The Instigator
policydebategod
Pro (for)
Losing
50 Points
The Contender
Rousseau
Con (against)
Winning
58 Points

Affirmative Action is Bad

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 18,090 times Debate No: 796
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (35)

 

policydebategod

Pro

- Affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination.
- Affirmative action lowers standards of accountability needed to push students or employees to perform better.
- Students admitted on this basis are often ill-equipped to handle the schools to which they've been admitted.
- It would help lead a truly color-blind society.
- It is condescending to minorities to say they need affirmative action to succeed.
- It demeans true minority achievement; i.e. success is labeled as result of affirmative action rather than hard work and ability.
Rousseau

Con

Are you a policy debater? Love to debate some Policy with you sometime!

I'll roadmap in logical order just following your points.

Point 1 - Affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination.

Affirmative Action is a program of opportunity, it is not a program of discrimination. This is the major argument people use in defending Affirmative Action. White males claim they are now discriminated against because of this program. There are accusations that minorities get hired just for the sake of filling a quota. However, Affirmative Action's mission has never been about hiring less qualified workers, but about opening up equal opportunity and ensuring that equal opportunity with equal results. In fact, in a Bureau of National Affairs Employment Discrimination Report, most court cases concerning white males being turned down for a job are found not to be because of Affirmative Action, but because of a lack of qualifications and shortcomings. In theory, Affirmative Action is great. Now, to explain a bit, what we are arguing, is the theory of Affirmative Action. In practice, it may or may not work, but you are arguing that Affirmative Action is bad. Were you arguing that "In Practice, Affirmative Action is Bad" then we could talk about semantics, but we are not, so therefore any attack on the practice of Affirmative Action is moot.

Point 2 - Affirmative action lowers standards of accountability needed to push students or employees to perform better.

Actually, the report mentioned earlier covers quite a good deal. What the report says si that, more often than not, the more qualified person got the job. This is important, because it means that the educated are rewarded, instead of the uneducated are rewarded. We also should look at this analytically. Logically, Affirmative Action is about getting an equal decision. Now, what this does is it forces employers to open up the job to more people, which means that a single person has less of a chance of getting the job. What this means is that in order to stand above the pack, one must in fact be even MORE educated. Thus, this point is turned as, in fact, another reason to support Affirmative Action, as it improves education.

Point 3 - Students admitted on this basis are often ill-equipped to handle the schools to which they've been admitted.

First off, a defensive attack. Basically your point only really attacks half of Affirmative Action. Secondly, this point is ridiculous. Student ability is almost impossible to determine, due to so many factors and unknowns. Also, if you look at this on a knowledge level, you have to realize that the school itself isn't harder than another school. School A isn't harder than School B, School A just is harder potentially. The student in question wouldn't be forced to take classes they weren't prepared for, and would take only the classes he/she thought they could pass. Also, because Affirmative Action actually increases education (see point 2) we would see minorities actually increasing in education, leading to this problem not even affecting the debate.

Point 4 - It would help lead a truly color-blind society.

Also ridiculous, for several reasons. Just as a little pointer, I'm assuming you mean that getting rid of Affirmative Action gets a color-blind society. Now, this point is assuming that a color blind society is possible. It is empirically proven that such a society is impossible. Regardless of the possibility of it, not having Affirmative Action would just lead to less educational oppurtunities, and less pay for minorities. This itself would lead to a stereotypical image of minroties, which would just further racism. Another point is that when Affirmative Action was enacted, there was actually a drop in hate crimes, which leads me to think that the lack of Affirmative Action may have had a adverse effect on racsim, one that Affirmative Action solves for. And lastly, why is a color-blind society important? It would lead to more oppurtunity for minorities? Affirmative Action does that already. What is the impact of a color-blind society?

Point 5 - It is condescending to minorities to say they need affirmative action to succeed.

First off, let me establish a question: What is the impact of this point? Why does it matter? So minorities feel babied? They still have better jobs! Ask a man if he would rather have pride or a comfortable lifestyle, and the human psyche dictates the response : "I'll take the comfortableness".

