Is voluntary racial segregation in schools harmful to students and society.

I want to first start by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate. This is our third debate together, so it is likely I found a new sparing partner in this realm. Even though my opponent and I disagree on a lot I do respect that he is willing to debate anyone, as I have followed some of his debates for a few years on and off. As we move through this debate, I will mention that this sort of discussion gives a variety of different opinions from the political isle so, even though I doubt my opponent will change his mind, I do hope the audience can learn something from these exchanges. Throughout this debate, I won’t argue that segregation is racist, mainly that the effects are negative due to this being considered by choice forms of segregation.

Definitions and Methodology 

This debate is focusing on voluntary segregation and not Jim Crow segregation. This style of segregation is called de facto segregation and is defined as a separation of groups, particularly racial groups, that occurs as a result of social, economic, or cultural factors rather than legal requirements or government actions (Kelly, 2022). To measure the effects on this in society I will measure this through quantitative and qualitative research as individuals such as Friedman, 2006 would say. Using data and research dealing with items surrounding voluntary segregation I will help show the effects of how segregation affects students and society at large. With data showing the effects of segregation, I will make a three prong case that will meet my sides burden of proof for this debate.

Affects opportunities 

One of the main things that people may not know is that scholars such as Frankenburg have already done national, state, and city level studies which show that segregation is already happening and is progressively getting worse (Frankenburg, 2011; Vas Helig, 2019). Individuals such as Berliner and Herman’s note that even without alternative schools such as private and charter schools, the public school system failed at desegregating schools. Currently how segregation works in schools is that individuals can choose to go to a public school based on where they live, pay for a private school, or pay for a voucher to go to either a charter school or a private school. The main concern with this is that scholars note that schools are funded through local property tax (Berliner & Herman’s, 2022). This means that poorer schools in a district will get less funds than schools in richer neighborhoods. Vouchers to attend an alternative school are cited by Berliner and Herman’s as a way a child can go to a different school, but with an important caveat. This caveat is that the voucher takes money from the public school that the student was supposed to attend, and then uses it to fund either the private or charter school that the student is attempting to go to. So for this contention, segregation hurts students and society, because it leads to poorer students of different races to achieve a lesser quality of education due to lack of funds. 

Segregated Schools Perform Worse

To build from my last contention I will briefly mention that some research has been done to view how segregated schools perform vs. desegregated schools. Scholars such as Darling Hammon show that predominately minority schools perform lower on things such as standardized tests and other performance metrics. The consensus from scholars is this isn’t attributed to race, but lack of funding due to how schools are funded. Segregation inadvertently affects the funding issues, as scholars like Berliner & Herman’s often note, which shows lack of funding has negative effects. Additional scholarship yields hints to possible solutions to this problem. Researchers such as Sean Reardon note that the achievement improvement for minorities was larger in the 60s-70s while desegregation efforts were stronger. Individuals such as Sarah Rebner mention similar findings. When viewing our current time period, scholars such as Wells mention that racially diverse schools often have better performance. Now more research needs to be done on this last claim because schools for the most part are heavily segregated, and some research does suggest that minorities will need more than just integration to perform better due to possible racial issues between minority students and white students. This is where contention three becomes extremely important.

Lack of Exposure to Different Groups

The affects of segregation negatively impacting schools through a performance lens isn’t the only concern, but lack of exposure to different races can cause other issues such as lack of exposure or understanding about different racial groups issues. Scholars such as John Hale in his book the choice we make argues that this system that we have set up is done purposely to keep races away from each other, so that other racial groups aren’t exposed to each other. I won’t necessarily make the claim that the current school system is set up in a racist way like this scholar, but it is true that lack of exposure to different groups is shown to happen due to our schools being segregated. I mention this because minorities are affected by high rates of hate crimes (University of Washington), they are affected by workplace discrimination (Pew research), they are affected by hiring discrimination (Pew research) and a lot more. Basically minorities go through discrimination and as scholars such as Jarvis givens mention, white people often struggle to see it. Research shows that when schools are more desegregated, that individuals are shown to be less prejudice. Studies from our current day and age and in the 70s show this, but from viewing history, we can also see this by how race relations over time got better. Now more will have to be done than this to fix racial injustice in this country, but this is a good first step. That means that for this contention, it affects students and society through keeping individuals from understanding different groups. This eventually will impact society as students have grown up, and I would say that we currently see these effects today. 

