The Instigator
mongeese
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
baggins
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

Affirmative action leads to majorities being robbed of opportunities they rightfully deserve.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 5 votes the winner is...
mongeese
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,853 times Debate No: 8263
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (34)
Votes (5)

 

mongeese

Pro

Affirmative action - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Majority - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Robbed - to deprive of something due, expected, or desired (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Opportunity - a good chance for advancement or progress (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Rightfully deserve - The person would have received the opportunity, had affirmative action not been enforced.

Thank you to whoever accepts this debate.
baggins

Con

I will use the first round to state my stand.

Affirmative action has several advantages and disadvantages. I support it because in my opinion the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

This debate is about one particular alleged criticism of affirmative action. That is:
"Affirmative action leads to majorities being robbed of opportunities they rightfully deserve."

As long as the demand for an opportunity is more than supply, some people are going to be deprived. However, I will contest the assertion that the majorities (or superior classes) 'rightfully deserve' them. Consequently - I also consider the use of the term 'robbed' as inappropriate.

One thing we are not going to debate is - whether affirmative action is justified in a particular case. More specifically we are not going to discuss particular examples. I want this restriction for a very practical reason. I hardly know anything about the prevailing conditions in USA. Similarly the pro is unlikely to know much about caste equations (I am not kidding - this is what it is called in public discourse) in India. Still this question is valid in both cases. So we start with an assumption that we are debating about a country where there is significant inequality between dominant majority and less dominant minority - which calls for affirmative action.

As usual, I will wait for the pro to state his arguments first.
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Pro

Alright, thank you for accepting this debate.

"Consequently - I also consider the use of the term 'robbed' as inappropriate."
Using my definition, it seems to be the perfect word.

"So we start with an assumption that we are debating about a country where there is significant inequality between dominant majority and less dominant minority - which calls for affirmative action."
Alright, then.

So, let's call this country Reamviatiff, with two different classes: the majority (Yarimjots) and the minority (Yirimnots). While the average income of each group is very, very different, the standard deviations are also very, very large, so that you end up with quite a few Yirimnots who are better off than the average Yarimjot, and quite a few Yarimjots who are worse off than the average Yirimnot.

The top fifty people from each group all apply to work at Catino Industries. Most of the Yarimjots are well-trained for this position, as they have worked at private schools to harness their skills at whatever it is they're going to do at Catino Industries. The Yirimnots, meanwhile, don't really even know what it is that is done at Catino Industries, so they don't even bother to prepare. The Catino Industries executives all review the resumes and job interviews, and determine that it would be most profitable to hire 43 of the Yarimjots and 7 of the Yirimnots, as they were the top 50 people who applied.

Suddenly, the government of Reamviatiff looks over Catino Industries' decisions, and realize how off-balance it seems.
"You guys aren't hiring enough Yirimnots! Hire 18 more of them, and fire 18 of the Yarimjots, or else we are going to shut you down!"
"But, Reamviatiff, most of the Yirimnots are not qualified for jobs at Catino Industries! They would require on-the-job training, and all of the Yarimjots that we are hiring already know what they are doing! The proposal you are making will lower our profit drastically! We may have to lay off even more people after that!"
"Well, too bad. Just make sure you fire just as many Yarimjots as Yirimnots!"
And so, the Catino Industries executive made the announcement that 18 of the Yarimjots that he had hired would be fired, and that the next 18 Yirimnots would take their place.

So, as you can see, the Yarimjots prepared for their jobs, and rightfully deserved the jobs more than the Yirimnots, due to the hard work they put in. Due to the loss of profit, the Catino executive, who happens to be a Yarimjot, also loses the opportunity to hire the most profitable workers. Eventually, due to job cuts triggered by a loss of profit, even more Yarimjots lose their job.

Thank you for reading this. Feel free to start attacking my story now. I hope that you notice the anagrams.
baggins

Con

You have set up the problem perfectly. I agree to use it as framework for the debate - but with one exception. You have described the situation as if the Yiriminots who replaced the Yarimjots are complete idiots. I will assume that they also meet the basic qualifications needed to do the work, though they may be less suitable than the 18 Yarimjots. We are going to debate whether the Yarimjots who lost the opportunity 'rightfully deserved' the job in any sense. The inappropriateness (or otherwise) of the term 'rob' will follow automatically.

