The Instigator
triplenick
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Magic8000
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Affirmative Action

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Magic8000
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 479 times Debate No: 35305
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

triplenick

Con

You say that Affirmative Action fights against unconscious bias, but isn't Affirmative Action doing just that? You cannot fight bias with bias; it doesn't work.
Magic8000

Pro

First, there is a such thing as unconscious racial bias, numerous studies prove this [1]. Certainly, we shouldn't let minorities suffer for something we're not usually aware of. Second, Con is wrong because his argument is based on an equivocation fallacy.

You cannot fight bias with bias; it doesn't work.

Now, the first use of the word bias is in the sense of a negative bias. Yet the second use is in a positive sense. He's basically saying you can't fight negative bias with positive bias. The problem with his argument becomes clear.


[1] http://www.psychologytoday.com...
Debate Round No. 1
triplenick

Con

Are you suggesting that Affirmative Action is the best way to alleviate the burden placed on all minorities in today's society, or if it does at all?

If minorities are largely accepted due to their race, and not their merits, how will they perform against their peers? Chances are, they will not perform as well as their peers and not only suffer a poor GPA and potential change of major, such as engineering to English, but also they will likely delay the optimal four year graduation and obtain a large amount of student loans that they cannot pay off, thus digging them further into a debt hole (Mismatch by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor). Not only does this flawed policy hurt non-minorities by decreasing their potential chances, but it also hurts minorities because it may place them in situations that they are not well prepared for.

A few questions:

Should wealthy minorities inherently receive an advantage solely because of their backgrounds?

If a minority is accepted to an institution, how will that minority know if he or she gained admission because of his or her own merit, rather than the color of his or her skin?

Should a minority with lower scores across the board, an easier course selection, and few significant extracurricular activities with leadership positions be granted admission to a university over a non-minority that has higher scores across the board, the hardest course selection possible, and meaningful extracurricular activities with leadership positions solely because of his or her color?

How is Affirmative Action different from discrimination and bias against a particular ethnic group? Not only is it insulting to hardworking minorities, but it also gives qualified non-minorities less of a chance to achieve their respective academic dreams.

If America begins to value color over accomplishments and achievements, then the future does not seem too bright for all Americans.
Magic8000

Pro

Con drops his argument and leaves my rebuttal uncontested.

Are you suggesting that Affirmative Action is the best way to alleviate the burden placed on all minorities in today's society, or if it does at all?


It tries.

If minorities are largely accepted due to their race, and not their merits, how will they perform against their peers

This is a common straw man against AA. AA doesn't make a company hire if one isn't qualified. In 1995 a study was done by Pratkanis and Turner. They found little evidence that says AA recipients are less qualified [1]. Studies in the police and manufacturing field found no drop in performance after AA [2]. Many more studies have shown the work of minorities under AA are not lower than the majority's [3]. Some companies experienced positive benefits after hiring minorities [4]

Should wealthy minorities inherently receive an advantage solely because of their backgrounds?

Why would a wealthy minority ever be in a situation where he needs a job in the first place. If he's wealth, he either has a job or is from a wealthy family looking for a job. If it's the latter, then he must be in a sort of a situation where he needs money for some reason.

If a minority is accepted to an institution, how will that minority know if he or she gained admission because of his or her own merit, rather than the color of his or her skin?

Already answered above. The person must be qualified.

Should a minority with lower scores across the board, an easier course selection, and few significant extracurricular activities with leadership positions be granted admission to a university over a non-minority that has higher scores across the board, the hardest course selection possible, and meaningful extracurricular activities with leadership positions solely because of his or her color?

Answered above. She wouldn't be qualified.

How is Affirmative Action different from discrimination and bias against a particular ethnic group? Not only is it insulting to hardworking minorities, but it also gives qualified non-minorities less of a chance to achieve their respective academic dreams.

I already answered this in the first round. It doesn't give a qualified majority any less of a chance. It's just trying to even it out.

If America begins to value color over accomplishments and achievements, then the future does not seem too bright for all Americans.

It doesn't! Already answered

Conclusion

Con dropped his original argument which I rebutted, and kept arguing from a misunderstood view of AA. Con's arguments aren't very good and my rebuttal hasn't been contested



[1] A. R. Pratkanis & M. E. Turner, The proactive removal of discriminatory barriers: Affirmative action as effective help (1995).
[2] "Affirmative Action: Who Benefits?" a briefing paper of the American Psychological Association, Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, Society for the Psychological Study of Ethnic Minority Issues.
[3] Ibid
[4] Ibid

Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
triplenickMagic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The assertion to be defended by Con as per R1 is that "You cannot fight bias with bias" because doing so will not work. This was resoundingly answered when Pro pointed out the obvious logical error. I am not certain that Con entirely abandoned his argument in favor of off-topic rhetorical questions,but it was difficult to see how he established that negative bias will not be cancelled out by positive bias. Pro wins arguments. Sourcing, as well.