The Instigator
mongeese
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
tribefan011
Pro (for)
Winning
59 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 11 votes the winner is...
tribefan011
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,094 times Debate No: 8549
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (11)

 

mongeese

Con

Affirmative Action - http://en.wikipedia.org...

I am against affirmative action.

With every positive benefit of affirmative action, there is an equal and opposite negative effect.

With every other negative effect of affirmative action, there is no positive benefit.

People argue that it gives minorities more opportunities.

It equally robs majorities of their opportunities.

It also places restrictions on employers, which decreases their ability to make a profit.

It also increases resentment towards minorities.

I await whatever my opponent has to say on the subject.
tribefan011

Pro

Your blanket statement that with every positive benefit (is there really a negative benefit?) of affirmative action, there is an equal and opposite negative effect is not backed up by what anything you've said. So I'll leave the burden of proof on your side and wait for you to prove that assertion.

People argue that it gives minorities more opportunities because it does. The results of affirmative action policies are indisputable. The wages of minorities and women have increased since affirmative action policies have been implemented, and the number of women and minorities in many industries has increased. I will go more in depth on this in later rounds.

The latest numbers I've seen show the unemployment rate of African-Americans at 13.4%. The white unemployment rate was 7.3%.About 40.9 Million African-Americans live in the U.S. About 221.3 Million Whites live in the U.S. If you employ every single African-American in place of white Americans, that still only affects 2.7% of whites. The claim that it equally robs the majorities of opportunity does not have much merit. It is irrelevant anyway. Affirmative action only applies to qualified candidates. It is not robbing a majority of an opportunity if both people are qualified. In order to rob them of opportunity, the opportunity would have to be deserved in the first place.

It is justified to ask some citizens to take up this burden to promote a social good, which affirmative action is. It's important that we take steps in assuring that our universities and workplaces more accurately represent the demographics of society. However, I don't believe in racial quotas.

Your fifth claim is rather ridiculous. I have not seen any empirical evidence to back up the notion that affirmative action decreases employers' profits. As the burden of proof is on your side, I'll wait for your proof on this.

The sixth claim really doesn't mean much. I also don't see what your evidence for the claim is. In a diverse environment, people will obviously be more open and willing to accept other cultures.

We've seen studies regarding what eliminating affirmative action will do. A study from October 3, 2007 predicts a 35 percent drop in the enrollment from underrepresented minority groups at the most competitive colleges if affirmative action is eliminated. (Link: http://www.andrew.cmu.edu...) A Princeton University study found that ignoring race in college admissions would result in sharp declines of African-Americans and Hispanics in top colleges. (Link: http://www.princeton.edu...) These studies are based in part on the states who have already eliminated affirmative action.

Affirmative action is important to help undo past wrongs. Until 1954, blacks were legally forced into segregation. They were forced into their own sections of towns. They were discriminated against to the point that many were in poverty and few blacks were in positions of power. Doing nothing to help African-Americans get back on their feet economically after over 200 years of oppression is unconscionable. African-Americans still are making about 76 cents to every dollar a white man makes. (http://pubdb3.census.gov... and http://pubdb3.census.gov...) It is important for African-Americans to be compensated for past wrongs, and it is important for them to actually have an equal shot at life. Those who have been affected socially and economically by discrimination and slavery should have their accounts taken into consideration. Their disadvantages in life should obviously be taken into consideration. The point of affirmative action is that both candidates for a specific position are qualified. One of the qualified candidates just had to face more discrimination in their upbringing and that is why they are given the benefit of the doubt.
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Con

First of all, let's say that you put affirmative action into place on an employer who runs his own small business. He needs to employ twenty people to help him. So, he holds interviews for numerous people in his city, and decides that the most qualified people are fourteen whites, five Asians, and one African American.

However, due to affirmative action restrictions that have been placed on him, he has to hire twelve whites, five Asians, two African Americans, and one Latino.

Now, this has the following positive effects:
One Latino and one African American just got jobs at this man's business, when they wouldn't have usually.

It also has the following negative effects:
Two whites just lost jobs that they were more qualified for.
The employer now has less qualified people in his business, and therefore makes less money with his business.
Those two whites now hate both affirmative action and the Latino and the African American.

"The claim that it equally robs the majorities of opportunity does not have much merit."
For every African American, Latino, or whatever that gained a job, a white person lost a job. Percentages aren't applicable, because you're dealing with a country with more whites than blacks and Mexicans and whatnot.

"It is irrelevant anyway. Affirmative action only applies to qualified candidates. It is not robbing a majority of an opportunity if both people are qualified. In order to rob them of opportunity, the opportunity would have to be deserved in the first place."
What if they were both qualified, but the white man was slightly more qualified? This would still result in the minority getting the job. Besides, if they're of equal qualifications, there should be a tiebreaker that is less discriminatory than race.

