The Instigator
Ron-Paul
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
UltimateSkeptic
Pro (for)
Winning
12 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 4 votes the winner is...
UltimateSkeptic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,242 times Debate No: 27554
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

Ron-Paul

Con

Here is the challenge.

Full Resolution:

Affirmative action is good.

I will be negating this resolution.

BoP is shared.

Definitions:

Affirmative Action: "A policy in which an individual's color, race, sex, religion or national origin are taken into account by a business or the government in order to increase the opportunities provided to an underrepresented part of society. Affirmative action is designed to increase the number of people from certain groups within businesses, institutions and other areas of society in which they have historically had low representation. It is often considered a means of countering historical discrimination against a particular group."[1]

Good: "Satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree."[2]

Rules:

1. The first round is for acceptance.
2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.
3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
4. 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 from all moments after the debate has been formalized.

Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.

Debate Structure:

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)
Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)
Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)

Sources:

[1]: http://www.investopedia.com...
[2]: http://dictionary.reference.com...
UltimateSkeptic

Pro

Thank you for the challenge, in compliance with our conversation. I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Ron-Paul

Con

I would like to thank UltimateSkeptic for accepting this debate.

I will be kind of short this round, but I will be more thorough in round 3.

I. Reverse Discrimination

"In nutshell affirmative action leads to:
1. Reverse discrimination or disparity', or favoritism. It's the unfair treatment of students or employees based on color. A white person can be over looked for a position simply because of the color of their skin, even though the white person is poverty stricken. Many minorities fall into the middle or rich class. Which means the poor white cannot get any extra considerations.

2. Affirmative action lowers the standard or accountability. If you can enter a university with a lower grade point average, why strive to raise it? The same holds true with employment, why do better when you can just get by?"[1]

"American economist, social and political commentator Dr. Thomas Sowell identified some negative results of race-based affirmative action in his book, 'Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study.' Sowell writes that affirmative action policies encourage non-preferred groups to designate themselves as members of preferred groups (i.e., primary beneficiaries of affirmative action) to take advantage of group preference policies; that they tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g., upper and middle class blacks), often to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g., poor whites or Asians); that they reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best — the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile — thereby resulting in net losses for society as a whole; and that they increase animosity toward preferred groups." [2][7]

Therefore, reverse discrimination is a big problem with affirmative action.

II. Effects

"Affirmative Action helps to weaken our countries productivity. Preferred groups have less incentive to perform well because it is not needed and non-preferred groups do not preform as well because they don’t feel it will help them. This hurts everyone especially in tough economic times such as these."[3]

"Stories of the bad effects of Affirmative Action abound. The philosopher Sidney Hook writes that "At one Ivy League university, representatives of the Regional HEW demanded an explanation of why there were no women or minority students in the Graduate Department of Religious Studies. They were told that a reading of knowledge of Hebrew and Greek was presupposed. Whereupon the representatives of HEW advised orally: 'Then end those old fashioned programs that require irrelevant languages. And start up programs on relevant things which minority group students can study without learning languages.'"[4][5]

Affirmative action causes negative outcomes on the economy and on most people.

III. Usefulness

The impact on University of California student population was was to quickly raise the population of Asian students from about 30% in Proposition 209. Asians make up about 10% of the California population. With affirmative action in place, Asians were about 37% of the students population. With affirmative action ended, the Asian student population increased to about 44%. The numbers at the Berkeley campus are now approaching 50%. The mantle of affirmative action had been used to impose a quota on Asian students.[6]

The affirmative action premise is that lack of opportunities due to past discrimination accounts for differences in the success rates. That's false. Yes, some groups lag behind the general population in outcomes, but that doesn't mean the reason is discrimination. It's about cultural values and tradition.

Affirmative action is rather unnecessary and in fact, can be determinal to the rise of certain groups.

Sources:

[1]: http://www.helium.com...
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]: http://www.kavmerica.com...
[4]: Nicholas Capaldi. Out of Order: Affirmative Action and the Crisis of Doctrinaire Liberalism (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1985).
[5]: http://www.csus.edu...
[6]: http://mjperry.blogspot.com...
[7]: http://en.wikipedia.org...

