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

Jim CrowJim 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."[1]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."[2]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[3], Irish[4] and Italians[5] 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[6].This argument from CON is clearly highly iideological and completely inconsistent with reality and so can be ignored.University of Iowa StudyCon'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 racistNo, 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".Black PovertyCON 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"[9].[2] http://goo.gl...[3] http://imgur.com...[4] http://goo.gl...[5] http://i.imgur.com...[6] http://goo.gl...[7] http://goo.gl...[8] https://goo.gl...[9] https://goo.gl...;