Affirmative Action should be abolished
United States should ban Affirmative Action.
Should: Indicating a desirability.
Ban: Officially or legally prohibit.
Affirmative Action: Affirmative action or positive discrimination (known as employment equity in Canada, reservation in India and Nepal, and positive action in the UK) is the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination within a culture.
1. No forfeits.
2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be within the debate or in comments.
3. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere. No trolling.
4. First round acceptance.
5. No K's
6. No deconstructional semantics.
7. Burden of Proof (BoP) is shared
8. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.
9. By accepting you are gurnateeing to participate in this debate. I shall not accept any request to tie this debate, unless something serious has occured. Please, if you want to forfeit, just say you forfeit in the round rather than waiting 4 days.
C1: Institutionalized discrimination.
To better than understand what affirmative action is, we must see the definition of it.
Affirmative Action: A policy where a institution favors a certain minority race over other races.
Essentially, what does this mean? If a white male and a black male were competing for a job, the black male is automatically preferred over the white male, because he is the minority. This is discrimination. In the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it outlawed any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. When a government is putting a certain race over another, this is institutionalized discrimination. (1)
Pro affirmative action supporters stress that Affirmative Action brings equal opportunity, but it is exactly the opposite. It’s not equal, when you make it a law to favor another race. Nobody should be judged on a criteria they have no control over. It simply is unfair. If a worker is to hire people for a job, it is pretty much common sense that they hire somebody who is best for the job, or they will lose profit. This is exactly why workplaces ask for interviews, references and resumes. By using race as a factor, employees are essentially forced to give a job to minority over somebody else, because of their race. An employer won’t be able to select the best employee, because his queue is narrowed down. Meritocracy is the best and only fair system that should be used.
C2: No longer needed
Affirmative Action was originally implemented by President John F Kennedy, as a way to help African Americans become more integrated into society as they have been brutally oppressed, with Jim Crow laws etc…At the time, it made sense. Blacks were very far behind compared to the white majority, so desperate measures were taken to help them. With Affirmative action, black have progressed. Here are stats I acquired from a source.
“These programs have brought or accompanied significant gains for women and minorities. In the past 25 years, black participation in the work force has increased 50 percent and the percentage of blacks holding managerial positions has jumped fivefold. In 1970, women comprised only 5 percent of lawyers compared to 20 percent today. Twenty-five years ago, the student population at University of California, Berkeley, was 80 percent white compared to 45 percent today.”
Yes, you can see that with Affirmative action has done it’s job, the % of minorities have increased, however the policy is being to be hypocritical to it’s original intention, which is to promote equality. This is why Affirmative Action is outdated. For a society to be truly color-blind, it should come naturally, rather than through enforcement. We are at a point in society, where racism is generally shunned upon by most people.
C3: Encourages less effort.
Affirmative Action essentially encourages people to strive for lower goals. For example, if the average white student needed to have a 95% average to be accepted into a school, a minority would only need 90% to be accepted. This essentially encourages less effort. In the mind of a minority, they would be more inclined to score less, because they can be accepted while scoring less.
According to a study done by professors William Bowen and Derek Bot, Blacks who scored 1200 to 1249 on their SAT’s had a 60% chance of admission, while white’s who scored 1200 to 1249 on their SAT’s only had a 19% chance of being accepted. If blacks need to score very to little to being accepted, where is the incentive to succeed? Affirmative Action essentially is harming minorities by rewarding them for scores that should generally be a lot higher. This also creates a thought in the mind of some minorities, that they only were selected because of their race, not their effort. It also further harms them, because they are less prepared for their job later on. (2)
C4: Creates racial tension
Affirmative Action is bound to create racial tension between races. Races that have been shoved behind for minority groups due to their race, will soon began to see minorities as a threat, because their chance of entering the workforce could be in jeopardy. This does nothing to help ease the racial tension that is already prevalent in American society. If minorities are actually helped to perform at higher scores rather than being selected for their race, this will essentially force whites or other races to step their game up, to be competitive. This will create a better workforce for America. Blacks who get accepted can finally say they earned their job through hard work and effort, rather than being ridiculed for being accepted for their color, not their effort.