Point 6 - It demeans true minority achievement; i.e. success is labeled as result of affirmative action rather than hard work and ability.

Again, what is the impact? Also, Affirmaive Action doesn't guarentee success. The person in question still must work hard to get to success, and if they truely are successful, then what does it matter to them what they think? Goes back to impact.

Reasons Affirmative Action must stay:
-We must look at the positive impacts Affirmative Action has compared to the impacts of not having it. Affirmative Action:
- Increases Education
- Give oppurtunities for minorities
- Stops racism

Also, let it be known that the final three points, hav eno reasons to be voters, there is no impact
Debate Round No. 1
policydebategod

Pro

policydebategod forfeited this round.
Rousseau

Con

I'd like to first off let it be known, that policydebategood, has accepted somewhere around 20 challenges from various people. I beleive that this means two things. Either he does have the time to respond to all of his debates, thus meaning he has no responses to my arguments and I win, or he simply didn't prepare himself well enough to debate. The first way means that I should win this debate, and the second way means that he should be given more time. We shall wait and see.

Reasons Affirmative Action must stay:
-We must look at the positive impacts Affirmative Action has compared to the impacts of not having it. Affirmative Action:
- Increases Education
- Give oppurtunities for minorities
- Stops racism

I have logically gone thru his points and responded as such, and I believe I have won on them. Thank you for your time thus far.
Debate Round No. 2
policydebategod

Pro

Please excuse the forfeit. I must have lost track of the debate.

- Affirmative Action is a program of opportunity, it is not a program of discrimination.
+ I agree that affirmative action was not designed to promote discrimination. However, it does just that. Affirmative action is essentially that if a white person and a black person have the same qualifications, the black person gets the job. This is the same thing that happened to blacks in the 1960s only in reverse. Essentially, all that happen is that whites are discriminated against. This is no better than what blacks fought against in the civil rights era .

Affirmative action = reverse discrimination:
http://www.adversity.net...
http://www.huppi.com...
http://atheism.about.com...
http://www.adversity.net...
http://www.now.org...

It is very hard to find sources that say that affirmative action is not reverse discrimination. The point is simple and definite: affirmative action is reverse discrimination. Your job is to justify reverse discrimination, which I feel cannot be done because it is essentially just discrimination.

- Logically, Affirmative Action is about getting an equal decision. Now, what this does is it forces employers to open up the job to more people, which means that a single person has less of a chance of getting the job. What this means is that in order to stand above the pack, one must in fact be even MORE educated. Thus, this point is turned as, in fact, another reason to support Affirmative Action, as it improves education.
+ This is a bad argument and here is why: If a black wanted to get a good job in the 60s, he would have to do more schooling and be way more qualified than the white to even be considered. This is the same standard that whites have now.

- Students admitted on this basis are often ill-equipped to handle the schools to which they've been admitted. Imagine a AA minor league baseball player suddenly asked to bat cleanup in the majors, or a high school science fair contestant suddenly asked to take a rocket scientist job at NASA. There's a possibility of success in these situations, but it's more likely they will be in over their heads. Schools like Harvard and Yale have high GPA and SAT requirements because it is extremely difficult to graduate from them. Thus, when they're forced to lower standards to achieve a minority quota, some students can't keep up. This isn't to say these students are less capable, but chances are that if they can't meet minimum requirements, they probably aren't ready to go there. The far-lower graduation rate of minorities is testament to the fact that they are too often going to schools that don't match their ability. The original application criteria of schools were put in for a reason. We should adhere to them. (Joe Messerli)

Point 4 - It would help lead a truly color-blind society.

I'm not here to be overly combative. I conceed with your interpretaion of point 4. However, I still have the debate on all other points.

- Ask a man if he would rather have pride or a comfortable lifestyle.
+ As a black person, this statement offends me. It says that I require hands out to succeed to succeed, which is empirically false.

- Again, what is the impact? Also, Affirmaive Action doesn't guarentee success. The person in question still must work hard to get to success, and if they truely are successful, then what does it matter to them what they think? Goes back to impact.
+ I thought it was a good point to throw in here because I know people who have experienced this and have experienced this and know the impact personally.