You have said that Yarimjots are better prepared for that job at Catino Industries while Yiriminots don't bother to prepare. Why is this so? The reasons are extremely relevant to this debate! Is it that Yiriminots, by nature, are lazier? Or maybe they are less intelligent by birth? If anyone believes in either of the reasons he is racist as well as wrong! Science has now confirmed what Religions have always proclaimed. All the human beings are extremely close at genetic level and intelligence cannot be directly correlated to communities based on races alone. (http://www.apa.org...)

However intelligence is related to social conditions prevailing in a particular community. Richer parents can afford better schools for their children. Richer children are more likely to grow in a situation where they are aware of various opportunities. Poorer children may be forced to withdraw out of the studies earlier because of family conditions. I hope we agree that these are the real reasons why Yiriminots are lagging behind. But why are they less advanced in first case? Usually it is because of some historic problems, but we will not go into details.

While the origin is historic, the problem still exists. The bigger problem is - it is likely to propagate to future generations also. If capitalism (or any form of competition) is left unregulated - rich become richer and poor become poor. This is why corrective action is required.

Having discussed the causes of this disparity, let us come back to the issue at hand. We can now see that the more qualified candidates are not necessarily more deserving candidates. The Yiriminots, who were just behind them, are likely to be equally intelligent and more hardworking than them. This is because they have managed to compete with them and finish close while facing more adversity.

You have raised the issue of how much extra cost it means to the company. This is a separate issue, disconnected with this debate. Still, for a brief response - I think the response of the Catino executive is highly exaggerated. On other hand, the response itself is a very typical one. "If we hire them - we will go bankrupt!"

I agree that this does mean some extra cost for the company. However, if the regulations are applied evenly across the industry, it will not mean any loss of competitiveness for any company. On other hand this extra cost is a direct investment into the development of the society. It is in everybody's long term interest, if the whole population is brought into the mainstream.

There is just one small issue left, and I think it is important that we address it. What I said makes sense statistically - but what happens to the Yarimjots who got fired (or as it is more usual - were not selected - I think affirmative action requirements are usually known beforehand). This is a painful issue. But as I said earlier, someone is going to face this problem as long as demand for job is more than supply. Still Catino Industries is unlikely to be the end of the road. Indeed, these more qualified and more aware Yarimjots are likely to be better off than those Yiriminots who would have lost the opportunity in absence of affirmative action.

I enjoyed your anagrams. But do Catino and Reamviatiff have any special significance?
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Pro

"You have set up the problem perfectly. I agree to use it as framework for the debate - but with one exception. You have described the situation as if the Yirimnots who replaced the Yarimjots are complete idiots. I will assume that they also meet the basic qualifications needed to do the work, though they may be less suitable than the 18 Yarimjots. We are going to debate whether the Yarimjots who lost the opportunity 'rightfully deserved' the job in any sense. The inappropriateness (or otherwise) of the term 'rob' will follow automatically."
Very well. The Yirimnots are not complete idiots, though; they simply had a poorer education, and were thus less prepared for the job.

I agree that the difference in intelligence has been caused by social impact and a general average of poorer income and education in Yirimnots when compared to Yarimjots.

"But why are they less advanced in first case? Usually it is because of some historic problems, but we will not go into details."
General outline: The Yirimnots lived rurally on an island, until the Yarimjots arrived with their advanced technology, civilization, and disease, which ended up in a mostly-Yarimjot upper class, and a disease-stricken Yirimnot lower class.

"While the origin is historic, the problem still exists. The bigger problem is - it is likely to propagate to future generations also. If capitalism (or any form of competition) is left unregulated - rich become richer and poor become poor. This is why corrective action is required."
This is one of the greatest economic fallacies of all time: "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer." (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
It only really applies to Monopoly, the game.

From Thomas Sowell's Economic Facts and Fallacies, page 136:
"Studies which follow specific individuals over a period of years must not be confused with statistics on incomes in society as a whole over a period of years, or even statistics on particular income brackets over a period of years. The crucial difference is that most people move from one income bracket to another as the years go on. That makes it completely misleading to say, for example, that 'people making minimum wage have waited ten long years of a raise,' because these are not the same people making the same wages for ten years, even when the minimum wage has not been changed in a decade. Far from being an enduring class, most Americans in the bottom 10 or 20 percent of income-earners are transients in those brackets-- as are people in other income brackets."
And on page 139:
"To say that the bottom 20 percent of households are 'falling further behind' those in upper income brackets-- as is often said in the media, in politics, and among the intelligentsia-- is not to say that any given flesh-and-blood individuals are falling further behind, since most of the people in the bottom 20 percent move ahead over time to rise into higher income brackets. Moreover, even when an abstract statistical category is falling behind other abstract statistical categories, that does not necessarily represent a declining real per capita income, even among those people transiently within that category."
Basically, there are always the poor, and there are always the rich, but people will shift among these brackets many times within their lifetime, often reaching near the top right before retirement, and the poor get richer, and the rich retire.