Conclusion

To conclude, this topic is not an easy one to solve, because there isn’t a uniform consensus on scholarship for how to solve segregation issues. Some scholars even feel that this isn’t an issue to solve such as Brennan and Barroway, so I am curious where my opponent will land on this issue. Even with this not being universally agreed upon for how to solve this issue, most of my contentions that I have used are findings that majority of scholars notice when studying the data. That is that segregation causes unequal funding for minority students, it does often cause them to perform worse, and that research shows that when schools are integrated more, it reduces racial bias and is the first step towards some form of unity. Their is of course more to this, because racism would not be fixed from this alone, and their are many other fair critiques that one could derive from this case. With this debate being titled is “Is voluntary racial segregation in schools harmful to students and society.” The results are clear that segregation does harm students and society through funding issues, performance issues, and through lack of exposure to different groups. Now with this debate being a shared burden of proof debate my opponent must show that these points are flawed and that segregation in schools doesn’t hurt students and society. This can be done through a few different means such as research, data, or policy information. I will again end by thanking my opponent and I look forward to his response.

References 

https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/de-facto-segregation

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/unequal-opportunity-race-and-education/

https://cepa.stanford.edu/content/separate-still-unequal-new-evidence-school-segregation-and-racial-academic-achievement-gaps

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3443&context=lcp

https://blogs.baylor.edu/baylorlibraries/2024/06/12/bcpm-school-desegregation-vs-school-integration/

https://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2004/march/how-desegregation-changed-us-the-effects-of-racially-mixed-/

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/31/black-workers-views-and-experiences-in-the-us-labor-force-stand-out-in-key-ways/

https://epi.washington.edu/news/blacks-minorities-disproportionately-impacted-by-hate-crimes/

Field, A. P. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS. Sage Publications

Friedman, B. D. (2006). The research tool kit: Putting it all together. Thomson Brooks/Cole.

https://drake.ecampus.com/choice-we-face-how-segregation-race-power/bk/9780807087480#:~:text=In%20The%20Choice%20We%20Face,our%20broken%20public%20school%20system.

Frankenberg, E., Siegel-Hawley, G., & Wang, J. (2011). Choice without equity: charter school segregation. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19, 1. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v19n1.2011

Vasquez Heilig, J., Brewer, T. J., & Williams, Y. (2019). Choice without inclusion?: Comparing the intensity of racial segregation in charters and public schools at the local, state and National Levels. Education Sciences, 9(3), 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9030205

Introduction 

I will start by thanking my opponent again because based on his reply I do feel this will be a good one. Some critiques are fair, while others I feel are not matched best with reality. To start I must mention that my opponent has not responded to much of the data I presented or my main points but instead focused on building his own case. Remember that the debate is “Is voluntary racial segregation in schools harmful to students and society.” This means my opponent must try and disprove my data, because my cumulative case does show that it creates harm to students and society. My opponent does stay in the debate topic, but it should be noted without disproving my main points, this criteria stands. Part of this is due to this being done in a research methods format where reliability/consistency between studies and data, often shows more accurate results as mentioned by Andy Field.

Affects Opportunities

Now my opponent mentions that he champions voluntary segregation and separate but equal. He also mentions that it is no more harmful than society already is. There are several issues with this such as, the debate topic asks if it is harmful, and not if it is more harmful than what is already happening in society. Setting this aside, voluntary segregation has been shown to consistently bring worse outcomes due to funding issues (Berliner & Herman’s, 2022; Hammon, 1998). There have even been examples in minority communities where some schools have closed down due to lack of funding, which usually happens in minority communities (Berliner & Herman’s 2022). It is also typically shown that schools that are underfunded often perform worse than schools that have an abundance of funds. Now I know my opponent never championed this, but when viewing rulings such as Plessy vs. Ferguson, it was meant to be separate but equal which allowed forced segregation. Even though he never said by force segregation he did mention the term separate but equal. Separate but equal never worked, which is why cases like Brown  vs. Board and Brown vs. Board 2 happened. Afterwards we went for a more by choice form of segregation that is outlined by school choice, where parents can choose to self segregate. This can be done through different public schools, where minorities receive less resources already to also having choices through school choice. Now school choice provides various different outcomes, but there has been evidence to suggest that it harms certain minority schools through taking funding from their neighboring public schools. This is due to property taxes not being as much in these communities and schools are funded through local property tax. When we account for the history of redlining this becomes worse because many schools that are segregated have been destined to be underfunded with less help, because of neighborhood segregation.