"It is justified to ask some citizens to take up this burden to promote a social good, which affirmative action is. It's important that we take steps in assuring that our universities and workplaces more accurately represent the demographics of society. However, I don't believe in racial quotas."
Universities and workplaces shouldn't just represent the demographics. They should represent the qualifications of those demographics.

"Your fifth claim is rather ridiculous. I have not seen any empirical evidence to back up the notion that affirmative action decreases employers' profits. As the burden of proof is on your side, I'll wait for your proof on this."
Alright, then.
From Thomas Sowell's "Economic Facts and Fallacies", page 170:
"Imagine someone who owns a golf course in a country where racial discrimination is perfectly legal-- and this owner has a bias or prejudice against blacks. With an international tournament scheduled to be played at this golf course, would the owner pay no price for excluding Tiger Woods? The price to be paid would probably run in the millions, because the absence of Tiger Woods would reduce the worldwide television audience, or which advertising rates and revenues are based-- thereby reducing how much television networks would pay the owner of the golf course to broadcast the tournament.
While it is easy to visualize the cost of discrimination in an example like this, there is usually a cost to be paid by anyone who competes in the marketplace in other situations. Employers who discriminate against job applicants from particular groups usually have to either pay more, in order to attract additional workers from other groups to take their place, or else lower the job qualifications required, in order to make more of the existing job applicants eligible. Either way, that costs money, whether in higher pay or in lower productivity from less qualified workers. If the discriminating employer is competing with other producers of similar products, then those competitors who have either less racial partiality or who care more about money can hire more qualified workers from the rejected groups without having to pay the additional costs paid by the employer who rejected them."
This concept applies to discrimination against whites, as well. If you're forced not to hire someone you'd rather hire, you lose the profit that guy would have made over the other guy.

"The sixth claim really doesn't mean much. I also don't see what your evidence for the claim is. In a diverse environment, people will obviously be more open and willing to accept other cultures."
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"It may increase racial tension and benefit the more privileged people within minority groups at the expense of the least fortunate within majority groups (such as lower-class whites)."
You see, if I were to apply for a job, and I lost it to a minority who was less qualified than me because of affirmative action, I would feel resentment against affirmative action, that person, that minority group, and government.

"A Princeton University study found that ignoring race in college admissions would result in sharp declines of African-Americans and Hispanics in top colleges."
Well, obviously, those Hispanics and African-Americans weren't naturally qualified enough to get into the college.
You see, affirmative action is discrimination against whites. The percentages may not reflect his properly, because whites make up such a large percentage of the nation, but actual counts would. For every Hispanic/African-American/whatever that used affirmative action to get into a college, there is a white person who lost the application because of it.

"It is important for African-Americans to be compensated for past wrongs, and it is important for them to actually have an equal shot at life."
Observe the following situation:
You have one guy that's 1/8 African-American, 7/8 white. His African-American ancestors lived up in the North. They had never been to the South. In the North, they were very successful. His white ancestors also lived in the North, and did very well. This guy, Mark, is in the middle class. His family lived in Illinois.
You have another guy that's 100% Irish. His family fled to America during the Great Irish Famine. They struggled very hard in America. They lived in Georgia, where the standard of living was less than that of Illinois. Eventually, over time, they managed to struggle their way into the middle class. His name is Se�n.
Now, if they, Mark and Se�n, were both to apply for a job, and were with almost equal qualifications, with Se�n doing slightly better than Mark, who would get picked? Mark. Even though Mark actually had an easier history than Se�n, he's African-American.

"Those who have been affected socially and economically by discrimination and slavery should have their accounts taken into consideration. Their disadvantages in life should obviously be taken into consideration.... One of the qualified candidates just had to face more discrimination in their upbringing and that is why they are given the benefit of the doubt."
Most of the African-Americans who are benefitting from affirmative action came from the North, where there was less slavery and less discrimination.
Anyways, say you have a middle-class African-American family and a middle-class white family. They worked hard to get where they are. Their children both know the same type of life: middle-class. The African-American kid didn't have to relive his ancestor's slavery, or discrimination, or whatever. So, they have near-identical biographies since the start of their lives. Why should we look beyond the start of their life, at their family's history? It's irrelevant.

So, overall, affirmative action helps out middle-class African-Americans and Latinos, at the expense of middle-class whites. That's a positive effect and a negative effect. They're equal and opposite.
Employers end up making less profit, because they have to hire based on race, not qualifications.
Majorities feel resentment towards the minorities that robbed them of their jobs.

