The majority of current policing racial disparities in the United States are a result of police racism

nah. They should probably go with the crowd and debate if Barney is a great debater. Apparently this is the biggest issue of our time.

They should debate Snickers vs. Milky Way bars.

Are you guys gonna debate something?

I know SupaDudz is stupid, so I was hoping you could help her
==================

And I know you are not a good debater

This debate has been reverted to rated, both on the basis that it finished as a rated debate and because it was not obviously spam. That being said, as a repeat of this debate was posted with the same opponent, a repeat performance in that debate will be treated as spam. I will similarly revert that debate to rated.

Merriam-Webster:
4a: to make the offer of : PROFFER
extending aid to the needy
extending their greetings
b: to make available
extending credit to customers

By saying "extend," I thought he was offering for PRO to make his first argument rather than accepting forfeiture of the debate.

In what dictionary does extend mean "I will give you a chance to reply". It clearly gives, especially in this site, an indication that no further arguments need to be made, and that all that has been said is to the sufficient liking of the contender.

This is a spam debate, therefore it is unrated

As stated before, we have a moderator acting like an idiot here. I will re-state each proposition.

So, (1) I did not consent for this debate to be made unrated, (2) This is not a spam debate, it was made well in advance (3) the debate is already in the voting stage. Please change this debate back to rated. Moderators have no right to change any full forfeit debate to unrated otherwise they would do this consistently with every full forfeit. I know SupaDudz is stupid, so I was hoping you could help here, because it seems obvious that once again, moderators that just can't control their emotions are abusing their power.

This is a spam debate, therefore it is unrated

I did not give permission for this debate to be changed to "unrated." Please change it back immediately.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "extend," means "I'll give you another chance to make your argument." Extend just means I am extending what I have said. Now unless you are mind-reading, this proposition is going to be incoherent.

But even if it did mean this, there is still no rule against this, so you would be wrong regardless of the truth value of that proposition. I don't understand how much clearer this could be.

First the proposition is not going to be true unless you claim to be doing some weird mind-reading thing, and second, even it it was, it isn't going to break any of the rules of the debate as I laid them out.

Extend = I'll give you another chance to make your argument.

By saying "extend" in the last round, you are offering him the opportunity to break the rules.

So you are not adhering to the debate rules.

Okay, I see no reason to believe in P3. I did not tell pro anything, unless you can show me where I did? Also, even if we grant that I did, that still would not be against any of the rules, so you would be wrong in both cases.

P1: CON and PRO both agree to follow the rules.
P2: The rules state PRO will waive the last round.
P3: CON tells PRO to make an argument in the last round.
P4: CON accepted that PRO will not make an argument in the last round already as per the rules.
P5: CON already agreed that this would not happen.
C: Therefore CON is not adhering to the rules by asking PRO to make an argument in the last round.

I didn't ask pro anything, I don't understand the inference here, this makes no sense? What is the syllogism for that?
Also, what argument did pro make, I don't know what debate you are looking at? Do you think the words "no, no," are an argument? By that same logic me saying "Extend," would be an argument. If not, what is the symmetry breaker?

Well, as I stated in my RFD:
"PRO was supposed to waive round 4, and CON also broke this rule by offering to extend PRO's opening argument into Round 4."

You broke the rule by asking him to break the rules. The rule was that he must waive round 4. You extended the argument to round four, effectively saying "I want you to break the rules in this round even though you forfeited." You also have to adhere to the rule just as much as he does. So egging him on to break the rules is also breaking the rules.

I was gonna give it to PRO initially because he at least made an argument and you didn't. But since he was required to waive round 4, it voided his argument in round 4. So conduct ultimately went to you since you gave him multiple chances to make his opening argument.

How did I possibly break the rules by my conduct in round 4? What is the argument for that?

Sounds like that is an issue that should be addressed, perhaps by not posting late votes until they have been reviewed by mods? It would be more intensive on mod hours, but I can't think of a better way, other than a waiting period between votes closing and the winner being announced when votes can still be reported and removed.