Lack of Exposure to Different Groups

My opponent in this debate has made a few different points such as voluntary integration is harmful and liberals often push this. Contrary to what my opponent thinks the liberal position on this differs depending on scholarship. Some believe in forced integration, while others don’t. I fall into the later camp, and with this debate focusing on if it is harmful, I don’t have to argue for a solution to segregation. If he is interested I will present my solution in a future round. I would argue that my opponent should read books like the color of law by Richard Rotheistien who outlines that this voluntary segregations isn’t voluntary all the time due to history of redlining. This has been done in history where minorities were restricted in buying property where at the start they were not being allowed to, to later being restricted to buying property in specific neighborhoods. This in total helps facilitate voluntary segregation, because our own history has separated itself. So my opponent saying people can just choose is not the full picture. With properties that most minorities own being worth less, this created a divide where past forced segregation negatively affects school funding, certain students, and even certain individuals in society.

Why need exposure?

My opponent in his response mentions there are certain areas in the world that he wouldn’t travel. I typically wouldn’t think much of this but my opponent mentions that “Just being aware of sociological behaviors and reciprocations.” Now I don’t think this is done to be mean spirited, but this coincides with my previous point that lack of exposure has created racial tensions. I will never say someone should take part in something that may harm them as someone who takes part in self defense training, but the approach my opponent made is ironically why some exposure to different groups needs to happen. To illustrate this I will use my opponents mention of gangs and crime in minority communities. I already mentioned how minorities not being able to buy homes for a decent part of history or being redlined created funding issues, but this also created a mass inequality gap. Along with being poorer scholars such as Jarvis Givens mentioned how minorities around the civil rights time period were constantly locked up and this trend has continued on and off until the current day. Scholars such as Alex Perquio note that their could be different reasons for increased crime rates from some people stating that minorities just commit more violent crime, to this is caused by discrimination/poverty, to a mix of the two. Minority scholars like Annama would state that there is racism from the school to prison pipeline where certain minorities that are younger may commit crimes to ensure protection from certain gang members. This issue is complex to say the least, but the research says in school environments that white individuals become more sympathetic towards minority causes when in desegregated schools. The world has a lot of issues, and we won’t solve a decent portion of them if we remain separated.

Conclusion

 In conclusion, my opponent has not been able to tear my case down. From my opponents reply most of my opening was not addressed, which means these contentions will count as conceded until my opponent answers them. Additionally my opponent mentioned that segregation is no more harmful to what we see in society today which is relatively vague. Additionally he says that desegregation by force would be more harmful. The issue with this is that I never argued for a forced form of desegregation. With this debate being titled “Is voluntary racial segregation in schools harmful to students and society?” I don’t necessarily have to take a position on that. I just have to show by choice segregation is harmful to students and society. This is shown through school funding, academics, and social issues. 

Refrences 

Field, A. P. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS. Sage Publications

Friedman, B. D. (2006). The research tool kit: Putting it all together. Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Annamma, S. A. (2018). The pedagogy of pathologization: DIS. Routledge, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1094202523000169

Frankenberg, E., Siegel-Hawley, G., & Wang, J. (2011). Choice without equity: charter school segregation. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19, 1. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v19n1.2011

Vasquez Heilig, J., Brewer, T. J., & Williams, Y. (2019). Choice without inclusion?: Comparing the intensity of racial segregation in charters and public schools at the local, state and National Levels. Education Sciences, 9(3), 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9030205

https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten-history-of-how-our-government-segregated-america/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plessy_v_ferguson_(1896)

https://ed.stanford.edu/news/70-years-after-brown-v-board-education-new-research-shows-rise-school-segregation