UltimateSkeptic

Pro

"The desire to have diversity at a University [or employment] level comes from a desire to change the fact that the people who had access and privilege in this country were only a certain class, race or sex of people for a very long time in this country. The commitment to diversity comes from the desire to be more inclusive and fair, so that we acknowledge the fact that not everyone starts out on an even scale, benefits, access to achieve. And so, we do something about that in a country where we want everyone to have a shot at success."~Kerry Washington


A. Statistics demand the acknowledgement of discrimination.

In an ideal world, affirmative action would not exist. No one would have to worry about factors out of their control playing into their major life decisions, and everything would be fair and just. As both my opponent and I can tell you, this is not a world in which we live. Despite growth in the department of discrimination, to date we still have the following problems:

-1 in 100 Americans are incarcerated, 1 in 36 Hispanics, 1 in 15 blacks (1 in 9 black men from age 20-34). [1]

-The unemployment rate for blacks is over 15%, over 12% for Hispanics. [2] National unemployment is 7.9%

-Median income for blacks is $34, 345, $37, 913 for, and $55, 530 for Caucasians. [2]

-30% of Hispanics don't have health insurance, just under 20% of blacks, and 10% of Caucasians aren't insured.[2]

-Women are paid less than men, 77 cents to every dollar. [3]

-For the second time in a row, studies and experiments confirm that employers prefer Caucasians with a felony over African Americans without one, or just as much. [4]

The abolition of affirmative action does nothing to acknowledge these inequalities, it effectively turns its back to it. Discrimination, though not usually very blatant, is very much alive in the United States. To believe that there is a shade of pigment or sex that would cause someone to be more violent, to not want health insurance, to not work on an equal scale, to not earn an equal pay, or to want to be incarcerated, is a failure to reason honestly. The goal of affirmative action is inclusivity to all regardless of race, sex, or religious background. This is not a minority or a women problem, this is an American problem. To view otherwise is to fuel racial prejudice and stereotypes.


B. Affirmative Action & racism/prejudice discrimination are not equals.

Affirmative action is in place for the exact opposite reason that most opponents of it tend to shed light towards — to neutralize racial prejudice and discrimination.

Discrimination is theprejudicial or distinguishing treatment of an individual based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category, such as theirrace,gender,sexual orientation,ethnicity,national origin, orreligion. It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction, influencing the individual's actual behavior towards the group or the group leader, restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group” [5]

The most important part of the previous definition is what is in discussion in this week’s debate,”…restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group.” Most opponents of affirmative action generally appeal to sense of fair, equality, and do so on an appearance of an even scale. The problem with this scale is that it does not reflect reality. Minorities and women face discrimination in the work place.[6] To suggest that minorities or women have a leg up in any phase of selection regarding career fields, schooling, or other similar environments, is to ignore the bigger picture. Minorities aren’t restricting majorities from opportunities or privileges that aren’t available to majorities, statistics prove that it is the other way around.
"The problem with this is that it uses the same word -- discrimination -- to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action is an effort to overcome prejudicial treatment through inclusion. The most effective way to cure society of exclusionary practices is to make special efforts at inclusion, which is exactly what affirmative action does. The logic of affirmative action is no different than the logic of treating a nutritional deficiency with vitamin supplements. For a healthy person, high doses of vitamin supplements may be unnecessary or even harmful, but for a person whose system is out of balance, supplements are an efficient way to restore the body's balance."[8]

C. Affirmative Action provides incentive.

"Perhaps the greatest misconception about affirmative action is that it is a preference program. Affirmative action has never meant giving unqualified individuals access to employment, business and educational opportunities. Rather, it was designed and should continue to be a program that requires critical thinking about what constitutes legitimate qualification requirements and gives opportunities to qualified and deserving individuals... Its primary aim has been to end the exclusion of people who belong to groups that have been subordinated or left out of certain jobs and schools."[7]

"What African-Americans meet at the door is an assumption that they will not measure up to the standards an organization has set. That assumption is fueled by an unspoken presumption--Murray and Hernnstein's book The Bell Curve notwithstanding--of the intellectual inferiority of African-Americans, ostensibly confirmed by their lower standardized test scores. There is a tendency to focus too strongly on one or two easily observable measures of qualification and not on the most important: how people perform once they are in the actual situation, regardless of the factors--drive, motivation, resilience, sheer determination, passion or native intelligence--that got them there. But test scores are designed to be only predictive and, in reality, they often are not."[7]





[1]http://www.nytimes.com...

[2]http://www.americanprogress.org...

[3]http://www.politifact.com...

[4] http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com...

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[6] http://smallbusiness.chron.com...

[7]http://www.fiveoclockclub.com...;

[8]http://www.understandingprejudice.org...;

Debate Round No. 2
Ron-Paul

Con

I would like to thank UltimateSkeptic for presenting his arguments.