"Actions can 100% be racist"

Well it appears we are working from two different definitions of racism.

The one I am arguing under is this one (in Merriam Webster):
behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice.

You can have discrimination and prejudice but it may not be racist. It is only racist if the behavior or attitudes reflect a racist belief. Ergo, to perform a racist action, you first must actually be racist.

Sure, actions can still be damaging to people, but for an action to be racist it must have racist intent.

You seem to be working under definition 2a:
the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another.

By that definition a person can be "accidentally racist" or do racist actions without any sort of racist intent or knowledge. The belief in racism doesn't have to be a part of the equation here.

Personally, I disagree with definition 2a. You can unwittingly do racist things and not realize they are racist. But you weren't actually trying to oppress people. That is damaging, sure. But it isn't racist because there was no racist intent.

It isn't like murder which is an action. You don't need intent to prove murder. But you need intent to prove racism.

Troll votes only get removed generally if they appear before 2 hours left on the clock.

Even I had unwittingly slipped a vote past the mods by posting it too late (this was one of my first votes). Whiteflame messaged me later and said "just for the record, we would have removed it had we had the time." Then I had a huge Q&A with him on how to properly vote.

So if it happens to people who don't have any ill intent and are trying to vote in good faith, then it is easy for trolls to also vote.

Because anyone who trolls often enough to make your blacklist should just be banned in general by moderation.

I don't understand why I would wait for troll votes to be removed as opposed to banning the trolls from voting preemptively? If I had a farm, I would build a pig pen, rather than wait for pigs to run wild and damage my property.

My experience has been that troll votes get removed the majority of the time. I also don't consider Barney to be a troll, so not sure why you think we would agree.

I have no idea why you take such concern with me banning trolls from voting on my debates. I would have though we would agree on this.

Actions can 100% be racist.

Intent is all estimation and guesswork. Even if someone 'admits' their intent, they could be partially lying even to themselves.

Is novice's restriction on voters valid? Generally speaking rules in the description apply to the debating parties, and Barney is for sure eligible to vote, I'm not sure what Shila and FLRW's current status in that regard is, but surely this type of restriction is unfair. Imagine if I made a debate where the description said only 1 person of my choosing could vote, this would clearly violate the spirit of DArt's voting system.

I don't follow.

"Racism will be defined as prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group,"

And "The police are the civil force of a national or local government, responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order."

To me it sounds like the debate is over whether the police engage in racism. This is a completely winnable topic. Many of the current police chiefs and other leadership and even police themselves are white supremacists or holdovers from the 50s-era of policing. The Intercept wrote on this and the Marshall Project has a hefty collection of individual racist events.

Yeah it's harder than actions but can we really call an action racist? The intent has to matter too.

No it doesn't. Look at the title and what it's making Pro have to defend.

You can't prove racism within people, you can only prove racist tendencies in what they do or say.

Well Novice agreed to make BoP shared. So that at least stops that from happening.

I want to accept with BoP being shared but the only other thing is I have company coming in on Friday so I can't have a debate-a-thon this weekend. For 10,000 characters I'd want a longer debate time so I can read it and actually write a response.

I agreed until the last line you wrote. This is clearly loaded as fuck, allowing Con to divert any racial disparity in treatment to a cause other than the racism.

I can make Bop shared

I wish you the best. I want to debate you on this topic but can't accept the terms. BoP should always be shared.

If not then you can assert whatever crazy or inaccurate claim you want and you are completely absolved from the consequences for it. That hardly seems fair to me. But whatever I cite, all you have to do is assert a lie about my data and your claim has complete validity because you don't need burden of proof. I have no counter because you don't need to prove what you're saying at all. Even if I proved it, it wouldn't matter anyways because you don't need to prove your assertions. So voting would literally just default to you.

So for whomever accepts this it will be interesting.