C5: Harms minorities by making them unprepared for the job.
Affirmative action creates a mismatch for minorities. In a study conducted by Richard Sanders, he did a study were he compared the scores of Black students, to white students in an unbiased study.. He figured that Forty-one point four percent of the first-year black students and 42.5 percent of the graduated students fell in the lowest tenth of their classes by GPA; at elite schools, the first-year figure was 51.6 percent. (3)
In another research he conducted, he compared the bar exams of white students, and black students. 88 percent of white law school graduates passed the exam, however only 61.4 percent of black graduates did. This is basically the showing how Affirmative Action isn’t doing any justice to minorities, the difference between the number of blacks who passed, and the number of whites is nearly 27 percent different. Another study shows that data from one selective California law school from 2005 show that students who received large preferences were 10 times as likely to fail the California bar as students who received no preference.
In general, research shows that 50% of black law students end up in the bottom 10th of their class, and that they are more than twice as likely to drop out as white students.
Another study shown by the University of Michigan shows that, prior to the banning of Affirmative Action, “the University of Michigan admitted 92% of Black applicants and 88% of Hispanic applicants who possessed a 3.2 GPA and a 1240 SAT score while only 10% of White applicants with similar scores were admitted”. Admitants who were black, essentially had ““Black admittees had substantially lower SAT scores, ACT scores, and high school GPAs compared to Asians and Whites. The range of Hispanic admitees’ test scores (SATs and ACTs) and high school GPAs fell between those for Blacks and those for Asians and Whites “(4)
When these minorities go into the workforce, they likely will perform at a lower level that other races, because they are being rewarded for something that requires less effort for them.
C6: Other minorities are affected
Affirmative Action was originally imposed to help minorities, but the program itself is affecting minorities, and in some cases are assisting the majority itself. Affirmative action policies in the University of California have implemented policies that help white applicants who get admitted.
Essentially, Asians will have to work a lot harder to be accepted, under these Affirmative Action policies. The common stereotype is that Asian-Americans generally are the “model minority’ and that most of them are high achieving. However, some Asian Races such as Cambodians, Hmong and Laotians still are struggling to enter the workforce, and only 14% of them have a bachelor’s degree. Essentially Affirmative Action is also making their condition worse, because colleges essentially are making the it harder for Asians to being admitted. (5)
Nagai, Althea K. “Racial and Ethnic Preferences in Undergraduate Admissions at the University of Michigan.” Center for Equal Opportunity. 2006. Web. 19 Oct. 2014
Observation 1. Affirmative action requires the person that is receiving the benefits to be from a negatively discriminated group of people in the community. AA (affirmative action) can only exist to benefit those that have had negative impacts trough discrimination in the society at large, benefiting those that were positively discriminated against are not valid claims for AA. This is warranted through the definitions provided.
Contention 1. Aids in the search for truth
Subpoint A. Allows for the revision of our metaphorical maps.
Peck says that we each have a map that we use as a representation of the territory in which we inhabit, and that in order to have an accurate representation of the territory, we need our maps to be seen by lots of people that each can revise the terrain as it changes (since it does change often). Of course, this is a metaphor for that we must have enough knowledge to navigate the entirety of Truth, and a map that changes as the Truth does as well; and the only way that we can ensure that our map is navigatable of the Truth is to compare our knowledge with the knowledge of those that have different backgrounds and ideas.
Affirmative action allows us to see different types of knowledge from those that have a different background from us, because otherwise they would not be able to be in our colleges or workplaces (places that we actively try to seek Truth). When we do not have people that can give insight into what their maps are, we cannot revise ours to reflect the true nature of Truth overall. Societies exist to allow us to collaboratively search for truth and to make a culture out of the (small) truths that we do find - and allowing those that are oppressed by the society and culture at large lets us get a step closer to finding Truth.
AA allows us to be able to piece together a more accurate map of the terrain that we are all trekking through because we have more mapmakers on our journey that can show inconsistencies or falsehoods in our maps. Thus, the search for Truth is heightened when we have AA.
Subpoint B. Open the limitations of language to see a bigger truth.