- Increases Education
+ Education is not increased but rather people are less likely to succeed when thrown into bigger arenas.

- Give oppurtunities for minorities
+ Minorities already have opportunites.

- Stops racism
+ We all know that affirmative action has not and will not stop racism. It dies not even reduce it by one single person.

I love your impact calculus despite how much I disagree with it. The three points you made are yor only offensive points and they each are false or unachievable. The 6 points I made were better, from experience and more realistic.

Thank you.
Rousseau

Con

Hmm.. first off, I apologize for the comment below. I had seen that you have not responded to my debate while responding to other, and didn't take into consideration you could have overlooked it. I urge the voters do disregard round two as everyone makes mistakes.

First off; a clarification… Are we debating affirmative action in theory, or in practice?

Point 1: Reverse Discrimination
I must ask… did you read the links before posting them? They seem to all enforce my stance…
1st Link: Basically just talking about how the label of "reverse discrimination" shouldn't be used.
2nd Link: Talking about how Affirmative Action isn't reverse discrimination, but rather compensatory justice.
3rd Link: Basically talks about how the argument of reverse discrimination isn't a reason for affirmative action to be unjust or unfair.
4th Link: I think is the same as the first, if it isn't exactly the same, the ideas are similar.
5th Link: Talks about how Affirmative Action is fair and isn't reverse discrimination.

Well I guess thanks for doing some research for me. It is ironic because you said that it is hard to find a link that says affirmative action isn't reverse discrimination. You just found five! I will reference them throughout the debate by referring to their number. Could you find a link that actually enforces your stance?

Well this leads to several things. First, you demand I justify why reverse discrimination isn't a voter in the debate. Well, I think that links 2, 3, and 5 cover it. Basically reverse discrimination is compensation for the injustices perpetrated by racism and slavery (2), affirmative action doesn't become unjust because of reverse discrimination (3), and a regardless of affirmative action, white males hold 95-97% of high paying jobs (5). That means that Affirmative Action doesn't discriminate at all, and even if it did, it doesn't do it significantly and doesn't make it unjust.

Point 2: Educational Standards.
"If a black wanted to get a good job in the 60s, he would have to do more schooling and be way more qualified than the white to even be considered. This is the same standard that whites have now." I fail to see how upping the ante for education is bad, and as the fifth link states, white males hold 95-97% of high-level corporate jobs. This means that reverse discrimination isn't really happening. Affirmative Action is just a compensation for the injustices white males perpetrated upon minorities through racial prejudice.

You also argue that some students would fall behind if accepted into schools that were out of their league. Logically this makes some sense, however I would like to see a link that says it is happening. Also, it isn't as if schools force people to take classes out of their level. If someone were to get accepted to Harvard even though they didn't deserve it, they could still take the easier classes. Also, affirmative action doesn't make minorities apply to colleges they know they couldn't deal with. If I knew I couldn't deal with Harvard, I wouldn't apply. Catch my point? Affirmative Action doesn't force a minority to apply to a college out of their league. It helps them get into colleges they may not have gotten into (if they are qualified).

Point 3: Color-Blind Society.
You conceded, not a lot to talk about here.

Point 4: Condescending to Minorities
"As a black person, this statement offends me. It says that I require hands out to succeed to succeed, which is empirically false." First off, I said "man", not black man, or white man or anything that would denote a specific race. I simply stated that, using the basic principals of humanity (namely the drive for comfort) a human will take a hand-out rather than pride. I never said that blacks need the hand out. That isn't what Affirmative Action is, anyway. Affirmative Action is compensation, not a handout. It helps minorities get the fair consideration they deserve. I was simply arguing that a minority would rather be helped by Affirmative Action that possibly face a poor lifestyle. If they don't need Affirmative Action, then that is great. However, if they get helped by it, that's great too. I think I should also note that you didn't state an impact on this, and I believe this means that the point doesn't matter.

