The Instigator
TheBrorator
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Nougatrocity
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Affirmative Action

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
TheBrorator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,267 times Debate No: 21324
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

TheBrorator

Con

First Round: Acceptance.
Second Round: 1st Constructive (Arguments are presented and refuted.)
Third Round: 2nd Constructive (New arguments can be presented but old arguments do not drop unless conceded to.)
Fourth Round: Rebuttals (Final rebuttals and a summary of debate are presented. Voters MUST be provided!)

Affirmative Action:

This debate will be about being For or Opposed to Affirmative action and nothing else. All citations must be noted ([1]) inside the arguments after quotation marks if necessary.

Definitions of words that may be argued specifically must be provided before using said words. If you use a word for a specific reason that word must be defined. If it is not, and your opponent infers it differently and presents a definition, you must use that definition. Conversely, if you would like to present a counter definition, you must explain why you meet it, and whether or not you meet the opponents definition as well.

Spelling and grammar will be voting issues and are valid arguments in this debate.

Good luck to Pro, I look forward to an educational debate.
Nougatrocity

Pro

Affirmative Action isn't something I discuss particularly often, so I thank my opponent for the opportunity to diverge from my typical contentions.

I will argue the position that Affirmative Action is overall beneficial to society. My argument will be in favor of affirmative action in general: policies that take factors including race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group.[1]

I accept my opponent's terms, and await his argument.


******Sources******
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
TheBrorator

Con

I thank Nougatrocity for accepting my debate. I will present my own definition of Affirmative Action as this is the actual constructive period.

"Affirmative action" means steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded. [1]

1. Affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination.
>"Affirmative action is designed to end discrimination and unfair treatment of employees/students based on color, but it in effect does the opposite." [2] Affirmative action is, as stated above used to: increase the representation of women and minorities. This is, reverse discrimination in it's entirety. Whites who work harder and/or are more qualified can be passed over strictly because they are white. A poverty-stricken white student who uses discipline and hard work to become the best he can be can be passed over by a rich minority student who doesn't put in much effort at all. This was the case in the past that called for affirmative action. Those that didn't have the chances before, and those that had all the chance essentially switch rolls.

2. Affirmative action lowers standards of accountability needed to push students or employees to perform better.
>A lot of colleges today look for exceptionally high GPAs when accepting applications. "If a minority student can get into Harvard with a 3.2 grade-point average, why should she push herself to get a 4.0?" [2] At the same time a student of the majority will have to earn that 4.0 and may still not have as much a chance. Although some students or employees are self-motivated, most people need an extra push or incentive to do their very best. By setting lower standards for admission or hiring, we are lowering the level of accountability. If we reward those that do not work as hard with a higher college education (and essentially better jobs) than another who has to work harder and still can't get the chance, we destroy and incentive for minority students to work hard, as well as the accountability of that work.

3. Students admitted on this basis are often ill-equipped to handle the schools to which they've been admitted.
>When we admit these unprepared minority students into colleges and occupations that one who has a larger accountability to work would be able to handle, we destroy the chances of the minorities of keeping the jobs and placement in colleges. Schools like Harvard and Yale have high GPA and SAT requirements because it is extremely difficult to graduate from them. [3] When colleges lower application standards for minority students, these students are unable to keep up when the semester begins. The point here is not that these students are incapable of living up to a challenge, but that they will be unprepared for that challenge. [4]

4.It would help lead a truly color-blind society.
>To those who have Facebook accounts, you have probably seen the ever popular surveys. They ask Hair Color/Eye Color/Age/Name/Birthday... etc. When you fill out a job application (unless in a modeling agency or other 'like' career, this information is completely useless. Unless taking stereotypes into consideration (which job application viewers do not do), this information will never be useful in determining your ability to complete a job, or achieve a task. The fact that I am blond and have green eyes has nothing to do with my chance of debating this topic. Race is just another factor that will not matter when taking these applications. If you are Asian, you have just as much of a chance as I do of getting a job at NASA. A stereotype may say the Asian is smarter, but it is only that: a stereotype. Race does not play any roll in intellect or character and therefore should not be considered on applications. This would provide true racial color blindness thereby, providing equality of opportunity.

[1] plato.stanford.edu
[2] balancedpolitics.org
[3] collegeapps.about.com
[4] thedailybeast.
Nougatrocity

Pro

Nougatrocity forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheBrorator

Con

Please extend all of my previous arguments.
Nougatrocity

Pro

Nougatrocity forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
TheBrorator

Con

Please extend all of my previous arguments, again.

Voting issues:
1. Pro did not argue any of my contentions.
2. Pro did not pose a case.
3. Pro forfeited all rounds, default is to Con.
Nougatrocity

Pro

Nougatrocity forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Use tinyurls.
Posted by TheBrorator 4 years ago
TheBrorator
I had to shorten them all because I ran out of characters. I will post them in my next comment.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Hey just copy paste the link, then we can go straight to the source.
Posted by TheBrorator 4 years ago
TheBrorator
The ending of my last source citation was cut off. It is "thedailybeast.com".
Posted by TheBrorator 4 years ago
TheBrorator
Any in round questions may be submitted as a comment.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
TheBroratorNougatrocityTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: FF