A. Statistics Demand the Acknowledgement of Discrimination

My opponent begins by presenting six statistics that highlight discrimination. However, the first four do not immediately lead to the assumption of discrimination. For all we know, black males could just be a higher crime rate group at no fault of discrimination.

However, his final two do indeed demand recognition.

First, I will counter the women argument: Women are paid, on average, 77% of what men are paid. However, that statistic does not account for differences in the male and female workforces. One factor is that woman tend to work fewer hours, and part time employees are paid less. "Just comparing men and women who work 40 hours weekly, without accounting for differences in jobs, training, or time in the labor force, yields a ratio of 87.2 percent, with a smaller pay gap." Other factors include the choice of college major and years of uninterrupted employment. Even though more women graduate from college than men, they tend to major in lower-paying liberal arts. "Generally, the more information about women that is included in the analysis, the more of the wage gap that can be explained, and the less is the residual portion attributable to "discrimination." An analysis that omits relevant information finds a greater unexplained residual, and concludes that there is more discrimination."[1] "Factor in occupation, industry and whether they belong to a union, and they jump to 91%."[2] That final number does not even include hours worked between the two sexes.

Next, onto the racial arguments. I read my opponent's source for clarification, and here is what I found: "At the same time, it is important to remember that the problems of discrimination cannot be eliminated through enforcement alone. Racial stereotypes, though often exaggerated distortions of reality, are fueled in part by real associations between race, crime, and incarceration. Tackling these social problems at their root"including inadequate schools, neighborhood instability, and a lack of employment opportunities"are likely to represent among the most far-reaching interventions."[3] It isn't really the fact that employers want to discriminate, it is the unfortunate circumstance of racial stereotypes. Only education to both sides will right this wrong; quotas will only harden distrust and dislike of racial groups by others.

Finally, my opponent concludes with a statement on how affirmative action rights these wrongs. However, the best counterargument is Asians.

"An average White employee makes 92.1 percent of what the average Asian makes.""Average Asians earn $899.5 per week in 2005, which is about 11.2 percent more than other races." This is even though, "Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are unique in many aspects. They earn 7.6 percent more than other races even though they work fewer hours, have fewer years of job experience, and lower rate of union membership." How is this possible? "Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders lead the rest of the population in educational qualification. On average, Asian and Pacific Islanders have nearly one more year of education. 48.5% of Asians in the U.S. have a Bachelors Degree or more, compared to 31.8% for the national average, 32.3% for White non-Hispanics and just 23.6% for others."[4] And, in history, Asians have been discriminated against as much or more than any other group.[5]

It is education that has clearly been the dominant factor in Asian's rise.

B. Affirmative Action and Racism/Prejudice Discrimination Are Not Equals

Minorities do not always benefit from affirmative action: "A high school student with a below average academic record is likely to be a below average college student. Thus, students admitted through minority recruiting programs often end up in remedial classes with mediocre academic performance. Through simple cause and effect, affirmative action programs prolong the stereotype of minority students finishing near the bottom of their class by encouraging enrollment in universities beyond an appropriate level of difficulty. According to a federal study, just 39% of enrolled black students finish their degrees compared to 54% of white students. Attending a university where the pace of learning is too difficult is just as counterproductive as attempting to lift too much weight at the gym. The insistence on relaxed admission standards for minority students insinuates that such students are incapable of succeeding without such programs. This insult casts a permanent doubt on the real achievements of high-achieving minorities."[6]

In addition, "Supporters of affirmative action made dire predictions about the consequences of it's repeal. A careful study of the data shows that incompetent firms given preferences under affirmative action did go out of business, but that minorities then continued to advance steadily under fair competition. "Proposition 209 in no way hindered the progress of minorities and women in public employment. Predictions about a future deterioration of labor market positions for women and minorities proved utterly unfounded."..."In 1999, black students earned a total of 1,139 bachelor"s degrees from the UC. In 2006, that number had increased 3% to 1,170. In 1999, Hispanic students earned a total of 3,984 bachelor"s degrees from the UC. In 2006, that number had increased 33%, for a total of 5,287 degrees."[7]

In fact, The data show that students admitted to the top level schools under affirmative action did not do well. When affirmative action ended in California, minority applicants applied to school suited to their qualifications, and both admissions and graduation rated increased.[7]

Affirmative action does not necessarily combat racism or encourage development.

