The Instigator
el3m3ntsk8s
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
feverish
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Affirmative action and racial profiling are both race based legislation...(topic continued)

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,564 times Debate No: 9497
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

el3m3ntsk8s

Pro

TOPIC: Affirmative action and racial profiling are both race based legislation, therefore one must support either both or neither.

It is reasonable to believe that one is a hypocrite for supporting affirmative action without supporting racial profiling, or vice versa.

I will let my opponent conduct the opening rebuttals.
feverish

Con

Greetings to my opponent and thanks for the opportunity to debate.

I think it's pretty clear what the two terms in the resolution refer to but for clarification and for any readers who may not be sure, I provide these links.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com...
http://www.google.co.uk...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

-----

It would be a very cheap tactic of me to attack the resolution on a semantic level and exploit my opponent's use of the word "must". Clearly this does not make much sense as people are free to hold whatever political opinions they see fit.

I assume that what my opponent means is that:

"Affirmative action and racial profiling are both race based legislation, therefore one < [should] > support either both or neither [or one is being illogical and hypocritical]."

-----

My opponent makes just one argument in his opening round and I will address this before presenting my own arguments:

PRO: "It is reasonable to believe that one is a hypocrite for supporting affirmative action without supporting racial profiling, or vice versa."

Since I don't have much else to go on I'll have to take these words at face value.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

Hypocrite:a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives.

Pro seems to be suggesting that someone who claims to support one of these policies and not the other is probably lying and doesn't really hold the opinion they profess.

This would mean that myself, the following DDO users (tribefan011, Tatarize, InquireTruth, rougeagent21, threelittlebirds, Puck, s0m31john, JustCallMeTarzan, Mangani, PoeJoe, studentathletechristian8 and Nags) and many millions more people worldwide are all presenting untrue opinions that we do not actually hold.

While this is possible it would be very difficult to prove.

Presumably, the point my opponent is trying to make is that these opinions do not make sense or are somehow lacking in logic but with no clear argument I have nothing to rebut.

------

The initial premise in the resolution ("Affirmative action and racial profiling are both race based legislation") is almost true but not quite. Affirmative action is concerned with gender as well as with ethnicity. I will however be focusing on the racial issues in this debate.

It is worth pointing out also that while some people may see these as intrinsically connected because of the racial element, these are actually completely separate issues. One involves opportunities in employment and education, while the other affects the way police investigate crimes and target suspects.

There are many reasons why supporting one of these concepts and not the other makes sound logical and/or moral sense. In this round I will present two hypothetical examples of individuals for whom such opinions make perfect sense. In the next round I may also choose to present further examples which may also include my own reasons for the opinions I hold on the two subjects.

----

Example 1:

Lionel is an unemployed black guy from a ghetto neighborhood. He is a qualified and experienced bricklayer but keeps getting turned down for work. He believes (and it may be true or not) that his colour has had a detrimental impact on his chances and that he has been discriminated against. Obviously it makes sense for him to support affirmative action as this would prevent employers turning him down for work if he was better qualified than a white candidate.

Drug dealers operate in Lionel's neighbourhood and although he never touches drugs and doesn't associate with the pushers, he has been stopped by the police and searched at gunpoint many times and once was even late for a job interview after an encounter with them. Lionel wants the police to get the dealers off his block but he knows for a fact that the worst dealers are a trio of older white guys, yet the police are mostly targeting young back men. Therefore he is logically anti racial profiling.

----

Example 2:

Steve is a white factory worker who has worked hard all his life. He is also a racist who thinks black people are intellectually inferior and criminally inclined. He despises his black boss who has a college degree that Steve believes (correctly or not) that he obtained because of special treatment due to his minority status. Meanwhile Steve's son's grades are not quite good enough to get in to his first choice college. Steve would of course be against affirmative action on grounds of race.

Steve has had his car broken into a number of times and he's certain it's the black drug addicts who hang around on his block. He is convinced that the majority of black youths on the street are up to no good, so naturally he is in favour of racial profiling by the police.

----

Separate opinions on these two separate issues are in no way contradictory.

I'll leave it there for now.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
el3m3ntsk8s

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting what is certain to be a vigorous debate.

My opponent is correct in his assertion that people are free to hold whatever political opinions they see fit, this however is not proof that there is no contradiction with supporting/opposing racial profiling or affirmative action, and not both. I will explain at the end of my argument how it is not a contradiction to support one issue MORE than the other. The contradiction at hand is supporting one issue OVER the other.

I will now address my opponents examples in the first round:

My opponent has provided two examples, his first involves a man (Lionel) who opposes racial profiling due to living in a predominantly black ghetto while also living a clean lifestyle. Lionel also supports affirmative action for being denied many job opportunities despite his qualifications.

If Lionel truly believes that affirmative action would be the best way to obtain his desired job position, and that it is perfectly acceptable for his race to be taken into account in ways that could possibly favor him over those who are more or just as qualified as he is, then Lionel should understand that this is the same mentality used by Steve in my opponent's second example. Steve's mentality is that the best way to achieve a lower crime rate and keep his car safe is to have the police force take race into account. Steve assumes that blacks are commiting crimes the same way Lionel assumes that employers are discriminating against him.

What these two people have in common is that they both jump to conclusions over the intentions of a specific group of people, and even though they may seem obvious, the intentions of these groups CANNOT be proved without a doubt. Lionel believes he is being discriminated against by employers on the basis of his color and that affirmative action is needed to counteract this, but ignores the possibility that there may be other non-minorities who are more or just as qualified and will be turned down as a result. Steve believes it is the black drug dealers who are breaking into his car and that blacks must be profiled as a result, but ignores the possibility that police may be stopping far more innocent people like Lionel rather than those who are criminals.

