The Instigator
mcmackiee
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jimmye
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Affirmative Action to promote equal opportunity in the United States is justified

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 3/9/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,018 times Debate No: 11383
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

mcmackiee

Con

Hey, i saw your post about sharing cases. i couldnt accept for some reason but i have a negative case that has won me quite a few rounds. I am definitely willing to share! My districts are this weekend and my aff case is lacking.
jimmye

Pro

My partner and I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution Resolved: Affirmative action to promote equal opportunity in the United States is justified.

We provide the following definitions for this debate:

From the Cato Institute, "Affirmative action means taking positive steps to end discrimination, to prevent its recurrence, and to create new opportunities that were previously denied qualified minorities and women."

According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, to "Justify" something means "To prove or show to be just; to vindicate; to maintain or defend as conformable to law, right, justice, propriety,or duty."

Contention One: Affirmative Action is necessary to promote equal opportunity.

According to Reginald Shuford, Senior Staff Attorney Racial Justice Program, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation,"Affirmative action is not, as opponents proclaim, preferential treatment that gives some people an unfair head start or advantage. Nor is it about quotas, which were outlawed in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Rather, at its core, affirmative action recognizes existing barriers to equal opportunity, like job bias and exclusion from business relationships, and seeks to expand opportunity by eliminating those barriers, thereby giving everyone a fair chance to compete."

Additionally, "UCLA law Professor Jerry Kang said there needs to be affirmative action because discrimination is natural within humans. In an ideal world, humans would not make decisions based on race, so there would be no need for affirmative action, he said. But studies show that people still carry some stereotypes, called implicit bias, even though they openly declare that they do not, Kang said. He said experiments have shown discrimination does exist, even if only on a subconscious level, and that is why affirmative action is so necessary in California. Kang said there is "rampant discrimination," and affirmative action is a justified method for correcting this problem and leveling the playing field." (PRO 8)

The innate tendency to discriminate is still a problem today, and as Shuford points out, "according to one study of over 1300 employers in Boston and Chicago, job applicants with "white-sounding" names are twice as likely to be called back for interviews as equally qualified applicants with "black-sounding" names...African-American women, moreover, earn only sixty-three cents per hour and Hispanic women only fifty-two cents per hour for every dollar a white man earns for similar employment. Given its well-documented effectiveness, affirmative action is an appropriate tool for combating these and other ongoing disparities."

Somewhere in the case include:
African-Americans still are making about 76 cents to every dollar a white man makes. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2006

Contention Two: Affirmative Action is beneficial to all Americans.

Affirmative action has the most direct and immediate benefits for minorities and women, but the rest of the population benefits from Affirmative action as well. According to Lawrence Hanks, Associate Professor of Political Science at Indiana University, "anecdotal evidence suggests that in the decades prior to the institutionalization of affirmative action in the Academy, hiring, tenure and promotion standards were quite lax—resembling an "old boy's network." With the advent of affirmative action and the access of the academic market to candidates of both genders and diverse racial groups, came an institutionalization of specified—and therefore higher—standards hiring and tenure of faculty. Thus, affirmative action has not had a negative impact on standards; ironically, it has led to the creation of standards. Therefore, because of affirmative action, all candidates today (even those that directly benefit from affirmative action) meet higher standards for hiring and assigning tenure than existed in the pre-affirmative action period."

Affirmative actions also serves the greater good by increasing diversity in educational institutions and workplaces. Harry Holzer, Professor of Public Policy at Georgetown University, asserts that "Universities clearly believe they benefit from these policies. You may or may not buy the research on how diversity improves the quality of the classroom, but the universities themselves feel that their legitimacy is enhanced by reaching out to a much larger population and providing access to a greater range of students. And the business community seems to benefit. The demographics of the labor market are changing a lot in tight labor markets. Businesses are really strapped for ways to find talent in minority applicant pools, and affirmative action helps them do that."
Debate Round No. 1
mcmackiee

Con

Very Structured :) Kudos.
Here's my neg:

It is without a doubt that Affirmative Action was a needed policy during a time when true racial and gender equality was just a dream. However, the continued use of policies are no longer needed, and further implementation of Affirmative Action prevents the United States from become a totally "color blind" state.