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/349us294

I will start this round by saying that my opponent in his previous round never addressed the core of my arguments. To explain this in principle I am using a simplistic method in research known as reliability, which individuals such as Andy Field would define as whether something can be interpreted consistently across different situations. My opponent in his past round asked a question based on my methodology, which was because I read something does this mean it is true? I never took this position. My methodology used in this debate is that I use research that involves statistical analysis, qualitative data, history, and research studies to make my case. This means through following the concept of reliability the more the data matches a certain trend the more likely it is to be true. This concept is used in behavior science and applied science as noted by many scholars such as Fitzpatrick. The reason my opponent has to disprove my data is due to me making a cumulative case, which shows societal outcomes. Additionally this debate is titled “Is voluntary racial segregation in schools harmful to students and society.”, along with the debate description my opponent accepted stating that he would have to argue that voluntary segregation isn’t harmful. This means my opponent would have to try and either disprove my data or present his own data to show that voluntary segregation isn’t harmful. From my opponents own framing he mentioned in round one that “It is no more harmful than the way society currently is.” This in itself is a claim it has some harm, which part way concedes that it is harmful to some degree.

Affects Opportunities

Since my opponent never tried to argue against my main case, I will continue to build on it due to this framework being the only one presented in this debate so far. To start my opponent claims that I misquoted him a few times in this debate, so I must ask in what way? To illustrate my point the first quote my opponent mentions that I misrepresented was separate but equal due to him saying he said he never supported that. His quote in round one was “I fully champion voluntary segregation. I do not believe in involuntary integration and that it was a bad move on activists to push forced integration. Separate but equal. Separate but equal.” In my reply I mentioned that I don’t claim my opponent mentions that he believes in forced segregation, but the concept of separate but equal never works. This is relevant to this debate because past segregational rulings like Plessy v Ferguson ruled on separate but equal, which in the past lead to underfunding of minority schools. As scholars like Berliner & Herman’s note, we are still segregated today where minority schools get less funds due to property tax being different. This means outcomes such as performance at certain schools are negatively affected, being able to see how certain groups are affected in their environment are negatively effected, and the possibility of helping issues that effect minority communities are negatively effected (Sean Reardon). This is all relevant, which I presented previously, which my opponent never addressed. 

Lack of exposure to different groups

My opponent mentioned me saying that he said “voluntary integration is harmful and liberals often push this” is a misquote. I can partially see the misunderstanding because I was replying to him saying forced integration so the word voluntary is a typo. Underneath this quote I used the word forced integration so the explanation remains the same as my previous reply. The reply mentions that forced integration is not something all liberals push. To expand on my opponents quote he says “Down throughout history, this has been demonstrated. It is error to impose forced integration like imposing the acceptance of homosexuality, abortion, etc. These are harmful matters. It's all liberalism. The liberal individuals that have pushed for civil rights, pushing for assimilation, caused continuous plight for a chance to eat at the master's table.” This means me mentioning him saying liberals pushing forced integration isn’t wrong unless I misunderstood the quote. The issue with this is scholars who are liberal who don’t like voluntary segregation often write about this issue which is seen in the book “Defending Public Education: Defending a Conterstone of American Democracy. With large systemic changes scholars such as Fitzpatrick mention that you would have to make large broad changes that go through systems. This means that going through certain channels to make equitable changes could reduce segregation over time, without having to force integration. With this debate being title “Is voluntary racial segregation in schools harmful to students and society.” I don’t have to argue for forced integration and many individuals who dislike voluntary segregation actually aren’t in favor of getting rid of choice. This has to do with this system being around since the 90s, so you would have to focus on shooting for equal funding, a more in depth black history curriculum, and fixing economic inequality. None of these items relate to the debate in question, but show you can support broader change that could possibly fix the issue of segregation. If I misquoted my opponent I would like him to clarify so the conversation is more productive.

Why need exposure?

Ironically whether my opponent intended to or not, he misquoted me in this situation so I will clarify some things for the audience. The quote of mine my opponent uses is “ I will never say someone should take part in something that may harm them”. The issue with him using this quote is that 1. I mention this as a response to him not wanting to go through gang violence. 2. Whether I agree with freedom to choose to do something is different than if it causes harm, 3. I could hypothetically agree with him and this wouldn’t push his point any further. To do this let me illustrate this with an example. If we had a debate on whether smoking was harmful, I wouldn’t have to argue that we should outlaw smoking. I would go through and show it causes lung cancer and has other negative effects to the body. Similar to this with voluntary segregation I could show that it is harmful without having to argue for forced integration. The fix to this is that for smoking I could try to reduce rates through education programs while for school choice I could argue for implementing better funding for poorer schools, I could argue for affordable housing, better compensation and so forth. So when we view issues like this, education on issues such as minorities facing issues in the inequality gap, school funding issues, and school performance issues, it is shown that we haven’t solved many of these problems. Individuals such as Givens note individuals who don’t face these issues often don’t see these issues, while scholars such as Carter G. Woodson and John Hale show that the integration of ethnic and the teaching of minority history often helps give other groups more understanding towards issues minorities may face.