If you disagree, point out a source that affirms that the poor get poorer, and I will find whatever statistical trick it uses to back up its fallacy. Or, of course, you can drop the argument here.

"Having discussed the causes of this disparity, let us come back to the issue at hand. We can now see that the more qualified candidates are not necessarily more deserving candidates. The Yirimnots, who were just behind them, are likely to be equally intelligent and more hardworking than them. This is because they have managed to compete with them and finish close while facing more adversity."
More hardworking? You make the assumption that it was a close finish. However, it was only close due to the fact that the standard deviations are so high, and there were quite a few Yarimjots who worked harder than their peers, being the first ones selected by Catino, while the hardest-working Yirimnots barely getting ahead of some of the higher-up Yarimjots. However, the end result is this: Many Yarimjots are still more qualified for the job than many Yirimnots, and they would actually know what they are doing in the job.

Without affirmative action, Yirimnots would still eventually catch up with the Yarimjots; it would just take longer, and be safer for the economy. And as Thomas Jefferson said, "Delay is preferable to error."

"You have raised the issue of how much extra cost it means to the company. This is a separate issue, disconnected with this debate. Still, for a brief response - I think the response of the Catino executive is highly exaggerated. On other hand, the response itself is a very typical one. 'If we hire them - we will go bankrupt!'"
Okay, so the Catino executive likes to exaggerate. However, affirmative action still results in the executive (a Yarimjot) being deprived of the desired opportunity of hiring the most qualified applicants to work for them, so it is indeed relevant to the debate.

"I agree that this does mean some extra cost for the company. However, if the regulations are applied evenly across the industry, it will not mean any loss of competitiveness for any company. On other hand this extra cost is a direct investment into the development of the society. It is in everybody's long term interest, if the whole population is brought into the mainstream."
Competition is not the only problem. If every automobile-manufacturing company in a society suddenly switches their highly qualified workers with less qualified workers who lack experience in the field, competition will remain the same, but the output of every single company will decline. Instead of every company putting out 300 cars per day, they only put out 200 cars per day, which could end up with severe cuts in profit, and thus job cuts. It would also hurt consumers, as there would be a smaller supply of cars to buy. These numbers may be exaggerated, but the point remains the same: replacing a qualified workforce with one that is not will lead to a cut in output and profit, and a shortage of product for consumers.

"There is just one small issue left, and I think it is important that we address it. What I said makes sense statistically - but what happens to the Yarimjots who got fired (or as it is more usual - were not selected - I think affirmative action requirements are usually known beforehand). This is a painful issue. But as I said earlier, someone is going to face this problem as long as demand for job is more than supply. Still Catino Industries is unlikely to be the end of the road. Indeed, these more qualified and more aware Yarimjots are likely to be better off than those Yirimnots who would have lost the opportunity in absence of affirmative action."
True, but Catino Industries is not the only company forced to practice affirmative action. The same Yarimjots could repeatedly suffer to the hands of affirmative action by watching every job they try to obtain get filled in by a less-qualified Yirimnot. Eventually, many Yarimjots end up with the jobs that Yirimnots were usually filling, so it ended up in Yarimjots taking poor-paying jobs that they are overqualified for, and Yirimnots taking high-paying jobs that they are under-qualified for. See the problem? Qualifications are supposed to decide income.

"I enjoyed your anagrams. But do Catino and Reamviatiff have any special significance?"
Reamviatiff is an anagram for affirmative. Catino is an anagram for action.

Thanks.
baggins

Con

Your previous post as well as this post by me - is becoming a bit too long. Just to make it more manageable I am inserting numbers before each argument.