Point 5: Demeaning to true achievement.
"I know people who have experienced this and have experienced this and know the impact personally." Just saying you know people doesn't mean there is an impact. You still haven't stated the impact, just stated there is one. I wanted to know the impact and you didn't provide one. Again, you concede that this point is truly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Point 6: Education Is Increased
"Education is not increased but rather people are less likely to succeed when thrown into bigger arenas." You just argued that opportunities decrease for all because of Affirmative Action. That argues my point actually. If there are more people competing for a job, it stands to reason that in order to stand out, more education is necessary.

Point 7: Opportunity
"Minorities already have opportunites." I never argued that they didn't. I'm just saying that Affirmative Action makes MORE opportunities. If we got rid of it, there would be fewer opportunities due to the inevitability of bigots discriminating against minorities.

Point 8: Racism
Affirmative Action is reparation towards people who suffered from discrimination. In that way, it is helping to end discrimination by giving a proverbial taste of your own medicine. Discrimination is a major part of Racism, and in the road to solving for the latter, the first has to be dealt with.

That being said, your impact calculus runs on the assumption that my only offensive attacks were in my final three. However, offense (in debate at least) isn't making new arguments. If it were that simple, Pro would always win. A Offensive argument would be one that negates the previous argument, and conversely a defensive argument just says the point isn't important, or won't be that bad. I made offensive attacks on 1, 2, 6, 8. This means I have half offense and half defense. Also, comparing the quantity of points made isn't all of Impact Calculus. Impact Calculus, is (redundantly) the calculation of impact. To do this, one must look at the quality of the points as well. I believe the quality of my points outweighs your points. This was my point. Not only that, but I have negated your points, and extended mine. I look forward to other debates with you and thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
Rousseau, would you like to debate race-based affirmative action in college again, defining "affirmative action" as a policy that gives any kind of application bonus to an "underrepresented" minority race student?
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
Gee I wonder which way KnightCroix voted. Look, regardless of my personal opinion, you have to vote for whoever did the best arguments wise. It's like you are a blank slate, and the arguments are your opinion. Whichever presents the stronger arguments, that side should win. I believe I did, because well, of the reasons AndrewNietzche stated.
Posted by AndrewNietzsche 9 years ago
AndrewNietzsche
How is this debate close? The Pro didn't respond in his second round, and in the third round gave Con links that supported his stance. Yet its only 10-11??? Ridiculous.
Posted by SirJDKnightCroix 9 years ago
SirJDKnightCroix
Ah, racism one of the many illnesses of collectivism.

Collectivism is slavery.
Posted by SirJDKnightCroix 9 years ago
SirJDKnightCroix
You can't bring about equality through inequality.
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
heh, thought you would like the impact calc. Wasn't sure if you'd know it but congrats. Are you a high school freshman? Thats (at least from my experience) not too bad for a novice to know. Of course you may be a sophmore, so maybe not. But it was in my day.
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
Alright, as long as you have a reason for the forfeit its alright.
Posted by policydebategod 9 years ago
policydebategod
Please excuse the forfeit. I must have lost track of the round.
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
Just want to say, the Pro speaker has responded to other debates today, and therefore he has had time. He was the Pro speaker and has thusfar agreed with me on everything, making his case negated.
35 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
policydebategodRousseauTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for the forfeit. Sources to Con for using a source that actually supports his argument, as opposed to Pro's failed attempt. I'll leave arguments as a tie because while Con did make some great points, I don't feel that his arguments about educational standards, condescension/demeaningness, and racism held water. It seemed to go half and half both ways.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
policydebategodRousseauTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for FF sources pro as he had them. Arguments pro as they where stronger and sourced.
Vote Placed by Conservative 9 years ago
Conservative
policydebategodRousseauTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by SexyLatina 9 years ago
SexyLatina
policydebategodRousseauTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Randomknowledge 9 years ago
Randomknowledge
policydebategodRousseauTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
policydebategodRousseauTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by adamh 9 years ago
adamh
policydebategodRousseauTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by killa_connor 9 years ago
killa_connor
policydebategodRousseauTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by colsen112 9 years ago
colsen112
policydebategodRousseauTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by MikaelHatterDeux 9 years ago
MikaelHatterDeux
policydebategodRousseauTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03