The Instigator
Discipulus_Didicit
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
blackkid
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Affirmative action promotes rascism.

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...
Discipulus_Didicit
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,024 times Debate No: 75705
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

Discipulus_Didicit

Pro

And therefore anyone who supports affirmative action supports rascism

Affirmatiave action-The policy of legally requiring institutions to favor individuals who are a member of a group/race which the government has deemed to be in need of special assistance.

Promote-To encourage, stand in favor of

Racism-Discrimination against an individual or group based soley upon race.

By accepting this debate the contender agrees that these definitions are valid. If you would like a different set of definitions feel free to propose a change and I will consider it.
blackkid

Con

"Affirmatiave action-The policy of legally requiring institutions to favor individuals who are a member of a group/race which the government has deemed to be in need of special assistance."

It turns out that all ethnicities, white, black, asian, spanish, native american, and other benefit from affirmative action (http://www.diversityinc.com...) so using your own definition:

"Affirmatiave action-The policy of legally requiring institutions to favor individuals who are a member of a group/race which the government has deemed to be in need of special assistance."

The presentation of this is absolutely accurate! It just turns out that instead of "group/race" it's just "group" and it's really "impoverished persons". Supporting the idea that yu don't have to live in poverty because those who came before you made poor choices or sadly never dug themselves out no matter their efforts seems somewhat just and definitely no racist. In an ironic bout it is not racist to note that there are a greater number of minorities but it is entirely racist to focus the lamp on those minorities claiming that the majority receives nothing and that it is based entirely on race versus other factors like poverty which are truly universal.

Debate Round No. 1
Discipulus_Didicit

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and look forward to a constructive conversation (and all that other give-me-the-conduct-vote mush)

I will now present my rebuttals to cons argument before proceeding to build a case in favor of the proposition.

My opponent argues that affirmative action is used to assist truly disadvantaged persons regardless of race and therefore does not meet the definition of racism presented in round one. To show this my opponent has posted a link to a web page where a man, is asked for and gives his opinion on who benefits from affirmative action. I will be referring to this link from my opponent as 'the article' for ease of reference.

Voters can follow the link themselves, but I will summarize several key points presented there and offer my rebuttal. This is necessary because of the fact that my opponent has only used the article as a general support of his claim rather than citing a specific statement or statistic from the article. Also, because my opponent has only cited this site to support the claim that, in my opponents words, "All ethnicities, white, black, asian, spanish, native american, and other [ethnicities] benefit from affirmative action" I will only refer to parts of that web page that deal with that assertion. With this in mind, let me begin by introducing the articles claim, how it pertains to my opponents argument, and my rebbutal of the claim made by the article

First the article presents a scenario in which a black woman with more education and (presumably) more qualifications is given a lower pay grade and title than her white coworkers. The question is then asked: Who are the recipients of affirmative action? According to the article, "Practically every white person in this country disproportionately benefits from affirmative action." The reasoning behind this statement is made clear later in the article, where it states the following:

"Affirmative-action programs are necessary to provide access for people who were prevented access by reasons of racism. They are a benefit to our entire society because increasing wealth for underrepresented groups increases wealth for all. Here"s a quick fact: Black households have one-tenth the wealth of white households in this country. If our society caught black households up it would be the equivalent of injecting the entire GDP of Japan into our economy. Who would benefit the most from this? White people. A rising tide lifts all boats, and there are more "white boats" in the bay."[1]

Essentially this statement can be summed up by saying that if affirmative action programs are put into place they would result in an increase in the average wealth of 'underrepresented groups' and therefore an increase in the average wealth of the nation, which is good for minorities and non-minorities alike in the big picture. At face value this seems plausible, and it is this face-value plausibility that the article and my opponent rely on as the article provides no real world examples of such a big picture benefit actually taking place. In fact this statement simply does not hold up to critical examination.

The nature of affirmative action programs is such that they cannot provide an opportunity to any person, black or white, without also taking that opportunity away from another person, whether that other person is black or white. No reason to think otherwise has been presented because this fact is built into the very nature of what affirmative action actually is. In the big picture no actual wealth is gained when implementing affirmative action programs, rendering the articles claim invalid.

Besides the claims made in the article my opponent has not yet presented any reason to believe that affirmative action really is about helping genuinely disadvantaged people rather than just trying to 'even out' the opportunities of minorities compared to non-minorities by taking away opportunities away from non-minority groups.





I spent more time in rebuttal than I had intended, so I will make my positive case in favor of the proposition short and to the point:

Basically, as I touched on before, affirmative action is not about helping minorities or impoverished persons. Affirmative action is about 'evening out' the opportunities of minorities compared to non-minorities (blacks and whites in the example provided by cons article) by taking away opportunities from non-minority groups. It does this by defining a certain group as in need of assistance because of their race and using resources that otherwise would have been avaliable to individuals who do not qualify as the governments definition of who is 'in need of assistance'. When one or more groups are actually singled out to have opportunities taken away from them (remember, affirmative action creates no new opportunities in the big picture) the racism of such programs is made all too obvious. I will attempt to build a stronger positive case in the final round, but unfortunately that is all I have time to say for now. I hope that I have at least given my opponent enough to work with in defending the assertions they have made in round one.


