The Instigator
mentalist
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheDebater_101
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Affirmative action is warranted, yet, not equivalent to reparations for slavery.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 693 times Debate No: 77630
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

mentalist

Pro

Affirmative action is a system that was designed to counteract the various prejudices, biases and shortcomings that have been proven to exist in the current system. Though commonly mistaken as solely for melaninated people, affirmative action makes exceptions and allowances for many different groups of people. [i.e. handicapped, women, etc.] Shared BoP Opponent must show how affirmative action is an unwarranted policy that aids only melaninated individuals. Opponent must also prove how affirmative action policies are equivalent to reparations for slavery.
TheDebater_101

Con

As con I will explain why Affirmative action is equivalent to reparations for slavery. I understand the BOP is shared equally and I look forward to the debate
Debate Round No. 1
mentalist

Pro

I look forward to an interesting debate and thank Con for participating.

As stated affirmative action is a system that was designed to counteract the various prejudices, biases and shortcomings that have been proven to exist in the current system. In my opinion, there is really no debate regarding this issue. To win this debate, Con must prove that affirmative action only aids melaninated individuals and is equivalent to reparations for slavery. Though this is a popular notion, it is a complete contradiction of the actual practice of affirmative action.

First, I would like to provide a general definition of affirmative action.

affirmative action
noun 1. (US) a policy or programme designed to counter discrimination against minority groups and women in areas such as employment and education [1]

As the definition explains, affirmative action policies can benefit many groups that have been (or continue to be) discriminated against - namely minorities and women. The beneficiaries of affirmative action can also be those who have disabilities.

The fact that women and disabled men who identify as 'white' can benefit from affirmative action proves that the policy does not solely benefit melaninated individuals and that it can not be considered to be equivalent to reparations for slavery. I will rest my case and allow my opponent to present his response.





http://dictionary.reference.com... [1]
TheDebater_101

Con

It doesn't solely benefit melaninated individuals, but it mostly benefits melaninated individuals as it's mainly used by melaninated individuals, and so it basically is equivalent to reparations and slavery, as the largest minority group is black and so it will mostly help black [1]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
mentalist

Pro

Women who identify themselves as 'white' actually benefit the most from affirmative action. "While [people of color], individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action in the subsequent years, data and studies suggest women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately." [1] [2] As stated, affirmative action is a policy that is purported to be an attempt to counter the blatant prejudices, biases and shortcomings that have been proven to exist in the current system. However, affirmative action was not ever intended to be any form of reparations for the institution of slavery that was utilized in the U.S..








http://ideas.time.com...;[1]
http://professorshih.blogspot.com... [2]

TheDebater_101

Con

TheDebater_101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
mentalist

Pro

mentalist forfeited this round.
TheDebater_101

Con

(Sorry for forfeit, the wifi was down)
I will now argue why affirmative actions are equivalent to reparations for slavery. They are equivalent to reparations for slavery, because my opponent argues only melaninated people were part of slavery. I argue that as per the definition of slavery:
"Full Definition of SLAVE
: one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence" [1]
all disadvantaged people were "enslaved" and so reparations for slavery don't only apply to melaninated people, but to woman, disabled, etc, basically people who at one point in history were treated badly and completely subservient to a dominating influence. So white woman still were at one point considered slaves as per the definition and so it is reparations to slavery.

[1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 4
mentalist

Pro

mentalist forfeited this round.
TheDebater_101

Con

As Mentalist forfeited, i have nothing to rebuke. Vote Me, as Mentalst had poor conduct and forfeited more than me
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheDebater_101 1 year ago
TheDebater_101
Good Debate
Posted by mentalist 1 year ago
mentalist
***Correction***

This quote:
"...had the legal right to live where they pleased and to support themselves in any occupation that did not require a license or a college degree restricted to males. So long as they remained unmarried, women could sue and be sued, write wills, serve as guardians, and act as executors of estates..." cited as [4] should be [3]

https://www.google.com... [1]
https://www.google.com... [2]
http://www.gilderlehrman.org... [3]
http://www.racismreview.com... [4]
http://grammar.yourdictionary.com... [5]
http://www.infoplease.com... [6]
https://www.google.com... [7]
Posted by mentalist 1 year ago
mentalist
Argument cont'd

While my opponent has attempted to argue that women classified as 'white' were slaves, in fact, "...White women were active participants in, proponents of and key beneficiaries of the system of slavery in the U.S., both historically and now...."[4]

It is my assertion that the creation of affirmative action or the need for such a policy can be directly linked to the practice of chattel slavery that was practiced in the U.S. and the bigotry and institutional 'racism' that followed. I also assert that the intensity and institutionalization of chattel slavery more accurately correlates to the intention of affirmative action policies than forms of enslavement like wage slavery.

Also, as reparations insinuate payment or benefit for wrongdoings of the past, affirmative action can not be equal to reparations because it deals with current issues of discrimination.

reparation - noun
the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged.[7]

As recent incidents continue to illustrate, institutional racism, bias, harassment and discrimination of melaninated people still exists.
That being said, my opponent has already conceded to an element specified in the argument.
"Shared BoP Opponent must show how affirmative action is an unwarranted policy that aids only melaninated individuals. Opponent must also prove how affirmative action policies are equivalent to reparations for slavery."

