The Instigator
2Sukh2
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MaesterAemon
Pro (for)
Winning
3 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...
MaesterAemon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 638 times Debate No: 61702
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

2Sukh2

Con

Ok, I will be arguing that Affirmative Action is a racist policy and refuses to acknowledge the fact that there are poor whites who have less of a chance only because of color to poor blacks. I will also point out that it makes minorities feel entitled that they can be lazy and get a spot into a great I institution or being able to keep their job, simply because of the color of their skin. I am sure that Martin Luther King Jr. never intended this to happen. Also if this happens in the name of diversity than to that I say: we can still be diverse if we do affirmative action based on an economic status instead of a color or gender status. Also we won't be truly color-blind until we get rid of this system of reverse discrimination against not only whites but also asians. Thank you, now let me hear my opponents statements.
Round 1: State position, and acceptance. List what you will defend your position with.
Round 2-3: Stay with your points and logically defend it without rebuttal of the opponent's points.
Round 4: Refute your opponents points from rounds 2-3.
Round 5: Conclusion.
MaesterAemon

Pro

I accept.
People of color and women , for hundreds of years, were unable to be successful it as racism and sexism was so ingrained into the system. Policies that promote inclusion, such as affirmative action, are designed to equalize the conditions of an otherwise unfair race and give everyone a fair chance to compete. (It can be argued that these polices address a symptom rather then the illness) I will argue that affirmative action is still necessary. I will argue that attempt to say that MLK Jr, would be disappointed with theses polices is a misinterpretation of his famous i have a dream speech and finally that this is not reverse discrimination but rather a tool for equalization.
Debate Round No. 1
2Sukh2

Con

Alright, so to prove that Affirmative Action only hurts I'll show the official score-range of the SAT based on race. SAT Averages by Race and Ethnicity, 2013
GroupCritical ReadingMathematicsWritingTotal
American Indian 480 486 461 1,427
Asian 521 597 527 1,645
Black 431 429 418 1,278
Mexican-American 449 464 442 1,355
Puerto Rican 456 453 445 1,354
Other Latino 450 461 443 1,354
White 527 534 515 1,576
From: https://www.insidehighered.com...
As my opponent can see, Whites and Asians both had the highest SAT scores, this could be due to the fact that they know that only being their race that they can't get into college. The lowest was blacks, and despite the fact that they had been intergated for decades they still received a lower score than Hispanics and Native Americans over all. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution reads: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" and "without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The key thing to remember is equal protection under the law, which Affirmative Action just doesn't protect. There are poor whites who were stuck in poverty before the Civil Rights Movement and they're families are still poor even after the Civil Rights Movement. Martin Luther King Jr wanted to end poverty regardless of race"The Poor People"s Campaign was a multiracial effort aimed at alleviating poverty regardless of race.[1]" http://en.m.wikipedia.org...'s_Campaign the Poor's people campaign was started by Martin Luther King to hopefully make America a socialist country: the result failed as he had been assassinated before he could've accomplished it. They key thing was regardless of race which was truly color-blind and helping all people.
Also, it is guarnteed that a company must hire a certain number of people that belong to certain ethnic groups, regardless what economic class they grew-up with because at the end of the day, it was the faults of whites way back then, not the faults of whites in modern era. Should anyone be held responsible for what their ancestors did? This is not the way to go forward into the next generation and will ultimately lead to even more racial hatred than the 1960s as it exists in the world today. This will only create racial bigotry in the minds of the intellectual, but not well of whites. If someone is truly a smart and intellectual minority they would be hired regardless of race and times, similar to the age of the Harlem Rennisance which happened during segregation. If a company's goal is to be diverse than we won't they already failed in the actual goal of a business which is to make products which makes people consume them: not create a interracial institution so we can discuss our cultural prorities over that of the company's interest. You can be diverse without the need of forcing someone to accommodate the colors of another as the Supreme Court decided" Companies are people".
MaesterAemon

Pro

In an ideal world affirmative action wouldn't be necessary,but this is far from an ideal world, currently there is a huge wealth and opportunities gap for communities of color. For hundreds of years they were kept from succeeding by law, and internalized racist attitudes keep that system functioning (to a lesser extent) today. Progress has been made, but women and people are more likely to be unemployed and employed at lower wages The Glass Ceiling Commission report states that 43% of fortune 500 work force were white male yet 95% of senior management jobs are held by the same. Affirmative action is not reverse discrimination it is merely a way to get give people who may have otherwise been shut out a chance to put their foot in the door. Often opponents of affirmative action often misinterpret Dr. Martian Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, asserting that Dr. King was urge the use of color-blind cures for the nations ills when he said "men should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin." This does Dr. King a disservice he knew that there was no side stepping color and gender barriers in our society. The Urban Institute had a study where they sent equally qualified pairs on a series for entry level jobs the men were coached to show similar levels of enthusiasm and articulation the young white men revived 45% more job offers than their black co-testers. White men received 53% more job offers than Latino men. As much as people complain about affirmative action, its a rather tame liberal program I personally believe in much more radical reforms.