[1] Quote from the article linked by con in round one.
blackkid

Con

I'm not one for longevity so straight to the points:

"The nature of affirmative action programs is such that they cannot provide an opportunity to any person, black or white, without also taking that opportunity away from another person, whether that other person is black or white. No reason to think otherwise has been presented because this fact is built into the very nature of what affirmative action actually is. In the big picture no actual wealth is gained when implementing affirmative action programs, rendering the articles claim invalid."

There is no reasoning behind this other than a perceived "swap" of opportunities however this isn't shown to be true (that one person loses while one person gains under AA) and thus is inherently dismissed as mere opinion. A statement alone is not sufficient, that is to say, there is absolutely no reasoning behind this statement nor are their any citations nor are there any arguments. It's just a claim. Because this is true I have no "rebuttal" since there's nothing to actually refute and it is my opponent's job to genuinely prove his claims.

Pro needs to somehow solidify these:

1. " ... affirmative action is not about helping minorities or impoverished persons."

2. "When one or more groups are actually singled out to have opportunities taken away from them (remember, affirmative action creates no new opportunities in the big picture) the racism of such programs is made all too obvious."

Until then there's really not much for me to do.



Debate Round No. 2
Discipulus_Didicit

Pro

My opponent contends in round one that affirmative action policy in fact gives a benefit to what I have been referring to as the 'big picture' and uses this contention as the basis for his argument against the proposition.
My opponent asks that I support my claim that affirmatibe action programs on their own do not result in such a benefit.
Very well.


Premise one: Affirmative action policies have been established by the government in the past.

Premise two: At the time that affirmative action policies have been established in the past no signifigant GDP per capita growth took place as a result

Conclusion one: Shown by premise one and two- Affirmative action policies, when implemented, have no significant effect on national GDP

Premise three: National GDP per capita is a useful measure of the health of the 'big picture'

Conclusion two: Shown by conclusion one and premise three- Affirmative action policies, when implemented, have no significant effect on the health of the 'big picture'.



Definitions:

Significant-More than would be expected had no affirmative action policy been put in place



Defense of premise one- The easy part

In round one I presented a certain definition of an affirmative action policy. Therefore, to uphold this premise all I need to do is demonstrate that a policy matching this definition has been implemented in the past. As my opponents argument from round one was in the context of the United States, I will use the example provided by Executive Order 11246. This order legally required certain institutions (in this case, federal contractors of a certain size) to favor individuals of a certain group/race (in this case, any minority group that a government review deemed as 'underrepresented') with employment opportunities
Source: United States Department of Labor
http://www.dol.gov...

Defense of premise two- Look at this graph

As you can see here around the time that affirmative action policies have been established in premise one to have been put in place (executive Order 11246 was signed in 1965) the increase in GDP remains stable when compared to the general trend of GDP per capita over time (excluding, for obvious reasons, times such as the great depression). Because the trend is followed so closely during this time, premise two is upheld.
Source: Department of Labor again, third graph. They cite the Department of Commerce (bea.gov)


Defense of premise three- My opponent agrees

In round one my opponent posted an article in general support of his primary claim which he outlined in round one. In this article it is claimed, as I have quoted in round two, that an increase in the average national GDP would benefit society as a whole. If my opponent disagrees with premise three then he is contradicting the only source that he has used to support his claim and therefore admits that said source is unreliable.

Conclusion: Affirmative action does not necessarily have an overall positive big picture effect and my claim that it produces no new opportunities in the big picture is shown to be valid.

My final words on the matter:

Because I am unable (due to time, character, and motivation restraints) to provide such statistics for every single example of affirmative action policy established in history my opponent could very plausibly argue that some other policy matching the definition put into place somewhere else in the world at some other time does have a positive effect. I would be open to such a suggestion, provided that my opponent backs this statement up with an actual example in real life just as I have done. Until then, my conclusion and all arguments supported by it stand.
blackkid

Con

Did you really just overtly shift goalposts on the last turn?

The first question is, relative to the big picture, how does a significant change in GDP matter in relation to effectiveness of an educational initiative?

(hint: it doesn't.)

Fortunately Pro decided to not back that portion and therefore not back the conclusion making it a leap in logic since saying that all person's do better and the GDP actually increases is not equivalent to claiming that the GDP is a sound measurement of the effectiveness of AA. Red Herring and Non-sequitur and shifting goalposts, and then finally my opponent just admits that they don't care anymore in their "final words".

What a waste of time. Vote Pro, he can have the "W" for effort.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Discipulus_Didicit 2 years ago
Discipulus_Didicit
Actually it's the fifth result on google, second result on bing. My bad.
Posted by Discipulus_Didicit 2 years ago
Discipulus_Didicit
"A statement alone is not sufficient, that is to say, there is absolutely no reasoning behind this statement nor are their any citations nor are there any arguments. It's just a claim."

As if your 'source' wasn't just you typing the words "Who benefits from affirmative action" into google and copy pasting the second link that came up. Anyone who thinks this is an exaggeration on my part is welcome to try it themselves.
Posted by blackkid 2 years ago
blackkid
http://www.understandingprejudice.org...

This is also good for you. Read. Be Educated. Enjoy life.
Posted by FourTrouble 2 years ago
FourTrouble
You're defining affirmative action as racist, instead of making that the subject of debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SummerLover19 2 years ago
SummerLover19
Discipulus_DidicitblackkidTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided the most sources (even though there were a few) and the most information. Con gave up in the last round.