CON.
tribefan011

Pro

Since your argument exhibits a lack of understand of what affirmative action really is, I'll show you the laws pertaining to affirmative action.

Executive Order No. 10925, President John F. Kennedy
http://www.thecre.com...
"(1) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.

"(2) The contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin."

Here's the part you have been ignoring. Notice the word "qualified" in the second clause.

Executive Order Nos. 11246 and 11375, President Lyndon B. Johnson
http://www.eeoc.gov...
http://www.uhuh.com...

No. 11375 amended No. 11246.
These orders required that all organizations that accept federal funds take affirmative action to increase employment of minorities and women.

With that said, let's get to your arguments. Your first argument shows a lack of understanding of affirmative action. Affirmative action is not a racial quota. It doesn't require that a certain amount of each minority be hired. It requires that affirmative action be taken to employ minorities and women. So your example is just false. Also, even if it were a racial quota, no racial quota would require that Asians be employed at a 5:12 rate to whites. The Asian-American population in the United States makes up almost 6% of the white population. A 5:12 ratio, on the other hand, would be 41.7%. So, not only is your example false, but it's also unrealistic.

It would obviously be a good thing if qualified Latinos and African-Americans got a job at the man's business if they wouldn't have normally. If you read the affirmative action laws, they only apply to qualified candidates. So, it would only be the man's fault if he's hiring unqualified applicants.

First of all, the whites would not have lost jobs if they did not have them in the first place. They just didn't get the jobs. And the second part is just a baseless claim. Again, affirmative action law applies only to qualified applicants. If the man is hiring unqualified applicants, that is entirely his fault. It is a rather ignorant generalization to say those whites hate affirmative action and the Latino and the African-American. First of all, you used a straw man argument. A racial quota is not affirmative action, so they're not truly hating affirmative action. Secondly, it's very irrational to hate someone just because they beat you out for a job. The Latino and the African-American would be qualified for the job if they were hired for affirmative action.

You said, "People argue that it gives minorities more opportunities. It equally robs majorities of their opportunities." A percentage is the only thing that would prove your claim. It does not. It does not equally rob majorities of their opportunities because it affects a much smaller portion of the majority. You said it "equally" robbed majorities and I'm holding you to that claim. And you keep claiming that someone lost a job. That is just not true. In order for them to lose the job, they would have to have the job in the first place.

I've explained this already. If both candidates are qualified and the white candidate is slightly more qualified, the minority's account has to be taken into consideration.

I didn't say the universities and workplaces should just represent the demographics. I said they should more accurately represent the demographics of society. In a society in which all men are supposedly created equal, there is no reason that everyone shouldn't be given equal opportunity. As reflected in the workplace and universities, blacks still haven't been given equal opportunity.

The example from Thomas Sowell is completely irrelevant to this argument. Affirmative action applies to qualified candidates. I have never seen an argument in support of affirmative action involving a black candidate who is much more qualified than the white candidate. It's pretty well established that Tiger Woods is one of the best, if not the best, professional golfers ever. Comparing him to an average pro golfer does not apply to an affirmative action debate at all. Sowell's point is pretty much garbage because the minority and women candidates are qualified. A less-qualified candidate, but still a qualified candidate, is not going to result in a huge loss of profit. The Tiger Woods situation hurts his argument since the typical affirmative action case involves a minority who is slightly less qualified than a white male candidate.

This is simply your own view. Just because you would feel resentment toward affirmative action, that person, the minority group, and government, doesn't make your resentment rational. It doesn't make it righteous. In a diverse environment, a white male will obviously become more accepting and open to new cultures.

You then make the baseless claim that the Hispanics and African-Americans who would be affected by eliminating affirmative action aren't naturally qualified to get into qualified. First of all, I have no idea why you use the word "naturally". Secondly, you're failing to take into account the disadvantages the Hispanics and African-Americans have faced in life. Race and class still intersect. Many minority schools are underfunded, as shown in several studies, including one from the Education Trust. Predominantly black schools have shown to not offer as many AP classes, hurting students' GPA's.

I'm not going to dignify your hypothetical situation with a response until you can prove that it's realistic.

Just being in the North didn't exclude African-Americans from discrimination. Being in the North didn't automatically give them equal opportunity. Also, you should back up your claim that most of the African-Americans benefiting from affirmative action came from the North.