People from different walks of life are each socialised and acculturated to believe in certain things that represent Reality and Truth, and from this, they internalise the teachings of those that were before them. Zerubavel claims in his essay, The Social Lens, that there exists an ethnocentric tendency of those in a culture to believe that their ways of doing something are superior to another cultures, and even within one overarching culture (the USA, for example), there are many subcultures (the "hood" in the US) that each have been socialised and internalised different things that, in turn, have an affect on our search for truth .
We need these different ways of socialisation to be able to actually pinpoint the Truth to what it really is, and to be able to see beyond our own ethnocentric barriers that are already in place. When we have our barriers down, we can both search for Truth better, and we are able to see our mistakes easier and we can see that one culture's way of doing something is equally as valid as our own. This is vital to any sort of work environment; if we go to a new job, and they have a way of work that is culturally different than yours, it will help you not just dismiss this way of working as primitive or unfounded in fact, because it will be equally as valid as your own way of work.
When in a place of work, you need to be able to see that you are not always correct and that sometimes other people, with different ideas radically, are just as correct and have the same basis as you do. That is something vital to working in a global economy such as the world is today, and only AA can allow us to have this, because it allows us to merge with other people of other cultures and socialisations. AA allows us to see beyond the scopes of what we already believe and allow us to seek for a wider Truth and for a wider way of living.
Contention 2. Economic benefits
Subpoint A. Employment
It is well understood that having higher unemployment directly increases the GDP and overall economic stability of a country. Having more people employed means that there exist more people to create goods that lubricate the wheels to having increased economic activity - having no jobs means that nobody can make any goods (which means that GDP is negatively affected, since GDP is about the production of all final goods), so having more jobs is intrinsically beneficial.
In 1995, Cose found that there were "six million women ... who simply wouldn't have the jobs they have today, but for the inroads made by affirmative action" . This means that there were 6 million more people in the workforce simply because we had affirmative action in place that benefited women, because they were discriminated against in certain fields of work. This means that there is a net benefit to the economy DIRECTLY attributable to AA. Without AA, by extension of logic, this would mean that the economy would be slower than it was in 1995 because those 6 million jobs would not be held by anyone. If these women had not received these jobs, there would be extreme negative impacts on them because of this; humanitarian and otherwise (they cannot afford to feed children, etc). Without AA, we are trying to eliminate the possibility of women having the ability to actually thrive in this society.
In today's society, there is still discrimination. Allowing AA to allow those that are discriminated against to find jobs, which directly benefits our economy, is something that we should care about; it is something that many people desire, so without AA, we do not have a net benefit to the economy.
Contention 3. Educational benefits
Subpoint A. Diversity is beneficial.
In studies conducted by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), they found that many educators in universities think that having a high amount of diversity in the classroom is beneficial to both the minority and the majority students within their classrooms . "...[F]aculty members at Research-I universities value diversity and ... many faculty members adjust their classes to take advantage of diversity to enhance the learning process", the study concludes on page 22. Having a high diversity in the classroom leads to more in-depth analysis and discussion based on experiences, and that is vital to the formation of the collegiate and academic mind. The only way that we can actually ensure that we are able to have a high diversity is by having a way to ensure that certain groups of people can actually get into the collegiate experience, without being denied simply because of the groups that they belong to.
AA allows university professors to have a higher diversity in their classes, and in turn, have a better classroom and collegiate experience due to the different ideas being thrown around. In fact, professors are so encouraging of high diversity that "virtually no faculty members believed that diversity had negative effects on their institutions or classes," the study finds.
Subpoint B. Without having AA, minorities are less persuaded to actually go to college.
In 1998, when the University of California got rid of AA, there was a major drop in the amount of minorities going into the college. According to one study, "UC Berkeley had a 61 percent drop in admissions of African American, Latinos, and Native American students, and UCLA had a 36 percent decline." This means that we are literally trying to ban the access to education that all people should have, from minorities simply because they are minorities, by banning AA .
The merits of having a high diversity rate have been explained above (in both the Truth sections and the subpoint A of C3). When minority rates third or halve their original amount, the search for Truth is impacted negatively, and the merits of diversity are not present at all. Having a high diversity and a good search for Truth is desirable, thus we should say that this is a benefit of AA.