Therefore, as the negative, we stand in firm opposition to the resolution that affirmative action to promote equal opportunity in the United States is justified.

Definitions:

We will define Affirmative Action as any policy or program that seeks to redress past discrimination. Equal opportunity will be defined as opportunity that is free from discrimination. And justified will be defined as morally acceptable or right.

Resolutional Analysis:

We as the negation are here today to prove that Affirmative action is unjust and is no longer needed in the United States.

Contention one: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION HAS OUTLIVED ITS USEFULNESS

Looking at who is now the most powerful man in the world, it is clear the Affirmative Action has done its job. Barrack Obama's election proves that the American people are not institutionally racist. Yes, there will always be racism. But Affirmative action has done its job in reducing the amount of it to a minimum.
If Americans make a black person the most powerful man in the world, how can racial prejudice be so prevalent and potent that it justifies special efforts to place minorities in coveted jobs and schools?
The simple answer to this question is that Affirmative Action is no longer needed. When you look at the success of Hilary Clinton and Barrack Obama, it becomes clear that the United States has moved away from the shameful past of segregation and discrimination. The American people can vote regardless of color or gender, so we should allow them to truly hire without care of color or gender.

Contention two: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DOES MORE HARM THAN GOOD.

The intentions of Affirmative Action may have been good, but it ended up bringing about more problems than it solves, such as diminishing the credibility of minorities and reverse discrimination.
Currently, eighty percent of whites and 71 percent of Hispanics are against the special preference given by Affirmative Action.
When a minority is hired or accepted into a school based solely on affirmative action, it takes away the credibility of all minorities. Affirmative Action makes Americans think that most minorities involved in elite activities are only there because of Affirmative Action. As you can imagine, this can be quite demeaning to minorities.
The stated purpose of affirmative action according to the resolution is to promote equal opportunity. The philosophy behind Affirmative Action is that over time, minorities will be indistinguishable from majorities statistically and socially. But the very policy of Affirmative Action is detrimental to the success of minorities in achieving equality. By granting minorities special privileges, you set them apart from majorities. If you want to make the statement that minorities are equal, then treat them equally.
Reverse discrimination has also become a major concern involving Affirmative Action. Reverse discrimination, otherwise known as "positive discrimination", gives an unfair bias toward minorities and women. This reverse discrimination does not promote equal opportunity. To give an advantage to a certain race or gender causes discrimination, which is the very thing that Affirmative Action strives to eliminate.
Continued use of affirmative action is no longer beneficial for racial and gender equality. Instead of promoting equal opportunity, affirmative action promotes preferences for minorities.

CONTENTION THREE: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS RACIST.

In his Brief in the case of Brown vs. Board of Education, Thurgood Marshall, then executive director of the Legal Defense Fund of the NAACP, wrote in 1954: "Distinctions by race are so evil, so arbitrary and invidious that a state, bound to defend the equal protection of the laws must not invoke them in any public sphere".
Racism, by definition, grants rights to or takes rights from an ethnic group on the basis of biological characteristics. Affirmative Action grants rights to minorities solely on the basis of racism, as well as denies certain opportunities to racial majorities. Therefore, Affirmative Action, by definition, is racist.
Minorities in the past have suffered severe discrimination on the basis of race. The fundamental belief behind racism is that races are different from each other in mental abilities, and that some races of people are superior to others. The philosophy behind Affirmative Action is that minorities are in a disadvantaged situation they themselves cannot remedy, and that Affirmative Action will tip the scales to promote equal opportunity in the United States. In truth, Affirmative Action implies that because of generations of discrimination, minorities in the US have become inferior to majorities, and therefore are incapable of competing on a level playing field. This corresponds with the racist belief that some races are inferior to others. It also implies that minorities will never be able to pick themselves up, and that they are incapable of achieving the same standards as whites. Every citizen in the United States is equal under common law, therefore, Affirmative Action is not necessary.

