The Instigator
Im_always_right
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Cooperman88
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Con's choice

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: 7/31/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 985 times Debate No: 4863
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (7)

 

Im_always_right

Pro

okay I REALLY want to debate somebody so whoever takes this up list 3-7 things we can debate about, that we disagree on (unless you want to argue the opposite side :P), this debate is mostly for fun. You can have it be from the point of veiw i had in an earlier debate, under thew big issues, or anything else you don't agree with on my profile page. Have fun watching/voting/debating this.
Cooperman88

Con

Alright, as far as choices go, lets do affirmative action, death penalty, gay marriage, labor unions, or social security.
Debate Round No. 1
Im_always_right

Pro

Okay I thankmy opponent for taking up this debate.

Affirmative action sounds like fun.

I believe that gender, or race should not be a part in whether or not somebody gets a job. If a white man and a black man interveiw for a job, whoever does the best, during the interveiw should get the job, and the same goes for a man and woman, or a white man and an asian man, or any other mixture of race and/or gender.

Also by giving perferential treatmant (let's say it is an asian woman VS a white man) to the woman, you are saaying "You are not good enough so I will give you this job because I feel sorry for you, and you can't get a job if I did not."
Which, IS a form of discrimination, which should not even be legal.

My opening case is simple:

By giving more preferance to any gende/race, or having to have so many mexicans, whites, blacks, asians, men, women, etc. Affirmantive action is harming sociaty, and whoever does the job better should get it.

Thank you ladies and getlemen.
Cooperman88

Con

My first argument is that there are absolutely no merits to any of the claims that you made. You don't give any reason to assume you are right.

My second argument is that I don't think that many people truly understand what affirmative action is. The way most people assume it works is that a less qualified individual gets the job because they are a minority. The fact of the matter is, is that if there is a certain percentage of minorities in an area, that percentage of each individual should be in the workforce. It's a check against racism in the workplace. What ends up happening is that if there are two people equally qualified to get the position and one is a minority, that person would only get the job if the percentage of minorities in the workplace isn't equal to the percentage of minorities in the community. But the fact of the matter is, is that most often it is pretty equal. Only when it's blatantly obvious does affirmative action ever really step in and interfere.
Debate Round No. 2
Im_always_right

Pro

"I don't think that many people truly understand what affirmative action is. The way most people assume it works is that a less qualified individual gets the job because they are a minority. The fact of the matter is, is that if there is a certain percentage of minorities in an area, that percentage of each individual should be in the workforce. It's a check against racism in the workplace. What ends up happening is that if there are two people equally qualified to get the position and one is a minority, that person would only get the job if the percentage of minorities in the workplace isn't equal to the percentage of minorities in the community. But the fact of the matter is, is that most often it is pretty equal. Only when it's blatantly obvious does affirmative action ever really step in and interfere."

I would like to say, there was a time when I was really little, my father was trying to get a job at a place, he had 4 years experience in fast food buisness, my aunt had none. She did worse during the interview than him, and got the job. So it is not always if they are equally qualified, it is if they do not have enough minorities. Thus it is just filling a quota.

Here are a few links proving the discrimination agains the majority:

http://aad.english.ucsb.edu...

http://wiki.idebate.org...

Thus affirmitive action is more prejudice than not.

Thank you ladies and getlemen.
Cooperman88

Con

The two links that you provide don't say what you think they do. Let's take a look at each of them.

The first one never says it is because of affirmative action that the university is doing it. Rather, it is because the university wishes there to be a more diverse student body. Justice Scalia said in the last line of this page "...it would also dramatically change the character of one of the nation's top public universities. There is an important place in higher education for those universities and research institutions that attract the best and the brightest. Without a diverse student body, however, those schools - and all who attend them - would be the poorer. So would our society as a whole." He specifically says that a diversity of people HELPS our society. So that link specifically goes against the only argument you have presented in this debate.

Now for the second link. Not only does this site have no credible sources since it is just an argument site that anyone can edit similar to debate.org. But it argues my side as well. The first argument presented is about righting wrongs of the past. Nowhere in this round has that argument been presented. The arguments aren't proven one way or another, so I'm going to claim the "YES" arguments on this site.