1. You dismissed the major part of my argument just by criticizing the expression 'Rich get richer and poor get poorer'. I was not using it as an economic fact. I was using it as shorthand for some arguments - which is very familiar to me. Since you object to it - and since I do not want to convert this into a debate about capitalism (partially because my own views lie somewhere in between) - I take the expression back. I will rather restate the argument directly.

As I had observed the origin of the problem is historic. However because of that there is a current disparity in education (or qualification level). The assertion is that this is going to propagate to next generations. The reason is - In this generation Yarimjots end up with better jobs (in absence of affirmative action) as they are more qualified. Thus they have a better standard of living. They can afford better education for their children - who are also more aware about various opportunities. Because of same reasons the children of Yiriminots end up less educated, less aware and consequently less qualified in next generation also.

2. You said
"Without affirmative action, Yirimnots would still eventually catch up with the Yarimjots; it would just take longer, and be safer for the economy. And as Thomas Jefferson said, "Delay is preferable to error." "

And you are completely wrong! What is more - your mistake takes us to the heart of problem. As I have explained above – they will never catch up on their own.

3. You raised a relevant objection:
"More hardworking? You make the assumption that it was a close finish. However, it was only close due to the fact that the standard deviations are so high"

Yes, statistically speaking, more hardworking! Or at least equally hardworking! If we assume that Yiriminots are inherently as hardworking as Yarimjots, those particular Yiriminots have obtained higher percentile in their community compared to Yarimjots who were not selected. So it can be safely assumed that they are relatively more intelligent as well as hardworking. The lack of qualification is just due to circumstances.

Unfortunately, your argument is valid in one very important case. That is - if 'Catino' is a top rated company - and thus the effective competition is only among the top percentile of population - who all have excellent educational background. I do not know if some mechanism exists in USA to address this. In India, an economic criterion is being proposed for excluding many people from reservations.

4. You have tried to talk about the plight of Yarimjots.
"True, but Catino Industries is not the only company forced to practice affirmative action. The same Yarimjots could repeatedly suffer to the hands of affirmative action by watching every job they try to obtain get filled in by a less-qualified Yirimnot. Eventually, many Yarimjots end up with the jobs that Yirimnots were usually filling, so it ended up in Yarimjots taking poor-paying jobs that they are overqualified for, and Yirimnots taking high-paying jobs that they are under-qualified for. See the problem? ... "

I don't see the problem. Rather - this is the way it should be. For a moment assume that it was an ideal world and Yiriminots were as educated and as aware as Yarimjots and no affirmative action was needed. You will immediately see that these Yarimjots would have (statistically speaking) obtained the same job - for which they are currently considering themselves overqualified! Similarly the Yiriminots would have really obtained the jobs for which you are currently calling them less qualified. In other words, they have got what they truly deserve!

I guess I have covered all the main points. A quick look at some of the side issues:

5. You have argued that:
"Competition is not the only problem. If every automobile-manufacturing company in a society suddenly switches their highly qualified workers with less qualified workers who lack experience in the field, competition will remain the same, but the output of every single company will decline. Instead of every company putting out 300 cars per day, they only put out 200 cars per day, which could end up with severe cuts in profit, and thus job cuts. It would also hurt consumers, as there would be a smaller supply of cars to buy. These numbers may be exaggerated, but the point remains the same: replacing a qualified workforce with one that is not will lead to a cut in output and profit, and a shortage of product for consumers."

Let me just repeat. These figures are exaggerated. There will be marginal increase in cost. This cost might be absorbed by the industry or it may be passed on to consumers. It is unlikely to lead to - let us say - a recession! And again let me repeat - this extra expenditure is a direct investment in society's welfare and worth it. And let me repeat further - this is not relevant to this debate.

6. I do not know Mr. Thomas Sowell. But he strikes me as an interesting fellow. He claims that Americans in lowest 10-20 percent of earners are in a state of constant flux. I find this highly counter-intuitive. However since he has written a book which is at least 139 pages long - I assume he must have backed his claims with sufficient statistics.

What I find even more amusing is your challenge:
"If you disagree, point out a source that affirms that the poor get poorer, and I will find whatever statistical trick it uses to back up its fallacy. Or, of course, you can drop the argument here."

I do not know what qualifications in statistics you have. Maybe you are the online avatar of Mr. Sowell! But this particular article looks quite simple. Happy hunting!
http://www.nationalreview.com...

