The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Affirmative Action is Racist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 882 times Debate No: 36925
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




In case you are unaware Affirmative Action is a program that is suppose to help minorities. The program essentially is meant to benefit "poorer races", based on average income levels, however may be slightly detrimental to "wealthier races". It also means that universities & employers need to put a priority towards these "poorer races" meaning they have to find out what their applicants race is. Furthermore, it makes it easier for someone in these "poorer races" to get accepted to a school or job. Allowing Affirmative Action in it's current form is racist & insulting to pretty much every race.

The first problem with Affirmative Action is it's whole concept it is meant to help "poorer races", but what about the "wealthier races"? Basically of the 4 major races in America from the wealthiest to poorest are as followed: Asians, Whites, Hispanics (a big gap between Whites & Hispanics), and Blacks. This means that Blacks & Hispanics are more likely to receive benefits than Whites & Hispanics. The essential problem with this is that races aren't inherently richer or poorer. There are going to be richer Black people and poorer Asian people, it happens. This means that an Asian family may be suffering bad, but instead of getting a chance it would be given to some rich Black man due to this program. So, if you support a financial support program (which is irrelevant in this debate) it is just racist and ignorant to make it based on race and if a program like this must be run it should look at individual wealth, not race. Affirmative Action will really hurt Whites & Asians, especially poorer ones, not to mention harm and blindly support Blacks & Hispanics.

Under Affirmative Action employers and universities have to put a preference on the "poorer races" (Blacks & Hispanics). The main problem is that is could easily insult a Hispanic or Black person. They may feel that they are being down talked to and that they are lesser people, like babies, who need constant support and benefits. Also, it can teach Blacks & Hispanics that they don't need to be the best they can be, because say some Asian or White guy is acing every test, while a Black or Hispanic guy is losing marks on things, because why should he care? He still might have a better chance against that Asian guy since there are plenty of Asians doing well. This also generally compliments people who are less deserving at the stake of those who worked extra hard, it's dishonest to those who worked ridiculously hard to accomplish high levels of intellect. Affirmative Action doesn't award those who are better, but those who were born and happened to have a ancestors from a certain location, which in itself shouldn't even matter.

Perhaps the biggest problem with Affirmative Action is why is the government so obsessed with race anyways? Historically people have been divided about race for centuries, yet scientific evidence proves there is very little difference between races (of the few none have to do with intellect), yet we still continue to recognize it? Why are we looking at race? As mentioned earlier it would be much better to look at personal wealth. Race is another way to divide people and the last thing we should do is promote people to be divided, especially among something as minor as race. This whole idea that we need to balance races it ridiculous! If you're at an ivy league university, why pay attention to abundance of Asians? Why not look at the great accomplishments and all the smart young adults? Race is an outdated way of viewing the world, let alone to put limits on what people should be allowed to do.

In conclusion Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, and Asians are all hurt one way or another, whether it be babying a group of people or segregate a group of people all by Affirmative Action. Helping "poorer races" is always going to hurt "wealthier races", even though there is exceptions in the whole poor/rich thing in race. It makes it that the more accomplished people may not get awarded for their accomplishments. Not to mention it looks at a primarily outdated view of the world, that really should be dropped.


The Encyclopeadia Britanica, Oxford Dictionary and Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society are unanimous in their definition of Racism -

....views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races and that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior, or superior.

I concede defeat if this debate is about whether AA is politically wrong or economically ineffective (and this is what the PRO has done).

But this debate is about whether AA is racist or not, and it is for this reason why PRO already lost the debate.

Affirmative Action (AA) do acknowledge the existence of different races but it does NOT affirm that anyone is racially inferior or superior.

On the contrary, when AA was signed by John F Kennedy, it was the acknolwedgement that certain groups are victims of institutionalized discrimination and marginalization.

Because of discriminization, these groups became disadvantaged socially and economically and denied equal opportunities to education, employment and social standing. And the effects persisted for several generations.

AA was therefore a response to alleviate the effects of racism by removing barriers to opportunity and promote equality and is a far cry from being a policy that promotes racial inferiority or superiority.

You can argue that these maybe politically wrong or economically inefficient but that does not show that AA considers anyone to be racially inferior or superior. Providing assistance to a certain group is not grounded on their racial inferiority but mere acknolwedgement of past historical events that disenfranchised that group.

My arguments stop here. I will not spend time to show whether AA is effective since that is not the spirit of the motion.

In a similar fashion, you can argue all day that Obamacare maybe ineffective but it does not make it racist.

Debate Round No. 1


Dylan_Araki forfeited this round.


DT forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Dylan_Araki forfeited this round.


DT forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Mrparkers 4 years ago
Pro, it doesn't look like you know what affirmative action is.
Posted by Bullish 4 years ago
Read this to understand:
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 4 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro managed to point out that anything that favors one race over another is racist. Intention doesn't matter, it's the results.