You mentioned your story of your dad and aunt applying for the job. My first argument here is that no one else knows whether this is true or not. For all we know you could be making this up. Secondly, we don't know for sure if it was because this company didn't have enough minorities. For all we know, they could have preferred women than men. We don't know for sure if it was because of affirmative action.

When presented with the arguments of todays round, we see that my opponent hasn't given an argument that can stand. The first link she provided argued my side. The second link provides both so they cancel each other out. And her story can't be proven true, or the merits confirmed. So when judging, look to who has the more evidence just from her own arguments. That is clearly me.

Now for my own arguments. There is a reason that affirmative action is a part of today's society. The courts have heard arguments regarding both sides, and have decided to allow affirmative action into todays society. Not only that, but it has been passed through both the house and senate. The people in charge of our country, who are doing things to help us, have decided that is an important enough issue to be part of law.

Now let's look at this idea of affirmative action. The idea of affirmative action is what we are debating. And affirmative action is supposed to help only when there are two equally qualified people applying for the job. Just because affirmative action MAY not be what it was supposed to be doesn't mean it is a bad thing. Affirmative action is good no matter what people say it has become.

But it isn't a bad thing now. Like I have said earlier, affirmative action steps in when there are two equally qualified people applying for the same job and there are too few minorities in the workplace. Only then does affirmative action step in. My opponent has failed to argue that.

I can really only see a vote for me.
Debate Round No. 3
Im_always_right

Pro

My opponent has made a good argument about my father and aunt, and since there is no way to prove it, I concede that point in this debate.

"The first one never says it is because of affirmative action that the university is doing it. Rather, it is because the university wishes there to be a more diverse student body. Justice Scalia said in the last line of this page "...it would also dramatically change the character of one of the nation's top public universities. There is an important place in higher education for those universities and research institutions that attract the best and the brightest. Without a diverse student body, however, those schools - and all who attend them - would be the poorer. So would our society as a whole." He specifically says that a diversity of people HELPS our society. So that link specifically goes against the only argument you have presented in this debate."

Yes the university wants a more diverse student body, and those in favor of affirmative action, want more diverse workers. I am not saying that minorities are bad, and don't deserve jobs, but
My opponent has made a good arguement about my father and aunt, and since there is no way to prove it, I concede that point in this debate.

It is about affirmative action, it is a standard set by affirmative action that they LOWERD THE SANDARDS FOR MINORITIES ONLY, to fill the quota set by affirmative action, thus it has everything to do with it. Less people, who are qualified for the education given by the collage, are able to get in because of lower qualified minorities, if it was vise versa, it would still be a problem. Skin color, and gender should not have ANYTHING to do with who gets the education, devotion, hard work and good grades should be. Yes the university wants a more diverse student body, and those in favor of affirmative action, want more diverse workers. I am not saying that minorities are bad, and don't deserve jobs, but affirmative action is discrimination.

Thus the three things a company should look for in an employee should be:

"The first one never says it is because of affirmative action that the university is doing it. Rather, it is because the university wishes there to be a more diverse student body. Justice Scalia said in the last line of this page "...it would also dramatically change the character of one of the nation's top public universities. There is an important place in higher education for those universities and research institutions that attract the best and the brightest. Without a diverse student body, however, those schools - and all who attend them - would be the poorer. So would our society as a whole." He specifically says that a diversity of people HELPS our society. So that link specifically goes against the only argument you have presented in this debate."

Regardless of what my opponent may think it means, or what he is trying to make you believe, the link I have posted is direcrly related to racism/affirmative action. The fact that the university had lowerd the standards for minorities, but not white males, is directly related to affirmative action, because it affirmative action means that there needs to be a certain amount of minorties per capita, so they lowered their standards, for them in order to meet the goal, which is a form of racism. Here is a definition for affirmative action:

http://www.answers.com...

doesn't sound bad does it? However, this is the present not the past, we do not own slaves, woman have just as many rights as men. Thus trying to right the wrongs of past actions are not neccessarily just. I did nothing to desearve being punished, it was my ancesters. In fact My ancesters may have fought it you never know. Here is another:

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

here is the deffinition that one provided:

"an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women; also : a similar effort to promote the rights or progress of other disadvantaged persons"

So the minorities and women would not get the job otherwise? They need handounts? How is that not racist, and wrong? An effort to help disadavtaged persons, so that is like in the olymics, when that girl hurt her leg, she had less time put on, because of her injury. Would that be fair to everyone? Was it her fault she was hurt, no. Neither was it anybody else's. The fact is when someone has a disadvantage, there is no fair thing to do so you need to look at the greater good. For no reason should that person not get the job unless [s]he is unable/unwilling to do the job well, and is good with other people.