When we have AA, we are able to search for Truth with more colaboration, we are able to improve the economy significantly, we are allowing for women to thrive, and we are enriching the educational experience. With the definition of "should" presented (desirability), we can only rationally vote con).
. http://siestakeybeachmeeting.com...;(page 50 of the PDF viewer, 44 of the "book" itself)
(honestly, an amazing read, you should read the entire thing; take notes if you do, it is very dense. PM me if you want to talk about it because I love its ideas! It should be at the place that the essay I mention should start at)
. http://www.timwise.org...;(note: I can't find a PDF of this book online, but this is a source to back up the claims that I have; I could just cite the book but this gives a basic review of what the study found so I think that it is more suitable as a source. I do have the book in my house to verify that what the author of this is claiming is what the book claims as well)
(300 characters left OP)
Con says that Affirmative action requires the person that is receiving the benefits to be from a negatively discriminated group of people in the community, but there isn’t a set criteria provided by the federal government which highlights a certain race is eligible for Affirmative action. Con doesn’t give us a reason as to believe why whites aren’t a negatively discriminated in the community they live in, otherwise there wouldn’t be any Affirmative Action for those whites (which I gave sources for). So, my point still stands.
Con argues that with Affirmative Action, we would be able to see different types of knowledge from those that have a different background from us. I can easily refute this, and say that students can learn about the different cultures of others through their studies. Student’s do not nessarily have to talk to those of different backgrounds, to learn about their culture. Another point I’d like to make is that the purpose of going to a university of job is not to learn about the culture or background of somebody, rather the fact you are there to learn the course or program you took, or to do your job in the company you work for. Learning about other people is something secondary, because it is not the purpose of the job itself. On top of that, Con needs to show me that that learning about different cultures outweighs somebodies chance of getting an education in the first place, because i already have shown that students can learn about different cultures through other ways.
My rebuttal for SA is similar to SB. Con needs to show that working with different groups of people is outweighs the chance of somebody getting a job in the first place. I actually do disagree with Con here. “only AA can allow us to have this, because it allows us to merge with other people of other cultures and socialization” Con seems to believe that people will different cultures need AA to be accepted. I already showed in my case, that Asian Americans are in the workforce, and they do not have the same culture as white people.
In Con’s 2nd point, she argues that AA helped 6 million women enter the workforce. I do not deny that this is a positive, but note these stats were from 1995. I already have said, Affirmative Action was successful in the past, and that it no longer needs to be implemented anymore. The only argument Con makes for present day discrimination is that there is still discrimination. I have no reason to believe this. ( I do, but for argument sake) There isn’t any sources for these arguments. I bring my other point from my other argument. Just because it has helped women, is it right to discriminate again somebody who isn’t a women? This actually directly contradicts my point about how Affirmative Action is no longer needed.
Con’s 3rd point is about how University professors like diversity, and the only way diversity can be maintained, is if students of different cultures are accepted. I have to go back to my rebuttal where I say banning affirmative action won’t prevent diversity. Con says that banning Affirmative Action will cause minorities to be denied simply because of the groups that they belong to. This is merely an assumption, because Con has not provided sources, to back up the claims. It sounds like Con is saying without Affirmative Action, minorities have no way of getting into university. I have already showed in my arguments, that Asians-Americans are minorities and are preferably exceptionally well. So, regardless of what professors like, I dispute this argument, because diversity shouldn’t be put in-front of skill, because no body can change their race, whereas the skill factor is something everyone can control.
In Con’s 2nd sub point, she says that when Affirmative Action was banned, “ "UC Berkeley had a 61 percent drop in admissions of African American, Latinos, and Native American students, and UCLA had a 36 percent decline.” Her reasoning for this however, is that minorities are less persuaded to go to college. I find this statement baseless, because there really is no direct correlation that this was the actual reason for the decline. It makes more sense for me to assume that the numbers went down, because all races were judged on an equal factor, rather than holding lower standards for a certain race. I also see no evidence of banning education for minorities. I don’t think there is a law banning blacks from higher education.
These are my rebuttals.