To summarize, Affirmative action is no longer needed, it creates more harm than good, and it is racist. Because of these points I urge a strong vote in the negation of the resolution.
jimmye

Pro

First off i'd like to point out that my opponent does not offer many sources in this round, therefore reducing her credibility. Because my opponent does not give a source for her definition we have to look at the con side for all the definitions.

From the Cato Institute, "Affirmative action means taking positive steps to end discrimination, to prevent its recurrence, and to create new opportunities that were previously denied qualified minorities and women."

According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, to "Justify" something means "To prove or show to be just; to vindicate; to maintain or defend as conformable to law, right, justice, propriety,or duty."

I will now move on to the rest of my opponents case.
Contention one: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION HAS OUTLIVED ITS USEFULNESS

My opponent explains how Affirmative Action works, and Barrack Obama is living proof of this. So therefore we no longer need affirmative action.

UCLA law Professor Jerry Kang said there needs to be affirmative action because discrimination is natural within humans. In an ideal world, humans would not make decisions based on race, so there would be no need for affirmative action, he said. But studies show that people still carry some stereotypes, called implicit bias, even though they openly declare that they do not, Kang said. He said experiments have shown discrimination does exist, even if only on a subconscious level, and that is why affirmative action is so necessary.

Instead of dodging the bullet, Affirmative Action actually goes to the root of the problem to fix it. Because discrimination is so wide spread, affirmative action is one of the most effective ways to promote equal opportunity in the United States.

I will now move on to my opponents second contention.

Contention two: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DOES MORE HARM THAN GOOD.
My opponent uses the following quote: Currently, eighty percent of whites and 71 percent of Hispanics are against the special preference given by Affirmative Action.

We can not weigh this piece of evidence in the round, because it has no source, and therefore is not credible.

Writer Paul Kivel rejects the notion that white men are widely subjected to "reverse discrimination" or are systematically by-passed in favor of unqualified minorities: If one looks at the composition of various professions such as law, medicine, architecture, academics and journalism, or at corporate management, or at higher-level government positions, or if one looks overall at the average income levels of white men, one immediately notices that people of color are still significantly underrepresented and underpaid in every category. People of color don't make up the proportions of these jobs even remotely equal to their percentage in the population. Therefore reverse discrimination does not have many measurable impacts.

I will not finish with my opponents last contention
CONTENTION THREE: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS RACIST.

What you must realize is that equal opportunity does not always mean equal treatment. If were were to accomplish equality Affirmative Action is the most effective means of reaching it. Equality is an impossible concept to achieve. We can only make it easier to get. I will assume you agree with the statement that: Socially, there is currently no full Equality of race. So, Affirmative action is a system to allow equality to be stable and exist.

And with this you can see most of all the impacts fall on the Pro side of this argument: Therefore i urge a ballot in Affirmation of the resolution revolved: Affirmative action to promote equal opportunity in the United States is justified.
Debate Round No. 2
jimmye

Pro

Good round, i hope you use more cite your sources in the future. Quote from my partner: "Also, you NEED to listen to the comments/suggestions i wrote on your neg case, and INCLUDE SOURCES DAMN IT!!!! its not that hard. its just an extra few words to copy and paste from files."

Again move all my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
mcmackiee

Con

mcmackiee forfeited this round.
jimmye

Pro

I believe i have won this round so therefore extend all my arguments once more.
Debate Round No. 4
mcmackiee

Con

mcmackiee forfeited this round.
jimmye

Pro

jimmye forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by jimmye 6 years ago
jimmye
I will swap national qualifier cases with anyone! PF i have both sides =) But looking for new arguments... just message me!!!!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jimmye 5 years ago
jimmye
mcmackieejimmyeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07