Thus affirmintive action is unjust and should not be considered when employing someone, but this should:

1) Best qualified- someone who meets the needs of the business or company.
2) Best fit for company- someone who gets along with the other employees best.
3) Conduct in interview- If a white male and a black male appear identical on paper, but in the interview you see they get along well with people with no apparent anger issues, but the white person shows up early, and the black person shows up late, it should g to the white person, and vise versa, color once again should not be an issue.

I have presented my case and my stance, now I await my opponent's argument.
As it stands, I urge you to vote against racism, thus for Pro.
Cooperman88

Con

Alright, first and foremost I would like to point out that still you have provided absolutely no substance to your claims. You provide two different definitions that don't help your case at all. In fact, you even say that affirmative action sounds like a good thing. But you claim that it is a form of racism. I believe that you have forgotten what racism is. Racism - The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others...or...Discrimination or prejudice based on race. These are from the American Heritage Dictionary. Both of those definitions and all the others I could find involve negativity. Affirmative action does not put minorities at a disadvantage. It also doesn't establish minorities as superior to another race. In fact, you admit that affirmative action is making sure that there are enough minorities in an area. So how is this establishing one above the other? It isn't saying that no white males can recieve jobs or an education. It's just a check against racism. You urge the voters to vote against racism but have failed to show how it is racism. You don't provide definitions, and you fail to show how it actually meets the criterion of racism. Affirmative action is in place to fight racism. So by urging the voters to vote against racism you have told them to vote for me. By admitting that affirmative action is a good idea you have lost the debate.

But onto an argument by argument presentation of why I should win. Let's begin with my opponents. Her last rounds first argument was that Affirmative action is racism. I already proved how it isn't.

Secondly she says how it shouldn't be a check against past prejudice. This is not the only reason, and my opponent knows this. When you look at the definitions she provided, you will see that isn't necessarily what it means. Not only that, but the idea of affirmative action that I presented in earlier rounds has nothing to do with past discrimination, instead it is in place to stop prejudice from happening now. So her arguments on the past are moot and invalid.

Thirdly, she talks about disadvantaged peoples and brings up an analogy of the olympics. Your analogy is not a good one. It's not about helping someone who is injured, it's about helping someone who is disadvantaged. It's like making someone run in the olympics who should be running in the special olympics. They would have a much harder time as it is, so they help them out. They help out the disadvantaged. Most employers want the best workers possible. And to be honest, most employers don't view the mentally handicapped as the best. But without affirmative action, this minority group would never be able to work. It helps them. You also argue that it's abusive that it's like helping them because they wouldn't get the job normally. Affirmative action helps stop discrimination. It stops the people from only hiring white men. It puts into place guidelines against that. It's not that these minorities need help getting a job at all, just that there may be an employer who discriminates against any given minority. It's in place to help them get a job. That's all.

Lastly you talk about the three points of hiring. If I'm a white supremicist, all I have to say is that there weren't any african americans, any hispanic americans, any asian americans, etc. that beat out my white workers, and according to you that is a legitimate reason to have no minorities working for me. Affirmative action stops that from happening. Most often, it is about who is the better worker. Very rarely does affirmative action step in, and only if there are two EQUAL candidates and a smaller percentage of minorities working. That's the only time. People blow it way out of proportion. This RARELY EVER happens.

Now for my arguments. Look back to last round about how I tell you how I'm winning the arguments. The only one she talks about is the first one with Justice Scalia. So I apparently have won all the others.

Now for the Scalia link. Justice Scalia sided with me. Read the link and it tells how it is good to have a wide range of people groups. It's definitely an argument for me.