C. Affirmative Action Provides Incentive

As stated earlier, affirmative action tends to stifle incentives for minorities because it enblazens the idea of the fact that they require a government forced program to get jobs. It carves the idea of stereotypes into their minds. "Tragically"for blacks, women and other "oppressed" minorities"affirmative action indirectly communicates a demoralizing message of inferiority that reinforces the same separatism it set out to solve. It is pure illogic to think that you can fight fire with fire and get anything but scorched earth."[8]

In fact, in the words of Martin Luther King Jr., "Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority."[9] Affirmative action completely subordinates the human personality to a person's group.

In a sense, affirmative action does not cure disparities among races and genders and discourages incentive and the removal of stereotypes by everyone. It is unnecessary and harmful.

Sources:

[1]: http://blogs.reuters.com...
[2]: http://www.time.com...
[3]: http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com...
[4]: http://www.aabri.com...
[5]: http://www.zakkeith.com...
[6]: http://wiki.mises.org...
[7]: http://www.nas.org...
[8]: http://www.humanevents.com...
[9]: http://www.africa.upenn.edu...
UltimateSkeptic

Pro

Thank you Ron Paul, you've proven to be a formidable opponent.


In this round, I'd like to esponge the charitable language of my opponent, in order to expose the true claims made by my opponent, and then move into my rebuttal. His words will be in bold, and mine will immediately follow.


"My opponent begins by presenting six statistics that highlight discrimination. However, the first four do not immediately lead to the assumption of discrimination. For all we know, black males could just be a higher crime rate group at no fault of discrimination."

My opponent has implied the claim that black men are inherently more dangerous than non-black males. I do find this to be slightly offensive, but my feelings have no place in a debate and I will debate the words for what they say. If criminal minded aggression is in pigment, I have missed out on the status quo. To imply that it is due to pigment and not socioeconomic, direct racial profiling, and the sheer numbers of police in low income areas (a place more likely to be held by black males) is not only fallacious, it's racist. Not that I'm calling my opponent a racist, I'm not sure if he intended it to be the devil's advocate or not, but the viewpoint he's set forth is exactly that.

The statistics were:1 in 100 Americans are incarcerated, 1 in 36 Hispanics, 1 in 15 blacks (1 in 9 black men from age 20-34), the unemployment rate for blacks is over 15%, over 12% for Hispanics— National unemployment is 7.9%, median income for blacks is $34, 345, $37, 913 for Hispanics, and $55, 530 for Caucasians & 30% of Hispanics don't have health insurance, just under 20% of blacks, and 10% of Caucasians aren't insured. What these statistics show, is that when minorities are subject to approval (Societal approval by the police, job application approval, and insurance approval) they are constantly picked at a more disadvantaged rate than any other group. To pretend that this does not exist based on discrimination or to not see this as an American problem, and only see it as a minority problem is a view point not delegated by reason, but by discrimination or privilege. For example, it's not problem with women that they're discriminated against in the work place, it's a problem with the workplace.


"First, I will counter the women argument: Women are paid, on average, 77% of what men are paid. However, that statistic does not account for differences in the male and female workforces. One factor is that woman tend to work fewer hours, and part time employees are paid less."

I do not believe my opponent is intentionally trying to mislead the voters, I believe he has just failed to read the source that I quoted. Source number 3 in my previous round specifically states, "The Census Bureau, which tracks annual wages, found women who worked full-time, year-round in 2010 made 77 cents for every dollar men earned across the country."


"Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are unique in many aspects. They earn 7.6 percent more than other races even though they work fewer hours, have fewer years of job experience, and lower rate of union membership." How is this possible? "Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders lead the rest of the population in educational qualification. On average, Asian and Pacific Islanders have nearly one more year of education."

My opponent set forth a segment about Asian progress in the United States attributing it to their tendency to have a higher education and more educational requirements. I will agree with my opponent that education is the key to success and tolerance, and that Asians do lead the way. However, this is not central to this debate.

Asians do not face the level racial discrimination that Hispanics and blacks do. This comparison ignores the unique history of discrimination against Black people in America. Over the past four centuries, Black history has included nearly 250 years of slavery, 100 years of legalized discrimination, and only 50 years of anything else. Jews and Asians, on the other hand, are populations that immigrated to North America and included doctors, lawyers, professors, and entrepreneurs among their ranks. Moreover, European Jews are able to function as part of the White majority. To expect Blacks to show the same upward mobility as Jews and Asians is to deny the historical and social reality that Black people face. [1]


With this last quote, I would like to move onto my rebuttal contentions.

