Forced integration should have not been done

Who cares? What does it matter who enforces it?

  I don't think you're delusional about the existence or what has existed referred to as forced integration.

• You can have no genuine information about my mental state and are not invited to speculate.   Either get specific about what you are talking about or else admit you don't know what you are talking about and concede, please.
  

Boy that disclaimer goes over y'all's heads.

The aim of this interaction, Is ... Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth

Freedom of association is democracy, democracy is freedom of association.  Meaning the choice of associating is democratic or voluntary.

• PRO concurs that FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION is vital to any healthy democracy.
  

If you don't want me in your business establishments, schools, communities, neighborhoods, I won't waste effort on a focus to make unity .  Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

An example of forced integration is like I said with a business, the proprietor only wants to serve certain individuals.  The law comes forth to change that to serve any and all individuals.

If you disagree, would you go where you're not wanted if you had other constructive choices?

• "Constructive choices" is highly relative and situational, so much so that the law can't be expected to account for it.
  
• Let's take for example, a rural gas station run by white supremacists.  No non-whites allowed.
  
• How far away  does one have to be from the nearest gas station that allows non-white business to qualify as a constructive  choice?  20 miles?  10miles? 1mile?
  
• It almost doesn't make a difference because there always be some non-white who's running on fumes who will denied a fairly important access to product.  What if the non-white loses his job because he ran out of gas?  What if a woman dies in labor because she ran out of gas that a whites only station refused to provide?
  
• There's no way to account for the needs and situations of all people wherein  any public segregation is not very likely to deny the segregated their equal freedom to associate.
  
• If there's a modern, reasonable gas station right next door, freedom of association is not greatly harmed by such prohibition.
  
• But, of course, then the supremacist station is fucked either way.  
  
• If they advertise their "whites only" policy, almost everybody including whites are going to prefer the modern, reasonable gas station for their business.
  
• If they don't advertise their "whites only" policy then the will run into the problem of constant enforcement, driving disgruntled and inconvenienced non-whites away from their pumps.  Intervention by law enforcement and public objection will again shut the supremacist station down.
  

It's hard because what I'm saying is correct and not really controversial.

Don't try looking for something to refute if it's not there.   The size of it all, the meat of it is basically everything that has been stated and put forth thus far.  Are you saying something like this is impossible or never happened?  These topics are not farfetched or out of reach. Reluctancy to associate isn't a fairy tale.  Just using myself as an example, if I have to work with someone I desire not to , that is forced integration .

• PRO has not objected to any of CON's definitions.  CON's definitions stand for this debate.
  

• If you want to run a Whites only Klan meeting out of your mother's basement, then the freedom of non-whites to associate is not much infringed and such kind of private segregation ought to be generally permissible.
  
• Let's take for example, a rural gas station run by white supremacists.  No non-whites allowed.
  
• How far away  does one have to be from the nearest gas station that allows non-white business to qualify as a constructive  choice?  20 miles?  10miles? 1mile?
  
• It almost doesn't make a difference because there always be some non-white who's running on fumes who will denied a fairly important access to product.  What if the non-white loses his job because he ran out of gas?  What if a woman dies in labor because she ran out of gas that a whites only station refused to provide?
  
• There's no way to account for the needs and situations of all people wherein  any public segregation is not very likely to deny the segregated their equal freedom to associate.
  
• If there's a modern, reasonable gas station right next door, freedom of association is not greatly harmed by such prohibition.
  
• But, of course, then the supremacist station is fucked either way.  
  
• If they advertise their "whites only" policy, almost everybody including whites are going to prefer the modern, reasonable gas station for their business.
  
• If they don't advertise their "whites only" policy then the will run into the problem of constant enforcement, driving disgruntled and inconvenienced non-whites away from their pumps.  Intervention by law enforcement and public objection will again shut the supremacist station down.
  

• Not much of an argument unless you want to get more specific.  I can't tell if you're talking about Ty Cobb or Adolph Hitler here.
  

• I am.  Certainly, no debater could argue that they support every American's Right to Free Association and not see sundown towns a racist,  ignorant, violent violation of that fundamental human right.
  

I don't know 

• MILITARY
  
• PRO forgets that the whole notion of democracy rose out of the comradery discovered by Greek Hoplites who had to closely synchronize their movements in order to form a fast moving, effective phalanx.  The Greek's superior cohesion and morale famously powered their armies to victories over vast armies of slaves segregated by tribe and satrapy.
  
• An effective army formation has to be cohesive on multiple levels.  If half a platoon is wiped out in an attack, a Captain needs to be able to re-assign his troops according to training and need, not irrelevant considerations like skin color.  This dynamic is true on any scale.  It would be unacceptable for a division to lose fighting power or cohesion just because some soldiers insisted on prioritizing their irrational antipathies.
  
• Would tanks lie idle in battle because there were no white drivers left to run the white only tanks?
  
• Would white brigades refuse a black colonels orders on the battlefield?
  
• Nor should taxpayers indulge the wasteful over-expenditure separate facilities according to old-fashioned superstitions.
  
• Far better for generals to simply advise that tiny minority of bigots who will not work with other races to defend their nation that the nation is better off without them and they should refrain from enlistment altogether.
  
• That's how it works now- voluntary self-segregation and deferral- which is a far different dynamic than forced integration.
  

• Not fine in most public situations.  Equality, freedom of association, capitalist competition, etc is deeply harmed by PRO's demand that his unscientific bigotry be respected.
  
• CON demonstrated in R3 that segregation would harm military readiness, integrity, morale and the only harm has to weigh against these is the personal discomfort of the least educated, least modern thinkers in our society.  The US military is increasingly a high tech environment that needs men and women who trust science, who trust the American project, who trust one another to go into combat.  Let's agree that not only should the US Military never choose the greater expense and harms of accommodating the irrational discomforts of bigots but given those harms, the US Military should disqualify segregationists as incompatible the US Military's objectives.
  

• Agreed but only in private venues.  PRO has no rational cause for denying other citizens' rights to equality and freedom of association based on old-fashioned unscientific antipathies of the ignorant few.  PRO has a right to not be around people he doesn't want to on his personal property but that silly nonsense can't be enforced in any public venue.