7. You have provided an interesting angle to the cost argument.
"However, affirmative action still results in the executive (a Yarimjot) being deprived of the desired opportunity of hiring the most qualified applicants to work for them, so it is indeed relevant to the debate."

To fit this logic into the debate - you have assumed that the executive is a Yarimjots! But the executive may be a Yiriminots! While I cannot deny the logic is valid (it is a restatement of the cost argument) - it may harm either Yarimjots or Yiriminots executive. So it is not relevant to the debate.

8. You said:
"General outline: The Yiriminots lived rurally on an island, until the Yarimjots arrived with their advanced technology, civilization, and disease, which ended up in a mostly-Yarimjot upper class, and a disease-stricken Yirimnot lower class. "

Sure. But I don't want to go into details. I am not interested in past that much (except to point out it is not fault of Yiriminots, if they are less qualified). I am more interested in present and future. However you can use this outline if you need it for your arguments.

9. I am lousy in solving anagrams :-(
Debate Round No. 3
mongeese

Pro

"Because of same reasons the children of Yirimnots end up less educated, less aware and consequently less qualified in next generation also."
However, because Yirimnots always have a chance of succeeding, and Yarimjots have a chance of failing, over time, the two races will be equal. It would just take a lot longer, but it would go more smoothly. Additionally, the added benefit to Yirimnots is obvious, but it doesn't help negate the resolution.

"And you are completely wrong! What is more - your mistake takes us to the heart of problem. As I have explained above �€" they will never catch up on their own."
And why not? The hardest-working Yirimnots will be hired by Catino, and then if their children are also hard-working, based on their parents' hard work ethics, they will also succeed, and after a number of generations, it will even out.

"So it can be safely assumed that they are relatively more intelligent as well as hardworking. The lack of qualification is just due to circumstances."
Relatively more intelligent? The Yarimjots had more education, which directly contributes to higher intelligence, and thus more qualification. And qualifications are really the only thing that an employer should have to consider. It takes hard work to get a high education in the first place. Thus, because the Yarimjots go through this relevant hard work, they deserve the job.

"I don't see the problem. Rather - this is the way it should be."
However, trying to fix a problem quickly rather than over time results in people who aren't qualified for a job. It is fairly obvious that society benefits most when all people are qualified for their jobs, and perform their jobs correctly. If Yirimnots who aren't qualified take jobs, then they do the jobs worse than those Yarimjots would have, and thus, less production for society.

"Let me just repeat. These figures are exaggerated."
Maybe. I don't really know the effect, but it will inevitably have an effect, and the effect will inevitably have a downside for the economy. Also, it is relevant, because it shows how people should be hired for the jobs they are qualified for.

"I do not know Mr. Thomas Sowell..."
Well, yes. Teenagers who work at McDonalds counters will not work at McDonalds all of their lives; they will eventually move on to a better job, and as they continue to get promotions, they travel through various quintiles. Yes, he did back his claims with many sources at the back of the book.

"Happy hunting!..."
Yeah, those statistics are misleading.
For one thing, the income of a household by no means tells the income of an individual.
Page 126:
"A rising standard of living is itself one of the factors behind reduced household size over time. Increased real income per person enables more people to live in their own separate dwelling units, instead of with parents, roommates, or strangers in a rooming house. Yet a reduction in the number of people living under the same roof as a result of increased prosperity can lead to statistics that are often cited as proof of economic stagnation. In a low-income household, increased income may either cause that household's income to rise above the poverty level or cause overcrowding to be relieved by having some members go form their own separate households-- which in turn can lead to statistics showing two households living below the poverty level, where there was only one before. Such statistics are not inaccurate but the conclusion drawn can be fallacious."
If everyone in America suddenly had their own house, it would be great, but statistics would show that the bottom 10% of households make nothing, when the households are actually individual children and retirees. Thus, your source is fallacious.

Another thing that makes most of those statistics fallacious is that the standard of living is always rising:
Page 129:
"As for stagnation, by 2001 most people defined as poor had possessions once considered part of a middle class lifestyle. Three-quarters of them had air-conditioning, which only a third of all Americans had in 1971. Ninety-seven percent had color television, which less than half of all Americans had in 1971. Seventy-three percent owned a microwave, which less than one percent of all Americans owned in 1971, and 98 percent of 'the poor' had either a video cassette or a DVD player, which no one had in 1971. In addition, 72 percent of 'the poor' owned a car or truck. Yet the rhetoric of the 'haves' and the 'have nots' continues, even in a society where it might be more accurate to refer to the 'haves' and 'have lots.'"
Thus, because people are generally living in a more comfortable, advanced lifestyle as time goes on, the standard of living is always rising. Oh, and note that Reamviatiff is as developed as America is today, for consistency.