I. The foundation on which your vote will be cast, has been set.

In my opponent's last post, he made a statement very central to this debate's outcome. He stated, "It isn't really the fact that employers want to discriminate, it is the unfortunate circumstance of racial stereotypes. Only education to both sides will right this wrong;" The problem with this is that whether it be hate inspired by the individuals thought or discrimination reinforced by racial stereotypes, it has the same outcome. It leaves the undesired race out of the mix. My opponent will have you believe that intervention is not the best combatant to this militant exclusion of privilege, and that education cures all. I submit that education is the true key, but how do we do it?

In order to educate on prejudice, you must integrate the two and let experience teach and educate. You cannot expect for someone to lose their fear of heights by never having to experience heights. For example, racism started its steep downfall when blacks and whites were ordered to desegregate and integrate schools, and then forced to hire minorities and interact with them on a daily basis. The problem with my opponent's position is that it disregards current life. he has accepted that prejudice is alive and well, but then states that the only way to defeat it is to let the prejudice population self educate when they're ready. Well, that disregards every life they reject until that point when an intervention leads to the same result but at a much better advantage for minorities than the previous suggestion.

Question number 1 is: Is affirmative action successful?

According to a report from the U.S. Labor Department, affirmative action has helped 5 million minority members and 6 million White and minority women move up in the workforce ("Reverse Discrimination," 1995). Likewise, a study sponsored by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs showed that between 1974 and 1980 federal contractors (who were required to adopt affirmative action goals) added Black and female officials and managers at twice the rate of non contractors (Citizens' Commission, 1984). There have also been a number of well-publicized cases in which large companies (e.g., AT&T, IBM, Sears Roebuck) increased minority employment as a result of adopting affirmative action policies.[1]

Question number 2 is: Given that it has worked, is there still a need for affirmative action?

My opponent has set forth the claim that companies have gone out of business because of discrimination in the application process and promotional platforms, but this is not the rule, it's an exception. I'd like my opponent, if he doesn't mind, to provide the companies that went out of business because of their racial bias. Given the statistics I've provided and many more, the answer is yes. When you have large inequalities in statistics that prove an obvious bias, intervention is warranted and also demanded. There is still a level of discrimination high enough to prevent people from experience the privileges of normal life, thus requiring immediate response. If it works, and it is needed, there is no rational reason for abolition.


II. Negative Psychological effects of affirmative action.

Obviously rare. White men, who have traditionally benefited from preferential hiring, do not feel hampered by self-doubt or a loss in self-esteem. Out of characters, I'll elaborate next round.


[1]http://www.understandingprejudice.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Ron-Paul

Con

I would like to thank UltimateSkeptic for this great debate.

This round, I will be attacking my opponent's R3 argument (defending my original arguments). I will cover each topic in the order my opponent addressed them.

I. Introduction

First off, I apologize if I sound racist. My point was too vague. I meant that young black males have higher incarceration rates not because they are black, but because of their education. This can be easily seen in some statistics.

Blacks have the lowest education rates (i.e. the highest high school and college dropout rates and the lowest high school and college graduation rates) of any major ethnic group. This is reflected in the fact that blacks make the lowest wages and have the highest unemployment rate of any major ethnic group.[1]

This can be further backed up when we see that black women have higher wages and less unemployment than black males, and they also have higher education rates.[1]

This can be even further backed up by this: "Equally startling, the risks of prison incarceration rose steeply with lower levels of education. Among blacks, 30.2 percent of those who didn't attend college had gone to prison by 1999 and 58.9 percent of black high school dropouts born from 1965 through 1969 had served time in state or federal prison by their early 30s."[2]

But, is education racist? Well, "One must also take into account numerous other factors, especially where they may lie socio-economically." and "Education is the key factor for these inequalities. Income is often based on education and experience." and "Professionals, no matter what their race, make more comparable salaries than when comparing the different incomes across the whole board."[1] No, it makes no sense.

As for my opponent's second racial argument, Asians have and continue to face a high amount of discrimination: Take this, "In 1982, a Chinese American is bludgeoned to death in a racially-motivated attack in Detroit. His killers walk free with a mere $3,000 fine because the judge rules they are "not a threat to society" by virtue of their being gainfully employed citizens at the time of the murder."[3] Many other statistics and facts are available in that source. Asians have faced a big brunt from discrimination, but they make higher wages than even whites do. Why? Because of education levels to Asians. Asians have a five point IQ advantage, but that's not nearly enough to explain the success. Clearly, success came as a consequence of a strong culture that places a high value on education and initiative. Whatever factor discrimination plays, it is minor by comparison.