1. Opponent has admitted that affirmative action does not only aid melaninated individuals.
"It doesn't solely benefit melaninated individuals, but it mostly benefits melaninated individuals as it's mainly used by melaninated individuals..."

Thus, it is my assertion that affirmative action, though warranted, does not solely benefit melaninated individuals or amount to reparations for slavery.
Posted by mentalist 1 year ago
mentalist
Argument cont'd...
There were no plantations of forced labor for women classified as 'white' or the disabled.

"...Single women could enter into contracts, buy and sell real estate, or accumulate personal property, which was called personalty. It consisted of everything that could be moved"cash, stocks and bonds, livestock, and, in the South, slaves...."[3]

My opponent has attempted to use revisionist history to support his argument. It is true that, as most words in the english language, slavery and slave can have different meanings. "Many words with multiple meanings exist in the English language. Technically, almost every word has a multiple meaning. How often do you go into the dictionary to look up a word, and find that only one meaning is listed next to it? Practically never! Many words have slightly varying meanings, or they can be used as different parts of speech."[5]

However, context is everything when it comes to comprehension. One can be a slave to many influences, however, this slavery would not qualify to benefit from the affirmative action policy. For example, many would say that most people in modern civilizations are slaves to some form of money. This may be true, however, the remedy for that would seem to be be a paradigm shift - not affirmative action.

Affirmative action was created as a response to 'racial' bias. Women and the disabled were included later.:
March 6, 1961 - President John F. Kennedy issues Executive Order 10925, which creates the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and mandates that projects financed with federal funds "take affirmative action" to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias.[6]
The proper interpretation of the context of this argument requires an accurate understanding of events in the past and the present state of affairs.
Posted by mentalist 1 year ago
mentalist
Apologies for missing the timeline...I will post my final argument here.

My opponent argues that all disadvantaged people were 'enslaved'. Perhaps a review of the definitions of the terms will make the distinction clear.

disadvantaged -adjective
(of a person or area) in unfavorable circumstances, especially with regard to financial or social opportunities. [1]

slave - noun
a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them. [2]

Even under the definition cited by my opponent, women classified as 'white' were not completely subservient to the influence of slavery. They were not considered to be the legal property of another or forced to obey, unless they chose to be subservient.

"...Marriage changed women"s legal status dramatically. When women married, as the vast majority did, they still had legal rights but no longer had autonomy. Instead, they found themselves in positions of almost total dependency on their husbands which the law called coverture..."[3]
Women who were classified as 'white' were not considered to be 3/5 of a human being in the Constitution. In fact, "[White] women were active participants in, proponents of and key beneficiaries of the system of slavery in the U.S., both historically and now."[3]

Women, in general, were disadvantaged. However, women who were classified as 'white' "...had the legal right to live where they pleased and to support themselves in any occupation that did not require a license or a college degree restricted to males. So long as they remained unmarried, women could sue and be sued, write wills, serve as guardians, and act as executors of estates..."[4]

Those who were disabled were disadvantaged as well. Yet, for the same reasons aforementioned, they can not be considered to have been slaves. While many may have been dependent on others for assistance, there movements were not restricted by legal codes. There were no plantations of forced labor for women classified as 'white' or
Posted by TheDebater_101 1 year ago
TheDebater_101
Slavery Reparations is payment for slavery, which is simmilar to affirmative action. For example two people have the same qualifications, want the same job, except one is white, one is black and theres only one spot. With Affirmative action, the black person will get the job, how is that not reparations for slavery?
Posted by ax123man 1 year ago
ax123man
First of all the sentence "affirmative action is comparable to reparations for slavery" doesn't make sense. Comparable implies equivalency - obviously these are two different but related things. If I put miracle grow on my plants and they grow ten feet tall, I don't say that miracle grow is comparable to ten foot plants.

What I've heard claimed is that the purpose of AA is at least partially slavery reparations. And yea, it is true that liberals are partially driven by the guilt of dead people who happen to share the same skin color.

My first sentence regarding the destruction of black families was a hypothetical to prove a point. However, there's no doubt that government policies overall starting in the 1960's have had terrible affects on the poor, with more emphasis on blacks.

Put together a debate with a resolution on AA that makes sense and I'll be happy to challenge you.

And con, unless pro completely botches this debate, you're going to lose. The media on the left AND right say ridiculous things every day. Do you really expect to enlighten yourself by opposing these statements?
Posted by TheDebater_101 1 year ago
TheDebater_101
Actually I can acces the internet
Posted by mentalist 1 year ago
mentalist
If affirmative action destroyed so called black families and crushed them economically...what exactly did slavery do? How about jim crow laws and modern day racism? I often hear certain news correspondents and conservative thinkers claim that affirmative action is comparable to reparations for slavery and that it is a so called 'handout' for 'blacks'. That was the impetus of this debate.
Posted by ax123man 1 year ago
ax123man
wtf, your BOP and your opponents are two different things. I could prove that AA destroyed black families and crushed them economically, but can't prove it's sole purpose was reparations so I lose.
No votes have been placed for this debate.