Affirmative Action also helps lower class minorities and women. Your summary of affirmative action is far too basic and frankly intellectually dishonest. Affirmative action has demonstrated that it has not only helped minorities, but it has also helped women. As I said before, some people have to take up a burden to promote a social good, which affirmative action is. I am a middle-class white and I am fine with this burden. Your claim that employers end up making less profit has little to no empirical data to support it. You haven't provided that data yet. And it's a gross oversimplification to say that majorities feel resentment toward minorities who "robbed them of their jobs". Your use of the word "robbed" is quite funny. The majority would have to have the job in the first place in order to be robbed. You can continue to show small things that are wrong with affirmative action or give hyperbolic situations. But it does not attack the policy as whole. The main point I would make to you is that the reason many minorities seem less qualified because of their systemic exclusion, whether it be underfunding for their schools or discrimination in some other way.
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Con

First, I'd like to apologize for getting racial quotas and affirmative action mixed up. However, note that affirmative action is not the same as the ignorance of race. It is still discrimination, but in reverse, which is still discrimination.

"It would obviously be a good thing if qualified Latinos and African-Americans got a job at the man's business if they wouldn't have normally."
It would obviously be a bad thing if qualified Anglo-Americans didn't get a job at the man's business if they would have normally.
Don't forget, there isn't just qualified and unqualified. Some people are more qualified than others.

"First of all, the whites would not have lost jobs if they did not have them in the first place."
They would have more jobs. Which is the same argument that affirmative action makes.

"It is a rather ignorant generalization to say those whites hate affirmative action and the Latino and the African-American."
If I lost my potential job because of affirmative action, I sure would.

"Secondly, it's very irrational to hate someone just because they beat you out for a job. The Latino and the African-American would be qualified for the job if they were hired for affirmative action."
However, the white man may have been more qualified or equally qualified. It's still unfair to kill his chances because he's white.

"A percentage is the only thing that would prove your claim. It does not. It does not equally rob majorities of their opportunities because it affects a much smaller portion of the majority."
By that logic, if I earned $100 and you earned nothing, I should give you $1 because it would only mean 1% to me and an infinite percentage to you. That logic does not work.
Affirmative action gives jobs to minorities.
Obviously, affirmative action does not create jobs.
Therefore, it had to take these jobs from others.
Those others are majorities.
By simple arithmetic, for every job gained by a minority through affirmative action, a majority loses that job.

"And you keep claiming that someone lost a job. That is just not true. In order for them to lose the job, they would have to have the job in the first place."
They lost the potential to get the job. They'd have gotten the job without affirmative action. Affirmative action robbed them of their job opportunities.

"I've explained this already. If both candidates are qualified and the white candidate is slightly more qualified, the minority's account has to be taken into consideration."
The minority's account?

"In a society in which all men are supposedly created equal, there is no reason that everyone shouldn't be given equal opportunity."
By that logic, job and university applications should be decided randomly by the entire public. That wouldn't make sense.

"As reflected in the workplace and universities, blacks still haven't been given equal opportunity."
They have equal opportunity with equal qualifications.

I question why women are even included in affirmative action.

"This is simply your own view. Just because you would feel resentment toward affirmative action, that person, the minority group, and government, doesn't make your resentment rational. It doesn't make it righteous. In a diverse environment, a white male will obviously become more accepting and open to new cultures."
It is also a fallacy, according to Sowell in "Economic Facts and Fallacies," that racism disappears over time. It doesn't. Does resentment have to be rational to be real? According to Wikipedia, this resentment does in fact exist.

"Secondly, you're failing to take into account the disadvantages the Hispanics and African-Americans have faced in life. Race and class still intersect."
However, they don't completely determine each other. Furthermore, all of these "disadvantages" were faced by their ancestors, not them. The idea that all blacks had a worse history than all whites is crazy.

"I'm not going to dignify your hypothetical situation with a response until you can prove that it's realistic."
The Irish Potato Famine did in fact occur. There was discrimination against Irish. Blacks could be fairly successful in Northern United States before Martin Luther King, Jr. Why isn't it realistic?

"Just being in the North didn't exclude African-Americans from discrimination. Being in the North didn't automatically give them equal opportunity. Also, you should back up your claim that most of the African-Americans benefiting from affirmative action came from the North."
Being white did not exclude the Irish from discrimination. Being white did not exclude Southern white farmers from suffering from hurricanes and droughts. Blacks were not the only ones to suffer hardships.

"Affirmative action has demonstrated that it has not only helped minorities, but it has also helped women."
Affirmative action has demonstrated that it has not only hurt majorities, but it has also hurt men.

By "robbed," I mean that they were robbed of the opportunity to have the job.

Now, if you have two people with equal qualifications for a job, why should you assume that one had a harsher family history just because he's black? Whites suffer hardships, too, but apparently, nobody seems to care. The fact that they are equally qualified means that they are equally likely to have different past hardships.

If a black man and a white man are both applying for jobs and have equal qualifications, then life has probably treated them equally well. If one was treated better, then it could have been the black man, and it could have been the white man. Why should the black man be favored in this situation? There is no proper response.

