Debate Rounds (3)
A quick debate for the first responder! I'm doing this to prepare for an argumentative speech and broaden my perspective on the topic. Post first rebuttal here if you are interested. I will be playing the con-affirmative action side of the debate, as that's what my speech is about.
"Affirmative action or positive discrimination (known as employment equity in Canada, reservation in India and Nepal, and positive action in the UK) is the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination within a culture."
Affirmative action, in a simple sense, is a law that requires businesses and schools to maintain an equal amount of all race groups in their business. They do this to "keep things equal". However, I do not believe this to be true for many reasons.
For one, affirmative action is a program resulting from racism, but it only highlights racism. It forces employers and college admission representatives to think along race, and not skill, when deciding who works/attends at the facility.
Not only that, but affirmative action is basically saying that the majority should not dominate the work force. That's like saying that the smallest child should get the largest slice of pie, and not the large man with a bigger appetite.
Thanks to quickfacts.census.gov, we know the population of whites, black, and other ethnic groups and about what percent of America they occupy. White people come out at a stunning 77.7%.
This is just ridiculous that they need to make a law that gives minority groups more workspace than the majority.
My third and final point rests with a touchy subject. Not to be racist, but it is the blatant truth that the high school graduation percent of whites is higher than other minority groups. As of 2012, the white population's dropout rate was at roughly 4 percent, while the black population's dropout rate was at 8 percent, doubling white. The Hispanic people's dropout rate trumped that at 13 percent.
Them already being minority groups, even less of the percentage of them are qualified to get a position in the jobs that are heavily affected by affirmative action.
In conclusion, I believe that affirmative action is, contrary to popular belief, unfair in itself to the white demographic and only highlights racism. The white population is higher, and their dropout rates are lower, so of course they will have more potential employees than other minority groups. I don't think that people should be surprised that there are more of a majority group running a business. The concept should be obvious. Affirmative action forces employers to think about race when making their decision on who to give jobs, when that is exactly what the law is trying to prevent.
Affirmative action is not a "law" -- it's not a requirement imposed by the government -- and even if it were, it doesn't require that "businesses and schools maintain an equal amount of all race groups." Even in a "simple sense" (my opponent's words), affirmative action is not, and has never been, about admitting an equal number of blacks and hispanics as whites in college admisions. Affirmative action, per my opponent's definition, is a "policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination within a culture." The key words there are "policy" and "favoring." The specific policies that a university or business employs are subject to change; circumstances and history determine the "members of a disadvantaged group" and "suffer from discrimination" parts. Today, blacks and hispanics fall into that category, so that's where the debate focuses.
1. Affirmative action doesn't prevent universities from considering "skill" in admissions. Universities simply consider race as one factor among many in their admissions. In fact, in the United States, universities aren't allowed to use racial quotas or set-asides; they must review candidates holistically. 
2. Businesses and universities aren't forced to do anything; they choose affirmative action. And there are multiple reasons why they do that. Businesses want a diverse workplace because a diverse workplace is good for business.    And universities want a diverse student-body because a diverse student-body is good for learning, expands wordliness, enhances social development, promotes creative thinking, and prepares student for work in a global society.  
3. The fact that whites are the majority -- 77.7% according to my opponent -- is irrelevant. Affirmative action isn't about giving minority groups more workspace than the majority. It's not about equal numbers. Affirmative action is about improving businesses and improving college experiences for everyone, including white folks. It's also about recognizing the adversity that blacks and hispanics (and other disadvantaged groups like women or homosexuals) face, and remedying the effects of unlawful discrimination. Also note that one of the main reasons blacks and hispanics appear to have less "skills" than whites is because they face more adversity, they're disproportionately poorer, go to worse schools, etc.
Affirmative action remedies the harms of unlawful discrimination and improves the success of businesses and improves college experiences.
For my rebuttal, I'm going to address your arguments from the last to the first, in hopes of changing your mind upon the negative effects of affirmative action.
"Affirmative action is about improving businesses and improving college experiences for everyone, including white folks. It's also about recognizing the adversity that blacks and Hispanics (and other disadvantaged groups like women or homosexuals) face, and remedying the effects of unlawful discrimination."
Can I have some examples?
"And universities want a diverse student-body because a diverse student-body is good for learning, expands wordliness, enhances social development, promotes creative thinking, and prepares student for work in a global society."
This still doesn't stop the fact that it forces a company to think with a racist viewpoint. For a system that abhors racism, it is strangely ironic that the system would make people let race come into their decision when deciding about an employee.
"Businesses and universities aren't forced to do anything; they choose affirmative action."
While affirmative action is not an enforced policy, if a company head decides that they want affirmative action, they in turn force their employees to accept it, as well as their admissions staff (in the case of a school). Besides, it is irrelevant whether or not they choose or are forced to pick affirmative action. The debate is exclusively about whether or not people should have affirmative action, not whether or not they have a choice.
"1. Affirmative action doesn't prevent universities from considering "skill" in admissions. Universities simply consider race as one factor among many in their admissions. In fact, in the United States, universities aren't allowed to use racial quotas or set-asides; they must review candidates holistically. "
It seems that you agree with me when you say that affirmative action forces people to consider race when hiring. Anyhow, I never did say that it completely takes out skill as a factor, just that it forces people to think a lot about race. In some situations, that may change their decision on who is hired solely based on ethnicity. I believe that to be woefully wrong.
So far, it seems to me that you agree that affirmative action is a racist system, and that was the main point that I was trying to prove.
== What is racism? ==
"Racism" is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
== Is affirmative action racist? ==
No. Affirmative action doesn't discriminate "based on the belief that one's own race is superior." True, both affirmative action and racism discriminate on the basis of race. But affirmative action discriminates to remedy the results of racism and to increase diversity; racism discriminates to disenfranchise, exploit, and enslave blacks. Two very different motives and outcomes.
Consider this analogy: Killing in self-defense and killing for money both involve killing. But killing in self-defense is clearly not the moral equivalent of killing for money. So too with affirmative action and racism. Both involve discrimination on the basis of race. But just as killing in self-defense isn't the same as killing for money, affirmative action isn't the same as racism.
The key distinction is motive -- affirmative action discriminates with intent to remedy racism, whereas racism discriminates with intent to harm blacks. The outcome is also different: affirmative action helps blacks whereas racism hurts them.
== Conclusion ==
My opponent concedes that affirmative action increases diversity, which in turn produces good outcomes for businesses and universities. In effect, affirmative action is good for the economy, good for learning, expands wordliness, enhances social development, promotes creative thinking, and prepares students for work in a global society. Given those impacts, my opponent cannot win this debate.
Fear_The_Unknown forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.