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

Referencing my opponent's argument in the comments section as he missed the deadline for R4:Capitalism 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 racismMy 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 StudyMy opponent seems no to have actually read the study he cited in R3[1] 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.DrugsI'm unsure what CON thinks his link does to support his claims.It shows that the congressman sponsoring the bill was white[2] 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?Replacement StudyMy 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."[1] http://goo.gl...;[2] https://www.congress.gov...[3] https://goo.gl...