So, for every individual who gains a job from affirmative action, there is an individual who couldn't get the job because of it.
Affirmative action also causes resentment towards minorities from majorities.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"[Affirmative action] may increase racial tension and benefit the more privileged people within minority groups at the expense of the least fortunate within majority groups (such as lower-class whites)."
Therefore, affirmative action is an overall negative policy, and should be abolished. Race shouldn't even be considered. Flip a coin. Vote CON.
tribefan011

Pro

In the sense that it is discrimination between, I would agree that it's discrimination. However, I do not believe it's discrimination against. I gave you the unemployment numbers before. African-Americans are unemployed at a much higher rate than white Americans are. About 13.4% of African-Americans are unemployed, while only about 7.3% of white Americans are unemployed. I really would like to see a legitimate reason from you why the unemployment rates of African-Americans are almost double those of white Americans. Are they just less qualified? In a country in which all men are created equal, there is no reason at all that there should be such disparity.

No, it's not obviously a bad thing if a white American doesn't get a job he normally would get. He's not entitled to the job. Yes, some people are more qualified than others, and some people appear more qualified than others. An African-American usually has to face more hardships in their upbringing than the average white American. As I've stated before, schools largely made up of minorities are typically underfunded and don't have as many AP classes, making it harder to have a high GPA to compete with top white students.

Yes, they would obviously have more jobs. But you can't say someone lost a job if they didn't have it in the first place.

It really doesn't mean much if you would hate the Latino and the African-American just because you would not get hired because of affirmative action. That wouldn't make your hate justified. It also doesn't mean others would hate the Latino and the African-American.

It's not unfair to the white. It's taking on a burden to promote affirmative action.

Your example is not by my logic at all. It has nothing to do with what I said. You referred to the majority as a whole when you said, "It equally robs majorities of their opportunities." In order for affirmative action to "equally" rob a majority of opportunity, it would have to affect the same portion. It does not affect the same portion and thus does not equally rob the majority of opportunity. Referring to specific members of majority that are affected by affirmative action and referring to the entire majority are not the same thing. You referred to the entire majority.

Yes, the minority's account would be his or her upbringing, hardships, etc.

You are distorting logic at this point in the argument. No, by that logic, applications would not be decided randomly by the entire public. If you've ever heard of Equal Opportunity Employment, you would know that it means prohibiting contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, religion, or beliefs. It doesn't prohibit contractors from ignoring qualifications as well. The point is that it provides an equal opportunity to all who are qualified.

I find it hard to believe that you say something such as "They have equal opportunity with equal qualifications." Do you actually think there is a good reason 6.1% more African-Americans than whites are just not "qualified"? I'm puzzled as to your view on this. There has obviously been discrimination in some form or there would be no reason 6.1% more African Americans are unemployed. That is precisely why we have affirmative action, and it is precisely why we need to continue to employ this strategy. We have come a long way in the 49 years we have had the policy. Poverty rates of blacks have dropped. Many more minorities have been admitted to colleges and have been given jobs. Minorities' wages have risen. But we still have more work to do. There is no good reason 6.1% more African-Americans are unemployed. It's that simple. Women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. They have not completed their rise in the ranks of society. I don't believe a woman should make exactly the same amount, as that would impose unfair restrictions on industry, but there is no good reason that they should be making 23% less.

Simply appealing to an authority and saying racism doesn't disappear over time, doesn't make it true. If you study the history of the United States, you will see how the view of African-American has evolved from believing they were inferior to believing they are equal. Society is far more integrated and accepting than it used to be. There is not much evidence to back up Sowell's claim. Racism can obviously heavily disappear over time through education and acceptance of others. Whether the resentment exists or not is irrelevant. It doesn't mean it will always exist, and it also doesn't take into account the values people learn from working in a diverse environment.

No, race and class don't completely determine each other. That's not a very convincing argument. It's just stating the obvious. They still intersect. We can still see the effects of oppression. African-Americans are in poverty to a much higher extent than whites are. Many more African-Americans are unemployed, as I've stated.

The point was that the situation would happen very rarely, if ever. It's not an accurate example of the typical affirmative action situation and thus is not a very good attack on it.

Being discriminated against because of your race and being discriminated against because of class are not the same thing. I can't believe I'm even dignifying your argument, but I will respond. Please explain to me how two hundred years of slavery is comparable to being discriminated against because of unregulated capitalism. Please explain to me how not even being considered equal is comparable to the plight of Irish immigrants in the United States. It is not similar, and I find the comparison degrading to all African-Americans "Hardships" is an understatement. Not even being protected by the Constitution or being respected as a human are not the same as the hardships southern white farmers and Irish immigrants faced. I am someone who empathizes with those people, but there's little to no parallel between them and blacks.