Conclusion

In conclusion, my opponent has never responded to my case on how voluntary segregation is harmful. This case involved negative effects on opportunity, funding, performance and exposure. My opponent has not touched any of this, which means that these points still stand. Additionally my opponent in the first round said the phrase “It is no more harmful than the way society currently is.”, which concedes that this has the potential to cause harm. This means that even my opponent inadvertently agrees that voluntary segregation causes some form of harm. Additionally my opponent not only doesn’t attack my case, but he fails to show a methodology to show how these findings are false. His main critique is that I read some people and gave an opinion while I actually used data analysis to report findings. One major question I have for my opponent is how do you show something is true when viewing a population in society? We have went around with this question in our past few debates, but he never has answered how he views things with a large population and most of his interpretations often lead to subjective findings. This is evident with his quote “stop reading your evidence”. In closing my opponent has not addressed my main points, he partially admits that voluntary segregation could cause harm, and he has no methodology to show what is more likely to be shown in society. Finally my opponent’s main case seems to rest on thinking that I have to argue for forced integration, I have to argue against freedom of choice, or that me saying to not do anything that makes someone feel unsafe is an argument in favor for them. This simply isn’t true because the debate is titled “Is voluntary racial segregation in schools harmful to students and society.”,  which means that this is out of the scope of this debate. The reason for this is, program evaluators such as Fitzpatrick would say that solutions to complex problems that are in a large environment often takes time to solve and is something that often is more difficult than one simple fix.  

References 

Field, A. P. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS. Sage Publications

Friedman, B. D. (2006). The research tool kit: Putting it all together. Thomson Brooks/Cole.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/

https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten-history-of-how-our-government-segregated-america/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plessy_v_ferguson_(1896)

https://ed.stanford.edu/news/70-years-after-brown-v-board-education-new-research-shows-rise-school-segregation

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/349us294

Segregation

I will start this round by stating that my opponent in his previous round never addressed any of my core contentions. This in total means that each of my contentions still stand, which means that this debate currently weighs in my favor. To reiterate my main contentions for why segregation is harmful to students and society is that it has negative effects on opportunity, funding, performance, and exposure. Along with this my opponent never addressed his comment of “It is no more harmful than the way society currently is”. This is major because the debate is titled “Is voluntary racial segregation in schools harmful to students and society” which means his statement acknowledges some harm comes from segregation based on his words from the opening round. Additionally my opponent claims I don’t have an argument because I didn’t ask him a question during the debate. This statement is false because 1. I did ask him a question about how he determines truth when viewing a large population. I’ve asked similar questions in past debates where his answer is arbitrary which may be partially why he avoided to answer it here. 2. We never agreed to a cross exam round. Different debate types have different structure and while cross exam can be a way to “pin your opponent down”, I honestly don’t feel I need it due to my opponent never addressing any of my core contentions while partially ceding the debate early on. 

Methodology

Contrary to my opponent I am happy to answer questions. The issue with his question is that close to any answer I give is irrelevant to the outcome of this debate. His question is this “Would this part someone should not take something in could be a very well harmful situation that involves integration with people of particular physical characteristics?” Before answering this question I almost have to pose another question to my opponent due to this statement being vague. Do you mean that people should be allowed to segregate due to being worried they will be more likely to be harmed by individuals of a certain race? Do you mean that the environment is unsafe and they just so happen to have physical characteristics? I get this is in response to something I said earlier, but this is extremely vague. This is important because it affects how the question is answered. Additionally the question implies that their is an inherent danger to the situation which means it would be no. Now if it is you feel that certain people of certain characteristics pose more threat I would say that thinking this way would be flawed. Granted this question is irrelevant because it doesn’t affect the debate topic. The debate topic is “Is voluntary racial segregation in schools harmful to students and society” This means that I just have to show segregation causes harm in society and in schools. I have done that through showing negative effects on opportunity, funding, performance and how it affects exposure which affects society.  I don’t have to argue against someone choosing something because we already have complex systems and forced integration isn’t something I have to argue, because the effect doesn’t nesscarily mean I have to have a solution. This is why I mentioned how their are many scholars who think segregation is an issues, and causes harm, but aren’t against individuals choosing to go to different school types. The systems are in place. One could argue that I could implement certain curriculum and create certain funding opportunities, and many of these issues will clear up. But this debate focuses on the outcomes, which my opponent hasn’t addressed.