I'd like to again point out that affirmative action necessarily requires these for someone to be eligible: 1. discriminated against, 2. be disadvantaged because of this discrimination. Now, you can say "Lexus, you're making things up", but that's exactly what the definition of affirmative action is, as pro actually provided (...the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination within a culture). This means that arguing that affirmative action benefits people that are not discriminated against is completely besides the point, this is warranted by my opponent's definitions that he and I agreed to.
C1. Institutionalised discrimination.
You start off your contention by defining what AA (affirmative action) is, even though that is different in nuance from what the definition in R1 was provided to be. In the rules it even says "debate ... definitions cannot be changed in the middle of the debate", and that's WAY too late to provide definitions.
You provide a case of an African American male vs. a Caucasian male that are both competing for a job, and you (incorrectly) assess that the black male will automatically be hired, ceteris paribus.
But in order for the black man to be hired over the white man, the employer must show that he acted: a. arbitrarily and at chance, or b. based on AA. This means that the black man had to face discrimination and had to be disadvantaged over the discrimination. If everything is equal between these two people, weight should be given to the one that has been disadvantaged to applying for a job because of widespread discrimination. This is because you must reward perseverance through hard times, because that shows that the disadvantaged person is able to do the job better. It is actually beneficial to an employer to hire someone who was disadvantaged over someone who was not, ceteris parabus, because it shows that they are a harder worker. This isn't discrimination, this is trying to hire someone who is best fit for the job.
Then pro goes on to say that I support some claims that he lists, completely in an act of defense (which should not be allowed to be judged upon, offensive arguments only, but that is besides the point). I don't claim that AA brings equal oppurtunity to everyone, I understand that giving weight to others based upon perseverance isn't an act of pure equality; but neither is putting weight on hiring college graduates over high school ones.
C2. No longer needed
Well, that's cool that in general it isn't necessary when you look at it under the scope of the definition you provided in R2, but this debate is under the scope of R1. Saying that there are not people that are discriminated against due to race, sex, sexual orientation, or anything else that has reasonable grounds to be called "discrimination by culture" is a lie - for example, many Native American tribes are discriminated against just because they are Native Americans . Of course there is discrimination by the culture or the structure at large, therefore AA still remains relevant
C3. Less effort
AA only takes into account, ceteris paribus, favoring those who have been disadvantaged because of discrimination by the culture at large - so saying that AA is giving admissions to black students higher than white students isn't AA, it's flat out discrimination based on race, only calling itself "affirmative action" because that's what is in the public psyche. You give an example of a white student needing 95% to get into college and a black one 90% to get in- that isn't what AA is under the scope of this debate.
What AA is, is if two students, white and black, both have scores at 95%, they should give weight to the black student because of systematic and cultural discrimination and disadvantage.
What is going on in that study by Bowen and Dot shows how much AA is actually necessary! "Crazy", you may say, but let me show you: AA does not favor one race over another, it favors discriminated ones over not discriminated ones. The white students in these situations were being discriminated against simply because they were right, and therefore the institution is actually discriminating against them based on race under the guise of AA. What should happen is we enact an AA policy that gives white students an equal or better chance of being admitted into this college, because they were being discriminated against by the structures that are in place.
Just because someone is a minority doesn't mean that AA favors them - it favors those that were harmed by structual, systematic, or cultural discrimination.
C4. Racial tension
You say that people that aren't helped by AA would see those who have been benefited as a threat, since those helped by AA don't have to work as hard to get what they get. But what you are failing to realise is that jobs aren't given out to someone simply because they are of a discriminated group; first, employers or colleges that have AA would look at the qualifications of two applicants, and if they are the same except for their discrimination levels, then the employer gives higher weight to them. The only other choice is being chosen arbitrarily and without any real ruling principle.
People would actually be less mad, because there is a system in place that gives weight to certain people, instead of just an arbitrary choice based on what someone feels. I'm not seeing how any of the other stuff relates to your contention, but I'll address it.
People would work harder through being discouraged because they are ensured that they have a possibility of actually being hired; this is what AA does. They are not willing to work if they are discouraged and they are not guaranteed that their hard work can be put into use because of arbitrary actions that are often discriminatory against the discouraged. AA helps the workforce; so your point is based on misrepresentations.