Affirmative action has not showed that it hurts majorities very much. It has showed it benefits minorities greatly while affecting a few of the majority. And I don't see what there is to back up your assertion that it has hurt men.

They were given an opportunity, so they obviously weren't robbed of it.

You should assume the black one faced more hardships because statistics back it up. Most African-American parents are less educated than most white parents, already placing them at a disadvantage. Most African-American parents are less wealthy than most white parents, putting more of a disadvantage on them. A child with less access to educational products and to a well-educated parent obviously won't do as well as someone who has had those benefits. Many minority schools are underfunded and don't have as many AP classes.

This takes an understanding of history and how things have come to be how they are. As I've said, blacks were not treated as humans. They were given so-called equal rights, but were still oppressed. They were segregated. They were discriminated against in schooling and work. This has helped put them in a hole, and we need to help them get back. It is a responsibility that we live up to the creed that created this country: that all men are created equal.

While Con takes the side that affirmative action increases resentment, he fails to recognize the value of diversifying an environment. He fails to see how coming into contact with other values and other cultures each day can bring one to accept those cultures. So while he sees the increase in resentment in one aspect, he fails to see the decrease in resentment for another aspect. This contention is invalid because bringing more minorities into the workplace will affect many more people than those who just didn't get a job because of affirmative action. That is clear through the employment rate.

Flipping a coin clearly is not as valid as using affirmative action. As I have shown, affirmat
Debate Round No. 3
mongeese

Con

"I really would like to see a legitimate reason..."
Yes. They are less qualified, in general.

"In a country in which all men are created equal..."
With all of the history of the world, there is really no way that all cultural groups would be equal.

"An African-American usually has to face more hardships..."
This statement is a generalization.
However, an African-American that manages to be equally qualified to a white American would be one of the luckier African-Americans, probably a mulatto, that didn't have to face the same hardships.
Why should someone be benefitted because his grandpa worked hard? Or because some guys who look the same as him are out of luck?

"As I've stated before..."
Therefore, all of the minorities that actually are as qualified as white Americans are the ones who didn't go to minority-majority schools.

"Yes, they would obviously have more jobs..."
Well, then, the removal of affirmative action wouldn't result in any minorities losing their jobs.

"It really doesn't mean much if you would hate the Latino and the African-American..."
However, affirmative action still creates this hate. To put an end to this unjustified hate, abolish affirmative action.

"It's not unfair to the white..."
Taking on unnecessary burdens is unfair.

"In order for affirmative action to 'equally' rob a majority of opportunity..."
Today, let's say that 1,000 African-Americans gained jobs that they wouldn't have otherwise because of affirmative action. On that same day, 1,000 white Americans didn't get those jobs that they normally would have received. It's math.

"Referring to specific members of majority that are affected by affirmative action..."
So, if we let African-Americans beat white Americans in any job application whatsoever, we'd see a huge rise in percentage for African-Americans, but because of the high population of the majority, we would see a small rise in percentage for white Americans.
That does not make affirmative action justified. The percentages for white Americans hold more weight, because there are more of them. Percentages really can't be used because of this.

"Yes, the minority's account would be his or her upbringing, hardships, etc."
Most of the hardships would have been experienced by their ancestors, not by themselves.

"The point is that it provides an equal opportunity..."
Equal? That means that if two people have the same qualifications, they should have an EQUAL chance of getting the job, no matter what skin color one of them has.

"Do you actually think there is a good reason 6.1% more African-Americans than whites are just not 'qualified'?"
Yep. At least, they aren't as qualified as the others who compete for jobs.

"There has obviously been discrimination..."
They could have a higher unemployment rate because they live in ghettoes more often.

"Poverty rates of blacks have dropped."
According to Thomas Sowell's "Economic Facts and Fallacies," the "war on poverty" actually led to a slackening in the dropping rate for poverty rates.

"Many more minorities have been admitted to colleges..."
Many less majorities have been admitted to colleges and have been given jobs.

"There is no good reason 6.1% more African-Americans are unemployed."
History.

"Women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes."
That's only because of marriage. A single woman makes as much as a single man.

"They have not completed their rise in the ranks of society."
Rise over time. It's safer that way.

"I don't believe a woman should make exactly the same amount..."
Yes, there is.
When a woman marries, she usually stays around the house more, especially with the kids, so she makes less money.
When a man marries, he doesn't have to worry about the house, so he can concentrate more on his job, so he makes more money.
However, it really doesn't matter who makes the money, because the wife makes about 80% of the purchases with the husband's paycheck (Sowell 71).