Asians and Jews have faced large amounts of discrimination, especially in Europe, but their incomes always seem to be higher because both groups are a lot more hardworking and more educated than blacks. Asians faced the idea of psuedo-slavery in the mines of the west (i.e. they were paid, but only enough to basically keep them alive) and, as everyone knows, Jews have faced extraordinary amounts of discrimination, even in America.

On the sexism argument, "Men working five percent longer than women alone explains about one-quarter of the wage gap."[4] And like I said earlier, Other factors include the choice of college major and years of uninterrupted employment. Even though more women graduate from college than men, they tend to major in lower-paying liberal arts.[5] In addition, "Often times, women are willing to trade higher pay for jobs with other characteristics that they find attractive... Men, in contrast, often take jobs with less desirable characteristics in pursuit of higher pay. They work long hours and overnight shifts."[4] And, "Women have many reasons to celebrate today. Women are increasingly taking on leadership roles in businesses around the world. Technology is increasingly creating more flexible work arrangements, creating new options for parents to combine work and family life. Women are excelling academically (earning far more college degrees than men). Given that the economy tends to place a premium on education, we can expect women to contribute (and earn!) more in the future."[4]

There really isn't that much of a gender gap when considering time worked, industries chosen, and demanded wages between the two sexes. And, women are becoming increasingly important, not because of affirmative action, but because of their higher levels of education and more time to work.

Finally, in this argument, I will counter my opponent's final two premises.

One, The data show that students admitted to the top level schools under affirmative action did not do well. When affirmative action ended in California, minority applicants applied to school suited to their qualifications, and both admissions and graduation rated increased.[6] "Renner found that black and Hispanic students were concentrated in institutions offering only two-year associate degrees, and very few research universities took large numbers of them. By contrast, of the 30 colleges and universities with the largest numbers of white students, only one offered only two-year degrees, and 26 were research universities."[7] Affirmative action isn't working, and is harmful.

Finally, on incentive, " I am going to say it and some people are going to hate me for it, but Affirmative Action initiatives and organizations that only help people of certain races and religions are not healthy. Taking part in this type of exploitation is a great way to agree with the idea that you are inferior."[8] It makes minorites feel inferior, thus less incentive.

Also, "Affirmative action in fact results in harm to the minority community, Gryphon found, due to the "ratchet effect:" Preferences at a handful of top schools, including state flagship universities, can worsen racial disparities in academic preparation at other schools by luring away qualified minority students who might otherwise attend those schools.

"This effect results in painfully large gaps in academic preparation between minority students and others on campuses around the country," according to Gryphon."[9]

Affirmative action is harmful to all. What is the best solution? "Education must be factored as key for these major inequalities among the races. As many people know first hand, racism does exist and is a problem. However, I do not believe it is the number one issue today. One cannot always to turn the past for excuses. The controversy that surrounds affirmative action is that is looks to make up for injustices in the past. It may seem like a good idea, but for people to move forward, they must look forward, and not dwell on the past. The focus must be on the future. Early education of the young children is where many answers lie. The inequalities between the races in income, in the workforce, and unemployment can all be related back to education. The foundation must be concrete!"[1]

I apologize, but sources in comments.
UltimateSkeptic

Pro

In this debate, it is important to note that my opponent and I agree on a certain number of things. We both agree that there is still discrimination in this country (though he's called it psychological stereotypes), we both agree that higher education can change situations for the better, and that affirmative action is not suppose to be permanent.

The fundamental difference we have is that my opponent advocates the taking away of the level playing field, in the face of this discrimination. We still live in a society with discrimination (whether it's engraved stereotypes or not) against race, mass homophobia, and misogyny.

I'll summarize my opponent's points, and lead you to why you should vote PRO in today's debate.


I. Implied Logic

Facts are not subject to opinion, and facts show that people of color and women are viewed as people who are generally less competent. My opponent has continually shown this throughout his case, with the implications that lesser qualified minorities will take the place of higher qualified majorities. The real affirmative action has nothing to do with that, and strictly prohibits it. The department of labor specifically says, "For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans." [1] Unknowingly, my opponent has already tried to make the assertion that minorities are taking the place of the more qualified White US Citizens, instead of pointing to the fact that they're overlooked and not under qualified.