All of my opponents arguments have failed, and mine have gone through virtually unargued. I don't see how you can't vote for me.
Debate Round No. 4
Im_always_right

Pro

"Alright, first and foremost I would like to point out that still you have provided absolutely no substance to your claims. You provide two different definitions that don't help your case at all. In fact, you even say that affirmative action sounds like a good thing. But you claim that it is a form of racism. I believe that you have forgotten what racism is. Racism - The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others...or...Discrimination or prejudice based on race. These are from the American Heritage Dictionary. Both of those definitions and all the others I could find involve negativity. Affirmative action does not put minorities at a disadvantage. It also doesn't establish minorities as superior to another race. In fact, you admit that affirmative action is making sure that there are enough minorities in an area. So how is this establishing one above the other? It isn't saying that no white males can recieve jobs or an education. It's just a check against racism. You urge the voters to vote against racism but have failed to show how it is racism. You don't provide definitions, and you fail to show how it actually meets the criterion of racism. Affirmative action is in place to fight racism. So by urging the voters to vote against racism you have told them to vote for me. By admitting that affirmative action is a good idea you have lost the debate."

I said it may SOUND good, not that it WAS good. Affirmative action makes it harder for white males to get jobs, because the employers have to fill the minority quota. In several cases affirmative action gives some people unfair advantages. If affirmative action is a fight against racism, then why give people advantages? Shouldn't it be the quality of work that is important, rather than the quantity of minorities in a buisness?

"Secondly she says how it shouldn't be a check against past prejudice. This is not the only reason, and my opponent knows this. When you look at the definitions she provided, you will see that isn't necessarily what it means. Not only that, but the idea of affirmative action that I presented in earlier rounds has nothing to do with past discrimination, instead it is in place to stop prejudice from happening now. So her arguments on the past are moot and invalid."

Afirmmative action is wrong, it is making up for the past, by not giving everyone a fair chance in the present, which is a form of discrimination, which will cause an endless circle of wrong. We need to see and understand we were wrong in the past and use our own morals to make up for it, NOT a law. If we make the law substitute for all morals, we won't do the right thing, unless it's a law. These are all reasons why you shouldn't vote for racism.

"Most employers want the best workers possible. And to be honest, most employers don't view the mentally handicapped as the best. But without affirmative action, this minority group would never be able to work."

Some important facts from that:

1) I thought by my opponents deffinition affirmative action only takes place when people are EQUALLY QUALLIFIED. Meaning if someone is mentall handicapped to a point where [s]he is not equal affirmative action would do absolutely nothing.

2) There are programs to help the mentally handicapped to get jobs. It can be done, and if it can be done why give them an unfair advantage?

3) If they are unable to get a job without an unfair advantage then doesn't it
stand to reason that they are not best suited for the job?

4) Naturally employers want the bes workers possible, which is MY WHOLE POINT, give the person BEST SUITED FOR THE JOB the job. If they are not best for the job, why give them the job?

four good points about those three sentences, isn't it clear who you, the voters should vote for?

"Lastly you talk about the three points of hiring. If I'm a white supremicist, all I have to say is that there weren't any african americans, any hispanic americans, any asian americans, etc. that beat out my white workers, and according to you that is a legitimate reason to have no minorities working for me."

That only works when it is the truth. If an asian american, is not better for the job than the african american, who was beat by the hispanic american, who did worse than the white male, then the whit male desearves the job, not the asian american, no matter how the ratio already is. Is it impossible for there to be someone there during the interveiws to see who is best, to ensure everyone an equal chance.

"All of my opponents arguments have failed, and mine have gone through virtually unargued. I don't see how you can't vote for me"

I beg to differ, my arguements have not failed they have been better than my opponents, so I see no way you could vote for him.

Thus you he voters should vote for me.
Cooperman88

Con

Cooperman88 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by stand4something 8 years ago
stand4something
WOW!!! PRO is a real tool.....personally i blame you for all my problems little isolated white girl ;)
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
Err with the handi-cap person, I had put "unless there is someone better for the job", IDK MW is funky lol.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
Soory I coppied in and out of Microsoft word a few tims, and started in the area, I forgot to delete all the repeats, so please ignore all of the repeats.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^Thank my opponent^^^^^^^^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
is anyone even watching this?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by The_Devils_Advocate 8 years ago
The_Devils_Advocate
Im_always_rightCooperman88Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Cooperman88 8 years ago
Cooperman88
Im_always_rightCooperman88Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by indianajones644 8 years ago
indianajones644
Im_always_rightCooperman88Tied
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 yarnedia 8 years ago
yarnedia
Im_always_rightCooperman88Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Im_always_rightCooperman88Tied
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 stand4something 8 years ago
stand4something
Im_always_rightCooperman88Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
Im_always_rightCooperman88Tied
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