"If you study the history of the United States..."
Affirmative action makes equal men unequal. There's something wrong with that.

"Society is far more integrated and accepting..."
Time alone did not do that. Martin Luther King, Jr., made the difference.

"Racism can obviously heavily disappear over time..."
In Sri Lanka, racism suddenly appeared in a country that was a model for cooperating cultures.
Over time, racism can disappear, and it can appear.

"African-Americans are in poverty..."
So, we should pity the African-Americans in poverty by letting the African-Americans that aren't in poverty, but instead are in the middle-class, be above the middle-class white Americans?

"Many more African-Americans are unemployed..."
If we were to introduce a minority group of ten people in America, and none of them knew a thing about industrialization, business, etc., should we hire nine of them into a job above deserving Americans just because they're part of such a minority group, with a 100% unemployment rate?
No. That would be economic suicide.

"Being discriminated against because of your race..."
Right now, African-Americans are discriminated against by class. A poor African-American and a poor white American are equals. The race is irrelevant.

"Please explain to me..."
If both events end up putting two people in the same situation (competing for a job), then they had the same effect.
Nobody today went through the hardships of slavery.

"Please explain to me..."
The point is, there are poor white Americans and there are poor African-Americans. Should a middle-class African-American be put above a middle-class white American because there are more poor African-Americans than poor white Americans? That doesn't even make sense.

"Not even being protected by the Constitution..."
That was hundreds of years ago. Today, we're equal. Why should we benefit people because their ancestors worked hard?

"It has showed it benefits minorities greatly while affecting a few of the majority."
That's only because of flawed percentages.
Every job given to a minority because of affirmative action never made it to one majority member that never got the job.
It's simple math.

"And I don't see what there is to back up your assertion that it has hurt men."
If it gives more jobs to women, then it gives fewer jobs to men.

"They were given an opportunity..."
If being equal means being inferior, then they were robbed.

"You should assume the black one faced more hardships..."
However, a black person who is as equally qualified as a white person wouldn't have the same hardships as a black person in a ghetto.

"Many minority schools are underfunded..."
Then fund all public schools in one state equally. That would be better than affirmative action in private schools and workplaces.

"This takes an understanding of history..."
If life puts two people in the same room, trying to get the same job, with the same qualifications, how can one claim to be maltreated?

"As I've said..."
That was far in the past. Nobody today experienced that.

"...that all men are created equal."
Then let's be equal. Affirmative action isn't equal. It's discriminatory.

"While Con takes the side that affirmative action increases resentment, he fails to recognize the value of diversifying an environment."
So...
If I were to invent my own culture, and walk around saying, "I have a new culture!", I should get a job, because I'd diversify?

"This contention is invalid because bringing more minorities into the workplace will affect many more people than those who just didn't get a job because of affirmative action."
Only one person can get one job.
If affirmative action takes a job from a white guy and gives it to a minority, either he lost the job, or the job was never gained.

In conclusion, if two people are equally qualified, life probably treated them equally well. Race is irrelevant.

Vote CON.
tribefan011

Pro

Con has been reduced to saying that African-Americans are less qualified, in general. I am going to focus on this statement because it shows a huge problem with his argument. It's going to be very difficult for us to ever treat each other equally if we have people who can't recognize why they are less qualified. Again, there is no good reason why African-Americans should be unemployed at such a higher rate than whites. As was decided in Brown v. Board, blacks were receiving inferior education. This has not only hurt them economically since then, but it has also hurt them socially. Con says there is no way that all cultural groups would be equal. This argument means very little because it doesn't mean we should not take steps toward making these groups equal. It is very important and it is our duty as Americans to carry on our creed that all men are created equal. No, government can't give everyone a job. It can't magically lead people out of poverty. But the government can give everyone a fair shot at life. The government can provide programs for affirmative action to help qualified minority candidates rise up in social and economic standing.

Now, affirmative action has undisputable progress. Blacks' wages have increased. The poverty rate of blacks has dropped. Other minorities' wages have increased. All minorities have been employed at higher rates. Women have been employed at higher rates and have had their wages increased. But we still have work to do. Minorities and women are still not up to par with white men's wages. I don't believe they should be equal as that would put too many restrictions on industry, but it clearly needs to be closer.

Yes, it is a generalization that an African-American usually has to face more hardships. It's also backed up by statistics, unlike most of the things Con has stated in this argument. Blacks are in poverty at a significantly higher rate than whites. Minority schools are underfunded at a significantly higher rate than white schools.

Con goes on to imply that my argument says all of the minorities that actually are as qualified as white Americans are the ones who didn't go to minority-majority schools. I'm not quite sure where Con gets this implication, but it is just putting words in my mouth. Minorities at underfunded schools just have a significantly harder time.