He then implies that Asian-Americans are being equally as discriminated against as African-Americans, but they overcome it through education alone. The important miscalculation by my opponent is that Asian Americans have an entirely different stereotype they face than Blacks or Hispanics, and that African-Americans have a unique history in this country that is worse than Asian history in this country. Hispanics and Blacks face stereotypes that see them as illegal immigrants, angry violent citizens, and lazy incompetent workers. Asian-Americans don't generally face those stereotypes. Over the past four centuries, Black history has included nearly 250 years of slavery, 100 years of legalized discrimination, and only 50 years of anything else.

II Mischaracterization

The goal of affirmative action is simple, inclusivity. It is a way to make the workforce mirror the real world. My opponent is trying to argue that denying employers the ability to be racists and sexists harms society. Work force discrimination encompasses the idea that a group of individuals are excluded from the workforce due to racism, stereotypes, sexism, and other ideas. Affirmative action can be defined as precisely not that. My opponent is attempting to equate inclusivity with exclusivity, by looking at affirmative action and ignoring the fact that minorities are generally not selected, but then magnifying the one selection of a minority or a woman over a White male and calling it discrimination. This is an odious and gross mischaracterization of the real world scenario. To better understand my contention, I have a picture of President Nixon and his cabinet, and President Obama and his 2012 cabinet. Which of these pictures is discrimination, and which is inclusivity?







III. False attribution to psychological doubt.

My opponent stated, in the third round, that minorities being included in employment selection undermines their self-worth. This is something I won't touch much on, because it is very obviously flawed. If those who experience the privilege don't feel undeserving, would those who don't? This is a silly argument in today's debate, and no isolated events will be able to prove it on a large scale. If there is anything that advocates self-doubt among minorities or women, it is the outright discrimination, not the inclusivity. If it was my opponent's point to say that, for example, one race has been doing it for so long that others can't compete to the same extent and then they feel self doubt, then the solution is still very clear. You must include and teach the party who is discriminated against on a scale that is different in order to get them to the equality they really posses.


IV. Conclusion

Because it is true that affirmative action is not equal to racism, because it is true that discrimination and racial stereotypes are still very strong, & because it is true that affirmative action has worked; it is very evident that affirmative action is not the problem itself, but a solution to a problem that is not yet solved. Education is the key to success, but you have to get past discrimination in order for the minorities to reach that success. With one in every nine black males incarcerated, progress becomes second behind just trying to survive the cut.


[1]http://www.dol.gov...
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
Im surprised Ron didn't have a field day in round three.
Posted by ax123man 3 years ago
ax123man
(vote continued)

To me, this debate came down to the exact nature of what AA does. Does it lower the bar and give unqualified individuals opportunity as Con says? Or, does it simply ask decision makers to favor minorities among a pool of qualified individuals as Pro says? In the end, I don't think this was adequately addressed as this seems to require the navigation of the details of AA policy. Therefore I've tied the arguments. I found a couple issues with broken links or hard to follow sources on both sides so tied that. S&G to Pro for being more readable and concise.

Again, nice job on both sides.
Posted by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
I agree with much of Wrichcirw's analysis. I eagerly add that this type of well-researched and substantive debate is what attracts many to this site.

This debate was wonderfully respectful and measured - a rarity in such emotionally charged contests - there was no hyperbole, no screams of racism, no intentional insults towards minorities. Ron Paul apologizes for any appearance that he was "looking down" at the abilities of blacks, and I feel that we should believe that he is earnest in this. Pro reminds him gently of how demeaning many of his arguments are (that minorities accepted under AA are likely to be less qualified than whites - a situation that is explicitly forbidden in the Affirmative Action rules - Final Round) without the shrieking that so often characterizes such discourse. These refreshing qualities made scoring almost impossible for conduct.

S&G: the same applies. Ron Paul always writes in a very clear, easy to follow style. The same seems to be true for Ultimate Skeptic. No consequential errors. Expert use of charts and tables, clear chaptering...

The only observation that I have made that seems to deviate from those of Wrichcirw, is in the arguments: I felt that the charge of reverse discrimination was successfully turned, by pointing out that AA is preventing minorities from being "overlooked," and that talent discrimination is expressly forbidden in the AA law. (Final Round) The photos of Nixon's and Obama's cabinets was a stark illustration to me of what actual "exclusion" looks like.