"To fit this logic into the debate..."
However, you have admitted that Yarimjots are more affluent on average than Yirimnots. This would mean that more company executives are Yarimjots than Yirimnots. And even if this particular factory is headed by a Yirimnot, there are bound to be situations elsewhere in the country (it's a large country, about the size of Brazil) in which a Yarimjot is being forced to cut down productivity. My logic has now been reinforced to be more relevant to the debate.

"Sure..."
Good. I just wanted to establish a brief history for Reamviatiff.

"I am lousy in solving anagrams..."
http://wordsmith.org...

In conclusion:
Affirmative action results in Yarimjots being deprived of the chance to be hired by Catino industries, even though they are, as conceded, more qualified than the Yirimnots that would replace them, and qualifications are what decide who rightfully deserve a job.
Additionally, affirmative action forces company executives and factory managers (mostly Yarimjots, by majority and affluence) to hire workers who are less qualified, and therefore less productive for the company. Thus, the Yarimjots are robbed of the opportunity to hire the most qualified workers of all applicants overall, which is an opportunity that any business manager rightfully deserves.

Thank you for this debate. I've enjoyed writing this story and anagrams, and I look forward to your response.

:-)
baggins

Con

I would love to answer each and every of your point. However as we have already reached the last post - I will regretfully cut out Mr. Sowell, your statistics hunt and anagrams.

1. You have argued that random fluctuations will sove the problem in future. That is a fallacious argument which is statistically unlikely.

You said:
"However, because Yiriminots always have a chance of succeeding, and Yarimjots have a chance of failing, over time, the two races will be equal."

And also:
"However, trying to fix a problem quickly rather than over time results in people who aren't qualified for a job... "

This argument is flawed because - it is equally possible that children of Yiriminots in higher brackets will fail. Moreover children of Yarimjots with lower income are also likely to succeed. Indeed, the fact that Yarimjots dominate the economy - makes it more likely that children of poor Yarimjots will succeed and children of rich Yiriminots will fail! So the problem is not going to be fixed, until conscious efforts are made to fix it.

2. You also said:
"Relatively more intelligent? The Yarimjots had more education, which directly contributes to higher intelligence ..."

I am talking about the inherent intelligence. We agree that Yarimjots are more educated - and thus will do better on any intelligence measurement system.

3. You also make another dubious effort to rescue your irrelevant logic:
"However, you have admitted that Yarimjots are more affluent on average than Yirimnots. This would mean that more company executives are Yarimjots than Yirimnots."

So the only reason the Yarimjots face more problem than Yiriminots is because they are more dominant! Don't worry; this problem will not remain once effects of affirmative action percolate to executive level.

You responded to my charge of exaggeration:
"Maybe. I don't really know the effect, but it will inevitably have an effect, and the effect will inevitably have a downside for the economy."

It is not an effect, it is a cost. And not a major cost! It will pay rich dividends to economy in few generations as Yiriminots will be brought in mainstream and there is a larger skilled population, leading to overall growth.

---

In conclusion:
In this debate, we have agreed that minorities are lagging behind majority - and it is not a fault of minorities. The pro believes that qualifications are the only things which define more deserving candidates. I have pointed out that the disparity between the communities is a major contributor in disparity in qualifications and thus cannot be considered as the only criteria to define more deserving candidates.

The pro believes that the problem of disparity will be solved automatically - though after a long time - by the magic of random process. I have argued that these problems will propagate and are statistically more likely to be reinforced than resolved.

---

Thanks to mongeese for a very interesting debate and for the praise of my debating skills (see comments).
Debate Round No. 4
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
Guys, just start a debate or a thread. HOME keeps updating me every time someone comments in this feud.
Posted by Flare_Corran 8 years ago
Flare_Corran
If you can't afford to have a competitive level of technology or capital, you couldn't offer the product at a competitive price anyway.
Posted by baggins 8 years ago
baggins
So make better court systems.
Or have people hire anti-fraud companies. "

Fraud can be legalized. It can be dressed up as mistake, specially if there is little regulation. Moreover, if some people get very rich, they tend to play loose with law (if they can). But you are correct in a way. We need strong judiciary + proactive police + good regulation. Please note, I also support capitalism.