Conclusion 

In conclusion my opponent hasn’t addressed my core contentions which means that each contention currently stands. These core contentions are negative effects on opportunity, funding, performance and exposure to different groups. Additionally my opponent partially conceded the debate early on when he said “It is no more harmful than the way society currently is”. This phrase means that my opponent admitted that segregation can cause harm which is major due to this debate being whether it is harmful. I will end this here instead of adding additional arguments due to my opponent never arguing against my core contentions which show that segregation causes harm through negative effects on opportunity, funding, performance, and lack of exposure. It is important to note that he never answered these contentions because for him to win he must either show my data isn’t valid, show how these outcomes doesn’t mean segregation is harmful, or he must show that segregation doesn’t cause these harms due to this debate focusing on outcomes. With my opponent not addressing arguments, ignoring an epistemological question, and partially ceding the debate, this debate currently leans in favor of segregation causing harm. 

References

Field, A. P. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS. Sage Publications

Friedman, B. D. (2006). The research tool kit: Putting it all together. Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Annamma, S. A. (2018). The pedagogy of pathologization: DIS. Routledge, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1094202523000169

Frankenberg, E., Siegel-Hawley, G., & Wang, J. (2011). Choice without equity: charter school segregation. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19, 1. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v19n1.2011

Vasquez Heilig, J., Brewer, T. J., & Williams, Y. (2019). Choice without inclusion?: Comparing the intensity of racial segregation in charters and public schools at the local, state and National Levels. Education Sciences, 9(3), 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9030205

https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten-history-of-how-our-government-segregated-america/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plessy_v_ferguson_(1896)

https://ed.stanford.edu/news/70-years-after-brown-v-board-education-new-research-shows-rise-school-segregation

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/349us294

I want to end by thanking my opponent for this debate. I respect and appreciate that he is willing to debate anyone and any topic. I guess I also thank him because this may or may not be my final debate due to life circumstances and having to teach college at night along with my full time job. Even though I do thank him, my opponent never addressed my core arguments in this debate. My main contentions were negative effects on opportunity, funding, performance and exposure to different groups. Additionally my opponent made a claim saying that segregation “is no more harmful than the way society currently is”. The issue with my opponent never addressing this is that it is an accidental concession of the debate because it admits to some possible harm regardless of the severity. The debate topic is “Is voluntary racial segregation in schools harmful to students and society”. Additionally my opponent never answered several claims such as my smoking example. This is important because my opponent sole case focuses on a statement I said about not doing something that makes someone feel unsafe. The issue with him never answering this, is because it shows I don’t have to take a full stance. Someone could hypothetically say that I won’t force someone to do something, while acknowledging harm. Someone could say I won’t make laws to prevent people from smoking, but smoking is harmful. This shows the flaw in his position because the debate is titled “Is voluntary racial segregation in schools harmful to students and society”. This means that even if I took the position my opponent claims I did, then I could concede this point and it wouldn’t have any bearing over this debate. 

Methodology

To start this section I will mention that throughout this debate I used a strict methodology that uses, statistics, quantitative data, history, and mixed method approaches. These approaches are used to get as close to causation or understanding the cause of why something happened. This is still hard to do in behavior science, but it is the closest way we can determine what is true to my available knowledge. My opponent throughout this debate ignored this, which I can understand why. It should be noted by the reader that he ignored my question which was “how do you determine truth when viewing a large population”? This is partly because he doesn’t have a methodology to determine what is true or most likely true within our society. With my opponent ignoring this question I will ask it again, what is your standard of evidence? How do you determine something to be true in society? And how do you determine what is true within a large population (I do get I only asked one question in the previous rounds, but with my opponent dodging the first question in quotes, I wasn’t able to get through each question I wanted)?

My opponents main argument

Usually in the closing round of the debate I would crystalize and go back through my core contentions, but I will be different for this closing. This is because my opponent doesn’t address my arguments, so each of them count as being conceded. This is stated by numerous debate leagues, debate scholars and debate coaches, which is placed in my reference section. Since my opponent has basically conceded the debate by not answering core contentions, or cross exam questions all I have to do is go through his one argument. His argument in total rest on this point 

Mal’s Quote

“You said "I will never say someone should take part in something that may harm them" .