After this, I return to full agreement with wrichcirw. I appreciate the use of the term "legacy discrimination," and note that he chose to score a tie. I would like to award points to Ron Paul as well... due to the skill that he exhibits here. I have not done the same, because I am uncertain how I can fairly do so.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Wow, what a debate. This is one of the most substantive debates I've read on this website, thank you both.

1) PRO countered esteem issues and unqualified worker assertions made by CON
2) CON's assertion of reverse discrimination is a difficult one to refute...PRO struggled with this
3) PRO's assertion about uniqueness in discrimination against blacks is justifiable, but I do not see how it applies to Latinos. Latinos should be in the same status group as Asians in that both were essentially illegal immigrants (Chinese Exclusion Act, Gentleman's Agreement) for a very long time. Yet, Latinos have not achieved the level of economic opportunity as Asians.
4) Asian immigration is complicated because of above statutes...PRO asserts that many Asian immigrants fit the mold of recent legal immigrants, i.e. already highly educated before immigration. I would have loved to see statistics on this...
5) (Irrelevant to debate) I've seen data that demonstrates that recent black legal immigrants have a much higher level of economic achievement that the black population as a whole, mainly due to education achieved before immigration (BARACK OBAMA)...this supports both PRO and CON's assertions, lol...
6) Well-sourced and well-mannered, and well presented by both sides. Some spelling mistakes, but trivial compared to most debates on this website.
7) I didn't even know that California repealed affirmative action lol...thank you.

My conclusion from this debate is that current affirmative action statues are imperfect. It looks only at socio-economics without addressing actual issues of legacy discrimination. Blacks certainly have faced more discrimination than any other category, but I fail to see how this applies at all to Latinos...if anything Asians have faced more discrimination than Latinos. Both sides ignored Latinos. Both sides agree that education is the solution. Too close to call, too well argued by both sides...will award 3 points to each side. Again, well done.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
CON: "the Regional HEW"

No idea what this is.
Posted by Ron-Paul 3 years ago
Ron-Paul
Sources for R4:

[1]: http://cte.rockhurst.edu...(Listed%20Alphabetically%20by%20P/rest.pdf
[2]: http://www2.asanet.org...
[3]: http://www.zakkeith.com...
[4]: http://www.forbes.com...
[5]: http://blogs.reuters.com...
[6]: http://www.nas.org...
[7]: http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[8]: http://www.seriousopinion.com...
[9]: http://archive.newsmax.com...

Sorry. I ran out of time to put these in the debate.
Posted by UltimateSkeptic 4 years ago
UltimateSkeptic
Actually, no, leave it as it stands.
Posted by UltimateSkeptic 4 years ago
UltimateSkeptic
Allow for the LGBT community to be protected under AA and I will accept.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 3 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
Ron-PaulUltimateSkepticTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made it clear that AA is not discriminatory. It does not promote unqualified candidates. Pro's round 3 won the debate. Firm rebuttal of Con's points. Women who work full time same hours are paid less. Pro showed that AA is successful.
Vote Placed by ax123man 3 years ago
ax123man
Ron-PaulUltimateSkepticTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate. Generally covered the key points well. As I was reading round to round, I felt the lead was going back and forth and I found it challenging to judge. Pro's main points: 1) AA is necessary to provide an equal playing field. 2) AA works and is still needed 3) Education is critical with integration being part of this. Regarding (1), I felt the debate was mixed. The discussion on Asians was reasonably well refuted by Pro. Wrichcirw makes a good point re: Latinos, but this point was not made in the debate. Regarding (2), I think both sides agreed there is a problem, therefore it's only a question of wether AA is a solution. Con had some damaging scholastic data here which were not really refuted. Regarding (3), I think both sides agree. Pro implied that AA is necessary for integration which would lead to education. It sounds good, but is it true? (continued in comments)
Vote Placed by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
Ron-PaulUltimateSkepticTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con presents a skillful performance, making three convincing statements in support of his position: A) Affirmative Action places under-qualified persons into positions that are not deserved B) AA discriminates against races that do not qualify as "protected" (my word), and B) AA creates an atrophication of talent due to a lower bar being set for some. Con also argues that determinations of position by race rather than talent is discriminatory and wrong. As these were the most convincing arguments fielded by Con - the "Convincing Arguments" score was lost when Pro successfully pointed out that they were based on a straw man understanding of Affirmative Action. Pro uses the actual wording from the Dept. of Labor to show that none of these arguments can reasonably apply in this case: "The department of labor specifically says, "For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities..." more in comments
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Ron-PaulUltimateSkepticTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: tie...well argued by both sides. 3/3 point spread