sources; https://www.aclu.org...
http://www.urban.org...
Debate Round No. 2
2Sukh2

Con

Round 3:
In a recent Supreme Court case known as: Schuette v. Coalition the Supreme Court has decided that Michigan banning Affirmative Action was totally constitutional. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
With that at hand, the citizens that reside or desire to apply to go to a Michigan University or higher instruction no longer will be based on race. In response to many people claiming discrimination, here is a racial and gender demographic of a university in Michigan known commonly as MSU or Michigan State University.
"Total Undergraduate Students37,988

Gender
Women19,06450%
Men18,92450%

Race/Ethnicity
American Indian / Alaskan Native83<1%
Asian1,6064%
African American / Black2,5387%
Hispanic1,3574%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander22<1%
White26,26269%
Two or More Races9042%
International4,79813%
Race/Ethnicity Not Reported"source: http://www.collegeportraits.org...
All in all, the demographics of the University still look diverse and probably very similar to the demographics of the State of Michigan. The gender-gap isn't that great of a difference either. Another great case in which we can see that Affirmative Action based on race and gender would not really be important is in the presidental election of both 2008 and 2012 where despite the fact that Barrack Hussein Obama had been part of the,"disadvantaged races" he still won both the elections and withing politics there is no such idea as Affirmative Action. Therefore, what can be implied is that we as a people can actually remove our racial barriers and elect a minority into power, while the huge majority are of the Caucasian race. (Pure-Caucasian race).
If an Affrican American or a Hispanic works hard then even segregation would not be able to bring them down, which is why the ones known as Cesar Chavez and Martin Luther King Jr are remembered despite the fact that racism could've brought both individuals down at times. As we go on with the times, we must realize that just because our forefathers made a mistake of segregation, we shouldn't be held accountable for what they had done towards each other, let us grow as a truly color-blind society as Martin Luther King Jr wanted: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" if Matin Luther King Jr was alive today, what would he think if there was still Affirmative Action despite the fact that a black man may be in the White House. He also wanted that individuals would not be judged on the color of their skin, but how they show themselves. His dream can't be fully lived as long as America has this policy of preferring certain citizens simply based on the color of their skin, something the individual has no control over, but must be suffered or honored for the rest of their lives simply because of that one fact.
MaesterAemon

Pro

All my arguments were taken care of in the previous round
Debate Round No. 3
2Sukh2

Con

My opponent has mentioned that white men recieve 53% more job offers than Latinos and 43% more than black men. Despite this may be true, he failed to examine that there are so many things that go into recieving job offers than just experience and education. There also is how an individual presents themselves. Also because Affirmative Action exists in a majority of the states, they need a certain proportion of individuals who are in the Caucasian category. Also if Affirmative Action truly protected female individuals, then what happened to Suzy Lee Weiss. She had 4.5 gpa and 2120 SAT scores (http://blog.sfgate.com...) please tell me is this not discrimination? Now Kwasi Enin got accepted to all 8 Ivy League schools despite being a black man. (http://www.usatoday.com...)
If my opponent did not realize, Affirmative Action mostly applies to higher education instead of jobs. Also please tell me, are there no rich black people? Does my opponent assume every black is poor? Are all whites rich? Are there no poor whites?
Finally, my opponent implied that Martin Luther King Jr was ok with reverse discrimination. Color blindness means "3 : not influenced by differences of race"(http://i.word.com...). The world Martin Luther King Jr wanted can not be lived to the fullest unless we get rid of this outdated policy. Also one big question to my opponent,(Answer only in conclusion round), are we ever truly color blind as long as we are creating reverse discrimination? If so, why should "present-day" whites be judged on what their parents did? If your parents were rapists does that mean you should pay the price 50 years later?
MaesterAemon