:
:
:

If one was to believe that legal action is necessary in order to provide opportunities for people affected by the impact of race, and that race is a major factor in providing justice, then it would be logically consistent of this person to support affirmative action and racial profiling. Also, if one was to believe that individuals should not be given more/less freedoms than other individuals, and that the norteriety of the ethnic group in which an individual belongs to has no place in legislation, then it would be logically consistent of this person to be against affirmative action and racial profiling. Supporting one issue over the other is simply taking the same idea and making an exception to it.

:
:
:

Notice my opponent has used the word "naturally" when describing how his second example is in favor of racial profiling. In no way is it a contradiction to "naturally" favor one of these polices more than the other. As my opponent has clearly demonstrated, the backgrounds and experiences of people may vary dramatically. What is a contradiction is to support one issue over the other.
feverish

Con

Thanks to my opponent for his last post, now on with the debate.

PRO: <"My opponent is correct in his assertion that people are free to hold whatever political opinions they see fit, this however is not proof that there is no contradiction with supporting/opposing racial profiling or affirmative action, and not both.">

My opponent here seems to be conceding his initial position that "one must support either both or neither" and clarifying that what he really means is that such opinions represent a contradiction.

My apologies for hammering the dictionary in this debate but I feel that contradiction must also be defined now.

"In classical logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

PRO: <"it is not a contradiction to support one issue MORE than the other. The contradiction at hand is supporting one issue OVER the other.">

I confess to being a little confused by this as to my mind saying "one over the other" is the same as "one more than the other" but I think my opponent is arguing that it is a contradiction to support 'one AND NOT the other'.

PRO: <"If Lionel truly believes that affirmative action would be the best way to obtain his desired job position, and that it is perfectly acceptable for his race to be taken into account in ways that could possibly favor him over those who are more or just as qualified as he is, then Lionel should understand that this is the same mentality used by Steve">

It is an often repeated falsehood that affirmative action favours minorities over those who are better qualified. Affirmative action only applies and race only becomes a consideration when candidates are equally qualified for the same position.

<"White men hold 95% to 97% of the high-level corporate jobs. And that's with affirmative action programs in place. Imagine how low figures would be without affirmative action. Of 3000 federal court decisions in discrimination cases between 1990 and 1994, only 100 involved claims of reverse discrimination; only 6 of those claims were found to be valid.>"
http://www.now.org...

Lionel supports affirmative reaction because he thinks many employees are too racist to give him a chance. Steve supports racial profiling because he thinks many police officers are not racist enough.

These are two very different mentalities and while Lionel's opinions contradict Steve's, neither individuals own opinions are in contradiction with themselves.

PRO: <"What these two people have in common is that they both jump to conclusions over the intentions of a specific group of people, and even though they may seem obvious, the intentions of these groups CANNOT be proved without a doubt.">

While it is true that the facts of their opinions can not be proven, the assumptions they have made are logically consistent with their own experiences.

PRO: <"If one was to believe that legal action is necessary in order to provide opportunities for people affected by the impact of race, and that race is a major factor in providing justice, then it would be logically consistent of this person to support affirmative action and racial profiling. Also, if one was to believe that individuals should not be given more/less freedoms than other individuals, and that the norteriety of the ethnic group in which an individual belongs to has no place in legislation, then it would be logically consistent of this person to be against affirmative action and racial profiling.">

I agree that supporting neither of these positions is a logically consistent opinion and this is probably the majority opinion on this site.

Supporting both of them makes much less sense to me personally and I certainly haven't been able to find anyone professing this opinion on DDO but it may still be logically valid to believe this depending on the individual reasons.

At the end of the day though these are very different pieces of legislation and representing them as identical simply because they both have a racial element is ignoring the reasoning behind each.

Affirmative action is anti-racist policy. It starts with the assumption that all races ( and men and women ) have equal capabilities and potential to succeed, then makes the additional assumption that minorities ( and women ) are often unfairly discriminated against and seeks to prevent this. Whether or not these assumptions are correct does not affect the logical process or motivation behind affirmative action.

Racial police profiling is a racial policy that starts with the assumption that minorities ( especially young black males ) are more likely to commit crimes. The only "opportunities" being given to minorities here are opportunities to be locked up. Whether or not the initial assumption is based on fact does not affect the reasoning or justification for racial profiling.

<"Profiling reflects a racial bias in America and tarnishes the years of struggle that the civil rights movement has attempted to eliminate. This narrow justification of singling out certain races for police attention can also lead to other criminals being neglected.">
http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com...

It is possible that all my opponent is trying to point out in this debate is his belief that affirmative action is reverse discrimination and therefore not a good thing but that he has chosen to make this argument in a very round about way. If this is the case then he should perhaps create another debate to discuss this issue.

It makes absolute logical sense to support affirmative action and be against racial profiling if a person has the following opinions:
1. Racism exists.
2. Racism is bad.
3. Racism against minorities causes employers to favour white people.
4. White people are just as likely to commit crime as black people.

Resolution negated.
Debate Round No. 2
el3m3ntsk8s

Pro

el3m3ntsk8s forfeited this round.
feverish

Con

My opponent has forfeited the last round and apparently de-activated his account. Extend my previous arguments.

As a UK user I can't vote on this site and due to the forfeit this debate won't appear on the front page. I ask any users who do find this debate and read this far to kindly take the time to vote according to the guidelines and who they think won the debate.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Easy win for Con...
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
This resolution is so ridiculous I laughed out loud. Consider this favorite'd.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by LilWayneisGod 6 years ago
LilWayneisGod
el3m3ntsk8sfeverishTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
el3m3ntsk8sfeverishTied
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 Checkmark1 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 Nails 7 years ago
Nails
el3m3ntsk8sfeverishTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06