C5. Unprepared for jobs
That's cool, but not relevant at all. That isn't an example of AA, that's an example of selectively choosing people OVER others; not when faced with two equal candidates choosing someone based on a system, not arbitrariness that oftentimes is discriminatory. There's no topicality to this argument, this is an argument based around dropout rates of African Americans because they were chosen unfairly and not in the spirit of AA - not AA itself.
C6. Other minorities
Sure, AA was originally imposed to help minorities, but that's not what it is anymore. Even if AA is helping the majority, it is only helping them if they are discouraged and discriminated against in the industry.
I know how bad it is that Asian Americans often have to work harder to be accepted into colleges or tech jobs, it really is. But, the problem is, that the policies in place are just named AA, but they aren't actually AA. I can say that I am a "pro-equality" supermarket, giving 100% discounts to gay couples - that's not equality, even though I say that it is.
Asian Americans do not need to have policies in place that are named AA that selectively make the admissions harder for them; for Cambodians or Laotians the admissions need to be lowered to incentivise them coming into the labor market even though they were discouraged - the only way that we can really fix the low bachelor degree rates of these peoples are making them overcome discrouagement and letting them get into the jobs and education institutions that they want.
C1 : I agree, I provided an addtional defintion. I apologize for that. My arguments, still stand however, because the definition isn't really different, when I compare to my original one. My points would still apply to the original.
So, Con tries to explain how AA isn't not how a black man would be hired over a white man, but rather how AA checks if he is actually discriminated. First of all, Con needs to explain this notion a bit further. How do they measure discrimination, and what would qualify for being disadvantaged? This doesn't give us enough information to determine if the disadvantaged individual is more skilled that the other person. I still don't understand how AA would award the person who is most skilled, because one, skill isn't put first, whether they are disadvtanged is. and two, disadvantaged, doesn't equal more skilled. When Con says AA isn't bringing equal oppurtunity, she is sort of conceding the notion it is instituionalized discrimination, because the policy that the government enacted is what is preventing equal oppurtunity.
C2: Con argues that there are groups that are still disadvantaged, but first, she doesn't actually provide a source to this. I dont really have a reason to believe this, because no source is provided. Whether or not it is true, it doesn't explain how AA is doing any justice the minority. I just checked the 1st source from Con, and the word "Native American" isn't even there.
C3:Here is what Con says. "That AA is, is if two students, white and black, both have scores at 95%, they should give weight to the black student because of systematic and cultural discrimination and disadvantage." I can easily dispute this, because I showed evidence of blacks being admitted with lower SAT scores, than whites. Despite, applying for the same college. Con talks about implementing another AA policy reform where gives white students an equal or better chance of being admitted into this college. This is not relevant to the debate, and this is basically going against what she was arguing earlier. If White's have an equal chance, then it is not Affirmative Action anymore, if I go by what Con's arguments were earlier.
C4: I'm having trouble refuting this, because Con doesn't explain how they weigh discrimiation, and basically how it works. "People would work harder through being discouraged because they are ensured that they have a possibility of actually being hired;" Con provides no source for this, because she doesn't show how minorities have improved in their workforce.
C5:I have shown, that Con doesn't explain how AA is different. This argument is succesfully refuted.
C6: This doesn't really refute anything. Con is saying those policies aren't AA, but my sources say they are. Like I said before, She hasn't given any sources, to back this up. Con is now saying we need to lower the standards for adimissions, but that isn't the current system. You can't just provide solutions to the problem, because that's not what the debate is about.
Sorry for the crappy counter rebutall, I literally just typed this, 30 minutes before this was due, due to time constraint.
Thank you Lexus for this debate.
Thanks tajshar2k. I don't have a lot of time so I have to keep this short.
The definition I provided was warranted by the definitions that we agreed to in the beginning of the debate. You're shifting the goalposts by changing the definition, which I was afraid that you'd do, so I put this observation up front. The definition that we agreed to outweighs your other one since it's required for intellectual discourse.