Pro

"If an African American or a Hispanic works hard even segregation would not be able to bring them down"
Innocent black kids get shot for being "Suspicious", 1 in every 15 African American men and 1 in every 36 Hispanic men are incarcerated in comparison to 1 in every 106 white men, and Individuals of color have a disproportionate number of encounters with law enforcement, indicating that racial profiling continues to be a problem. (http://www.americanprogress.org...)
"Also if Affirmative Action truly protected female individuals, then what happened to Suzy Lee Weiss. She had 4.5 gpa and 2120 SAT scores"
Her letter left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. Susie Lee Weiss is on of the most luck people in the world. Suzy "lives in a $700,000 home and attended a national blue ribbon school in Pennsylvania." ( http://mic.com... ) Systemic problems do not disappear simply by portraying yourself as a diverse individual. Many students of color and LGBT students lack financial and emotional safety nets during their college years and struggle to stay afloat despite being incredible academically competent. Rising above racial stereotypes daily or coming out to your loved ones and facing rejection takes courage and integrity and universities value that in students. every year competitive universities receive enough applicants to fill the incoming year many times over.

"Also please tell me, are there no rich black people? Does my opponent assume every black is poor? Are all whites rich? Are there no poor whites?"

35% of black people live below the poverty line in The United States. (http://kff.org...) as apposed to 13% of white people.

" If so, why should "present-day" whites be judged on what their parents did? If your parents were rapists does that mean you should pay the price 50 years later?"
It isn't about punishing white people, it is about giving people of color a chance after having hundreds of years of unable to succeed by being disenfranchised (and arguable still are ).
Debate Round No. 4
2Sukh2

Con

To conclude, I would like to say my opponent did make great points, but has failed to truly examine, isn't there another way? To be a truly equal society, there are other ways than Affirmative Action based on race, can't we have it on a more equal status, like a color-blind society should. Just to point out: Asians have to deal with Affirmative Action as discriminatory as well, not just whites. In the future, I do hope that the case that was against Michigan, will truly be the status of the whole nation. May the 14th Amendement mean something, instead of just being a written piece of paper. Where it clearly states: "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Know some may say it is necessary to give boosts to previously discriminated races, to that I say we are all individuals, we think like individuals not races. If someone says they are proud to be white, they're called a racist; if someone says I'm proud to be black they get ACLU backing them up, is this not discrimination? I assume my opponent is a black-sympathizer. Blacks are also 30% in prisons, there's no Affirmative Action there, they break the most laws and all you care about is, no it's a poverty issue, to that I say: even Jesus was poor. (I'm not a Christian.). My opponent is clearly one-sided on this issue. Thank you very much, for debating and I would appreciate the voters for reading my side of the argument and to truly honor Martin Luther King Jr Dream. As a color-blind society. May he truly rest in peace, because I know as with the liberals, he can't truly rest in peace because of reverse discrimination. I appreciate you all, thank you and hope you all vote with a truly open-mind.
MaesterAemon

Pro

So long as we live in a social climate where racist attitudes are ingrained into it's very fabric and an economic system that promotes a great disparity between workers and the ruling class we require something to help those disadvantaged from birth to help them rise up and be role models to kids (Neil deGrasse Tyson etc.) Minority pride is not racist because it is affirming their identity a identity that within our society young people are ashamed of and oppressed because of it . White Pride is racist because being white isn't something that will get you killed or lower the quality of your life , so it's unnecessary like straight pride. Jesus didn't live in a society with a racist criminal "justice system" that disproportionately targets men of color. I'd Love to live in a color bind society but that's not likely to happen anytime in our lives because the society was built on racial inequality.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
This debate would have benefited from more rigor--from both sides. It ultimately came down, for me, to a BoP issue. Con asked us whether there wasn't a "better way", but he didn't really *provide one*, particularly given the statistics that weren't refuted. Pro's argument boiled down to there being a systemic problem that AA is trying to address, Con's argument boiled down to the notion that it's still unfair. But, given the problems AA is trying to address, Con doesn't really give us a better solution, which he's going to have to do. When he claims that a person can achieve despite segregation, he hurts his own case--he's arguing that AA is bad because it gives preference, which is what segregation is, so the folks he claims are hurt are therefore, by his argument, *still able to achieve*, but negating his own point regarding the problems AA causes. Arguments to Pro.

Everything else seemed equal enough. Both cases were relatively hard to read--guys, please work on your formatting a bit. And your semantics, on both sides, could stand a bit of improvement. But they were both READABLE, so it's not as though it was impossible to understand the points you were getting at.

As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Posted by 2Sukh2 2 years ago
2Sukh2
Not a single vote? Seriously?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
2Sukh2MaesterAemonTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.