So being that you haven't proved that it is impossible that a "something" such as involuntary segregation would be harmful , it negates your position in trying to argue for the topic as standard generalization”

To answer my opponents only argument the statement I mentioned here doesn’t prove that segregation doesn’t cause harm. My core contentions were never answered which included negative effects on opportunity, funding, performance and exposure to different groups. This was proven using data, research and history. The issue with my opponent trying to use this statement against me is that I could hypothetically take a position saying I wouldn’t force integration and it wouldn’t change the fact that segregation causes harm. I already used a smoking example which my opponent didn’t answer so I will use an additional example to illustrate my point to the audience. If we had a debate on whether “getting drunk daily causes harm”, I just have to show studies, data, history and outcomes of things such as vehicle wrecks, damage to someone’s liver, it being a gateway drug, mental health decline, and brain damage. Regardless of if this causes harm, I could still say that I would never tell someone to not drink because I could take a variety of stances such as not wanting to turn over specific laws. Would this all of a sudden make drinking too much alcohol not harmful? Based on my opponents logic it would make it not harmful. But based on how laws are, how systems work, and how society operates I don’t have to argue for what people should or shouldn’t do. I just have to show data to show it causes harm, which has been done.  

My opponents false statement

Mal quote “Just by this one statement you made so that all these other things you've said, gets knocked down and the bias favored tailored data and studies do nothing more than echo the chamber. (End quote).” 

To answer the second part of my opponents case he doesn’t prove why my logic is flawed. The whole interesting thing from this is if my opponent researched he could have found scholars that would have argued his point. Scholars such as Brennan and Barroway, or Garry Ritter. I could bring up flaws in these individuals works, but it isn’t my job to create arguments for my opponent. That’s his job, but if you are curious I will link my first peer review article “segregation by race in charter schools” (King, 2025). My main point in saying that there is scholarship in other positions than mine is that my opponent accused me of being in an echo chamber. This shows that this claim is easy to dismiss, because there is a variety of scholarship around. Scholarship isn’t tailored in the sense of trying to force conclusions, which is why their are scholars on every side of the isle from voluntary segregation is wrong, voluntary segregation is harmful but we shouldn’t force integration, and individuals who think voluntary segregation creates possible beneficial opportunities. The thing is most studies will show harmful effects because data over the years on a national and state level show this in more instances than the specific instances where some individuals may have benefited. 

Conclusion

To end I will go ahead and apologize to my opponent and the audience for being a tad snarky in this reply. I do respect my debate opponent and he is often fun to debate. Regardless I presented my core contentions which were negative effects on opportunity, funding, performance and exposure to different groups. To prove my case I used data, research, quantitative analysis, and history to prove my points which is a standard methodological approach. This is how behavior scientists and most scientists show things to be more likely to be true. My opponent throughout this debate didn’t answer these core contentions which means the debate ways in my favor. Additionally my opponents main point was a quote I used which he misrepresented throughout this debate. The interesting thing from this was even if we went on his interpretation and I conceded the point, it actually doesn’t move his one contention any further. This was shown through numerous examples and scholarship which my opponent ignored. Even if my opponent answers everything in this debate in his closing round individuals who vote on this debate should note that he avoided the main points of this debate, which means that any answers towards them should be mute at this point. To steal my opponents words, case closed (Good luck in the future my former opponent lol). 

References

 Field, A. P. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS. Sage Publications

Friedman, B. D. (2006). The research tool kit: Putting it all together. Thomson Brooks/Cole.

https://www.worldcces.org/_files/ugd/a95ba5_e6763214789b4e5b929bd17d57977d6c.pdf?index=true

Brennan, D. L., & Baroway, M. (2002). Victory for kids: The Cleveland School Voucher Case.

New Millennium Press.

Ritter, G., Jensen, N., Kisida, B., & McGee, J. (2010). A Closer Look at Charter Schools and Segregation: Flawed Comparisons Lead to Overstated Conclusions. Education Next, 10, 69–73.

https://dsdc.ca/glossary/drop

https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohols-effects-health/alcohols-effects-body

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/about/index.html