Pro says that we can learn about the world by being hidden from its complexities and its people; shrouded in the darkness of our own cave and not trying to understand that there exist other people just because we have textbooks that say what we want them to say. Pro says that we can learn about people by reading textbooks that reinforce our own view of the world and our own revision of the maps that we have of reality, through the guise of "education" and "studies of the world". This isn't true- in order to revise your map, you need to actually meet and compare maps with one another. Having a summation by someone who has the same map as you of another person's map isn't going to revise yours - it's going to make you think that your way of thinking is the only right way, as Zerubavel says in my citation.
Learning about people themselves is secondary, I agree. But that's not what my point was; learning about the world, Reality, and Truth should be up front and the main focus of our lives, because that's what is inherently human; making meaning of the world and trying to assess it. That's why we have physicists, astronomers, philosophers; they are all trying to assess the nature of Reality. Having people that have a different map than us trying to assess the same things may lead to different outcomes that appear more True than the ones that we have; and this is necessary to flourish.
Learning about the nature of Truth outweighs a lost job of two different people that are only differentiated by their discrimination level (not test scores, etc), because that is what is inherently human; getting a job in front of someone that is discriminated against at large is not the purpose of humanity. It is the purpose of the continuation of our culture and ethnocentristic properties; not the purpose of US.
Further, pro argues that people of different cultures don't need AA to be accepted, as shown by Asian Americans. But there seems to be a problem here; in R2 he says that many Asian Americans are not able to get into the workforce because of higher "AA" (not really AA) guidelines. This means that there should be less of them in the workplace because of the higher guidelines, but he is arguing that there are actually more of them in the workforce. This is a contradiction, and thus we must say that he concedes that this isn't true.
The crux of my argument wasn't that there exists a white vs. minority dichotomy in culture, or that no minorities get into the workplace at all. The crux of my argument is that we need to actually confirm our maps of Reality with others in order to have humanity; confirming our maps with those that are the same as us doesn't actually revise our maps, just reinforces the notion that our maps ARE Reality. This is not what the search for Truth is about; this is what the perpetration of ethnocentrism is.
You seem to have missed the point. My argument was that AA did help and can continue to help millions of people get into the workplace; that was just 20 years ago and as we all know, there still exists discrimination against women in the workplace (the ol' 77 cents to a man's dollar ring a bell?). This means that it has helped women immensely, in turn helping the economy, because women were highly disadvantaged in the workplace; now, they are still disadvantaged and this can still help them.
The point of my argument isn't that in this year we will have 6 million new women go into the workplace and everything will be fine. The point was that AA has and will continue to help people, because it is still necessary, and that it can help the economy at large.
You again misunderstand what AA is actually about. There doesn't exist a dichotomy of all minorities vs. integrated (majorities and minorities) in education; what there does exist is a disadvantagement for minorities that do want to get into the school system. That means that we can only actually ensure that people will get into college, if they are a minority, if we allow AA. Let me explain it like this:
You haven't shown that minorities in general get into colleges exceptionally well; that is a misrepresentation of your actual arguments. All that you have said is that Asian Americans are being discriminated against and they are getting into the workplace; as I said in my argument, there is a sharp decline in the amount of black students when AA was taken away. That's not minorities doing exceptionally well; that is them failing because of their race and discrimination.
In my second subpoint, I say that UC Berkeley and UCLA had a decline in the amount of minority students when they took away AA. You say that this is baseless because there is no direct correlation that this was the decline. But, that's exactly what correlation is; when one number goes down so does another one. Your only objection is that there is no correlation, but there is; the thing you should have advocated for is that there is no causation. But you didn't, so I don't need to cite the countless studies that say that a lack of AA causes less minorities getting into university. Just because you disagree with the patterns of a study doesn't mean that the study is baseless. That's ignorance.
I know there isn't a law banning black people from University. That's not what my argument was about. It was that AA ensures that minorities CAN get an education if they work hard enough; without AA, they cannot get into University even though they have the same amount of work.
I don't think you have understood the larger picture of any of my arguments. That's fine, but instead of calling them baseless in order to maybe win points in an online discourse debate website, I think that you need to step back and think about what these arguments actually mean.
Anyways, I really did appreciate this debate. I learned that I am more in favor of AA than I was before; this started as a devil's advocate debate and now I am persuaded that AA is beneficial. Thank you.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||0|
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|