furthermore, "children can feel some loyalty to uphold negative attitudes". Nowhere does the author draw the relationship of parental bias and child influence to be more than a possibility. Furthermore, even with the acknowledgement that it is possible that parents influence their children, my opponent claims that this source argues that these biases are hard to break as a child, a claim NEVER made in the entire article. My opponent also also claims you are "most likely" to believe what your parents believe, when again, it was never argued from the author as more than a possibility. This is a blatant misinterpretation of the evidence he provides.3. This one at least links to his argument in a way that the author wouldn't feel violated.4. Not really sure why this is cited, it's not clear what part relates to his prior argument.5/6. These are simply explaining that the PFC operates subconsciously, it's hard to misinterpret that.7. This is cited as support of the statement, "The amygdale feeds information to the prefrontal cortex, including these racial stereotypes." Nowhere in this entire book does the topic of racial stereotypes come up. He literally just grabbed a random book on google books, made a claim on his own, and posted the book as a source as if the author was making such an argument. The book he cited speaks of the relationship of the amygdale and the PFC, not about racial stereotypes. This claim by my opponent is a straight-up lie.8. Same as source 3.Now, we see that in 8 sources, 2 are literally definitions and cannot really be misconstrued. That leaves 6 analytical sources (if you include the wikipedia argument that makes no positive arguments, but rather is explanatory in nature and also doesn't talk to my opponent's argument in any tangible way, but we'll grant it for arguments sake). Of these 6, half of them are represented in a manner that is academically dishonest.Con should be voted down on the basis that his representation of his sources are blatant lies. Ultimately Debate.org is an educational site at its heart. Members come to the site for intellectual stimulation. As a result, activities that deteriorate the educational nature of debate.org should be frowned upon, and activities that are intrinsically anti-educational should be met with votes in opposition. Your RFD and your vote represents your stance on what DDO should represent and whether or not DDO ought to allow for anti-educational practices such as academic dishonesty. Here are a few ways in which my opponent's antics are anti-education:A. Violation of academic standards of accurate representationSources 1, 2, and 7 are clearly misrepresented. I pointed to locations within the sources that directly contradict what my opponent claims that they are supposed to be arguing. This is the equivalent of me quoting Kant in a debate on ethics and arguing that he defends utilitarianism in the form of universalized sexual hedonism. Such an argument, in its inaccuracy, pollutes our understanding on Kant and more broadly the topic literature on ethics. If we are to accept such an argument as true, we disenfranchise ourselves from being able to aptly partake in a philosophical discussion of ethics as our understanding of Kant, a core ethicist, would be fundamentally contrasted with everyone else's understanding of Kant, and discourse requires a mutual foundation of understanding to be productive and education. While not misquoting Kant, he is misquoting three authors and warping their arguments for his benefits, not only preventing us from understanding the true nature of the arguments, but also promoting the misunderstanding of those arguments in a way that is fundamentally anti-educational.B. Violates the educational principle of truth-seekingThe point of intellectual discourse is to come closer to the truth. When we misconstrue arguments are muddy the waters and leave the discussion less informed than when we entered it in the sense that being misinformed is worse than not knowing at all. Sure, both debaters are trying to win, but they should make that effort to win in a manner that promotes the educational nature of debate as debate is, at its core, an educational activity. It's perfectly okay to play devil's advocate and to defend an argument you believe to be false, insofar as defending that argument makes you more aptly aware of its intricacies and therefore gives you a better understanding of their nature. Warping facts from their essential objectivity to a subjective perversion of truth in order to support your argument necessarily warps debate from an activity in which participants seek to leave a discussion more informed than when they entered, which is the heart of DDO, into an activity in which the truth is meaningless and rather debaters main aim would then be to avoid meaningful discourse in order to win through technicalities. Truth-seeking upholds the educational nature of DDO and debate as an activity while the misrepresentation of evidence is thereby anti-educational.UnderviewFirst in foremost, as a judge you ought to vote against my opponent for so blatantly abusing the evidence he provided. Not voting on this issue is raises into question the value of DDO at all. Even if you don't vote against my opponent for his unethical and anti-educational behavior, you still don't look to his arguments as they are non-responsive to the resolution. Finally, I am confident that as the debate continues I will prove the soundness of my opening case, giving you a clear place to vote if you believe that DDO should not promote content of value over game-theory optimized debates in which participants are exploitative rather than intellectual. Thank you for your time and consideration.