Saying the removal of affirmative action wouldn't result in any minorities losing their jobs is unsubstantiated. I would ask Con to back this up, but it's too late and he has mentioned nothing on it previously.

Saying that affirmative action would make you hate a Latino and African-American because you lost the opportunity to have a job does not mean all would hate them. It fails to take into account the acceptance that comes about when many different cultures and races are put in the same environment.

Con has failed to prove that the burden is unnecessary. I believe the burden is necessary for the reasons I have listed in the past.

Con used bad language in the first round to back up his argument and he's just trying to cover up that hole at this point. You did not refer specifically to each white American affected by affirmative action. Con referred to the majority as a whole and referred to the minority as a whole. Seeing as there are many less people in the minority, the majority obviosly won't be affected equally because there will be much smaller portion. Con has failed to back up this with the language from his first round argument. What he said wasn't clear at all, and he should have made it clearer.

Claiming most of the hardships would have been experienced by their ancestors is just another obvious statement. Yes, they were. That doesn't mean African-Americans don't still have hardships. It doesn't mean they aren't still effected my the effects of over two hundred years of oppression on their social and economic status. Statistics clearly back me up in this aspect. The average African-American faces more hardships than the average white male.

I've stated over and over again, that in affirmative action cases, the majority individual normally just appears more qualified or as qualified. The minority individual appears less qualified because of his or her systemic exclusion. He or she is still affected by past government wrongs.

Con proceeds to use two logical fallacies in the same sentence. First of all, we weren't talking about the "war on poverty". Secondly, it really doesn't matter what Thomas Sowell says. You still have to prove your side regardless of what he said. Those are the red herring and appeal to authority logical fallacies.

Con says a single woman makes as much as a single man, but fails to back up that claim. Again, it's an unsubstantiated claim and means very little at this point.

I don't know why I'm responding to these arguments at this point, but Con is just making false statements at this point. No, Martin Luther King, Jr. did not make the difference alone. We made the difference as a country.

Con proceeds to make a statement that contradicted an earlier statement of his. He says. "Over time, racism can disappear, and it can appear." Before, he stated, "It is also a fallacy, according to Sowell in "Economic Facts and Fallacies," that racism disappears over time. It doesn't." These statements come into direct contradiction.

Putting more qualified African-Americans in the workplace helps them move up in society. They have done it since 1961, and they will hopefully continue to do it as long as we have affirmative action policies and beyond.

Con's arguments are getting ridiculous. There is a bit of a difference between ten people and 41.7 million people. This again shows a lack of understanding of affirmative action policies. Affirmative Action applies only to qualified candidates. His arguments have been very weak. I thank him for this debate, but his arguments declined as the debate went on.

No, we are still not equal. We are not equal as long as 6.1% more African-Americans are employed than whites. We are not equal when such a higher percentage of African-Americans are in poverty. We've made a lot of progress since 1961. But we need to keep progressing until affirmative action is no longer necessary. We cannot say that at this point, but I hope we can say it one day. Then, we can truly say we've done our best to give blacks an equal voice and an equal place in society.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by debatergreat 6 years ago
debatergreat
can u guyz post ur sources used in the rebuttals here? a lot of claims were made to refute the opponents contentions and id like to see if they are actually true...
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
I agree with Maikuru on this one. Pro wins the argument. Good debate.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
C: Tie
S & G: TIe
A: Pro - Con's arguments seemed to stem largely from unsubstantiated claims, assumptions, and incomplete reasoning.
S; Pro - Pro's sources were more relevant and effective.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
Tribefan011 is just amazing, no?
Posted by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
Mongeese, if you lost to me, then you're going to lose to this dude.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Alright, then. I don't really pick out my opponent's errors in grammar and spelling.
Posted by tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
I was referring to excusing those mistakes when responding to my arguments, mongeese. I care very little on how you vote.
Posted by iamadragon 7 years ago
iamadragon
It doesn't matter; tribefan011's arguments are far superior to mongeese's. mongeese is just trying to salvage a category.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Mistakes are excused in the arguments vote, but they can't be excused in their own vote category.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
<"Please excuse those mistakes.">

No.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
mongeesetribefan011Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Youngblood 7 years ago
Youngblood
mongeesetribefan011Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
mongeesetribefan011Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by ldebaterpatel 7 years ago
ldebaterpatel
mongeesetribefan011Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Steven123 7 years ago
Steven123
mongeesetribefan011Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Agnostic 7 years ago
Agnostic
mongeesetribefan011Tied
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 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
mongeesetribefan011Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
mongeesetribefan011Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
mongeesetribefan011Tied
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 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
mongeesetribefan011Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60