" One of the principles of capitalism is that nearly everything will work itself out. "

There is no principle which says that unregulated capitalism will sustain itself. Naturally everything will work out - if all results are acceptable to you, including widespread misery.

" New tech and drugs can be mimicked and altered enough to avoid patents. And if it is truly new, why shouldn't they be able to set whatever price they want? "

Not necessarily. Specially if patent is granted on an idea rather than the product. Even to mimic products you need to have a competitive level of technology and capital.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
well capatlisim without a goverment ad bankers cant really exsist. I reccomend communism , seems to me what you are going on about in a way ...

anti frua dcompanies going out of bussiness because they become corrupt ? whos going to know if they do become corrupt ? the anti fruad companies , oh wait ... besides once they are told to investiagte a company , the compnay find otu and pay them to turna blind eye.

Peoples motivation in todays world is very obuosily self gain and nothing more , by misguided sense i presume you mean being told what to do or religion and son on. that breed of people have jsut about died out in the first world countrys after nazi germany collapsed , now its only left in countrys that are stillheavily influnced by dictaors and religion, it will soon die out within the next 50 years , as i belive the world is on the brink of some kidn of ecomnic or enviromental or all out warfare collpaspe. and once that happens , banngggg the only kind of motivation is survival , mankind will refuse to accept leaders and focus on survival , people will be pushed so far that they will kill for self gain and survival if in a life threatning situations to often.

this world needs a strong leader to help it survive , this world is almsot dead and nothing , and hear my words NOTHING will stop this world from imploding on itself , the system we created not so long ago seemed like a good system with some bad perks that seemed they could be easily over came , now however we realise that this land we live in is not full of unlimited resources , fairness , no curruption and trust that people will not try to take advantage.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
Guys, just start another debate about this, already!
Posted by Flare_Corran 8 years ago
Flare_Corran
You do realize that many people (including myself) believe that it was government intervention and regulation that got us into this mess.

Anti-fraud companies become corrupt? They go out of business.

I wish I lived in a world where people's motivation WAS self-gain, rather than a misguided sense that they are helping people when all they are really doing is causing more problems.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
"so make court systems better"

do you not think even or dim witted overpaid idiotic goverment have made courts as "fair" and "good" as they can be in this day and age ?

" or have people hire anti-fruad compaines"
nice idea , what happens when the anti fruad companies become corrupt ?

"one of the principles of captailism is everythin will work itself out"
thats either a really funny joke , or limited interaction with looking out even your window , reading a papper or watching the news , captalisim needs help big time right now. the credit crunch , the fact that the homeless still walk or streets , children are missing out on lifes chances BECAUSE of it. and many more.

this land you talk about flare is a land of fairytale were pixes prance and sing , were nothign evil happens , crimes agasint mankind dont exsist , people arent motivated for self gain. haa
Posted by Flare_Corran 8 years ago
Flare_Corran
So make better court systems.
Or have people hire anti-fraud companies.
One of the principles of capitalism is that nearly everything will work itself out.

New tech and drugs can be mimicked and altered enough to avoid patents. And if it is truly new, why shouldn't they be able to set whatever price they want?
Posted by baggins 8 years ago
baggins
" A purely capitalist society would put much more emphasis on personal responsibility "

It is begining to sound like a fairy tale. With profit hungry companies - there would be lots of expenditure on litigation.

Social security imortant for the poorest. In pure capitalism, people are left to die.
Posted by baggins 8 years ago
baggins
"Fraud would still be illegal, as would theft, murder, etc."

Sure. But the rich are capable of committing really big frauds and can evade laws. Actually - if they are powerful enoiugh - they can even change laws and legalise forms of fraud.

" What resources could you still obtain a monopoly over? "

New technology. New drug. I assume you accept intellectual property rights. Anyway - in pure capitalism, capitalists would enforce that immediately.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by thejudgeisgod 8 years ago
thejudgeisgod
mongeesebagginsTied
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:33 
Vote Placed by untitled_entity 8 years ago
untitled_entity
mongeesebagginsTied
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 fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
fresnoinvasion
mongeesebagginsTied
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 mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
mongeesebagginsTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by mongoose 8 years ago
mongoose
mongeesebagginsTied
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:30