The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

December Beginners Tornuament Round 1: The US should legalise Affirmative Action

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 12/5/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,315 times Debate No: 83497
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)




This is the first round of the December Beginner's Tournament, Fire_wings, and Bob13. I wish my opponent good luck and hope we have a good debate.


I thank my opponent for this debate, who is Bob13. It is the December's beginners tournament, and our topic is about Affirmative Action. I am Pro, and my opponent is Con.

Full Resolution

The US should legalize Affirmative Action in universities


1. Affirmative Action:
an action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination, especially in relation to employment or education; positive discrimination.


1. Rules for Pro, Acceptance

2. Arguments

3. Rebuttals

4. Defense

5. Conclusion/ Why I won this debate

We cannot have arguments in the first round. We cannot have new arguments in the final round.


1. No forfeiting unless there are a same number of forfeits

2. No trolling

3. No plagiarism, or you have to quote it.

4. Cite sources in "Sources Category

5. No new arguments in final and beginning round

6. 2500 is min. of voting.

7. Select winner, 5 rounds, 10k

8. BoP is shared in this debate

9. Not following rules is an automatic loss

I thank my opponent. Let's have a wonderful debate!


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting.


Okay, this is a debate where the BOP is shared. Both sides need to say why affirmative action should be banned, or not banned. The debate topic is that the US should legalize Affirmative Action in universities. If I fill the BoP, I win. If my opponent fills the BoP, she/he wins. I will have few arguments about Affirmative Action. Even if I say blacks, I am not being racist. I thank Hayd for making this debate, and my opponent Bob13.


I will not have different argument sections as I used to do, because there is not really lot's of sections in my arguments.

This is one of my simplest arguments. First of all, universities has the right autonomously decide what their mission is and how they want to select students. If universities want to have a racially diverse student body because they believe that fits their mission, other students have no right to complain. These kids have no right to complain anything to the government and the universities because it is the universities choice to pick that student or not. So my main question is, why do we need to give spots to the blacks if they are not as good as the whites or the university or government does not want to pick them? The students have no right to complain to the universities.

Second of all, this actually enriches the education because racially diverse people can share a lot of different perspectives with each other compared to a single white student body.

Third, this also enables universities to create role models for racial minorities. This is especially important considering that racial minorities generally have poor educational attainments. By creating role models like Barack Obama, who was a beneficiary of affirmative action, we can encourage racial minorities to study harder.

The government has the obligation to level the playing field. Acheving racial equality is not just about equal opportunities, but also of equal results.

This also helps get rid of the racial stereotypes. When white students see racial minorties doing well in college, prior misconceptions towards them will be fixed, So, when the school forces them to integerate with each other, then they will integrate. This is a reason to vote for Pro.

Now that I have some arguments that are not all a specfic topics ended, I will debate like the usual style I did.

6. Compensatory Argument

Many supporters of affirmative action cite that such policies are needed in order to compensate for the discrimination many groups have suffered in the past. For example, there are many affirmative action policies for women in many countries. Based on the compensatory argument, this is to correct the past discrimination women have faced by men for many generations. Similarly, African Americans have been discriminated for centuries through widespread practice of slavery. Indian Americans also have been underprivileged for an extremely long time. The argument, therefore, suggest that we need to give these victims or at least their descendants they had suffered.

7. Whites are smarter than blacks.

This is another one of my simple arguments, that in average, white are smarter than blacks. I will show you two pictures, then explain to you.

The top picture shows of the race intelligence of white and blacks. As you can see, blacks are the last, and whites are second. The next picture shows of the average IQ of white and blacks. Whites are better here also.

All this is my argument for one reason. Why do universities need to pick blacks if they have worse intelligence? It is the universities choice of who they want to pick, why do we need to pick these blacks who are not intelligent? There is no reason. This argument gives us a reason that because these people are less intelligent and also, it is the universities right to choose what kinds of kids they want to pick, we legalize the affirmative action. For these reasons vote for Pro.

For all my arguments, vote for Pro. Pass on to my opponent




The United States should ban affirmative action in universities for the following reasons:

It is discrimination, not "positive discrimination".

When a university favors blacks over whites, they are making it harder for whites to make it in. You have made it clear that you are referring to blacks being favored over whites, so I will be using that in my arguments.

I will use a story to illustrate my point: A white person applies for a college that he has dreamed of going to for years. The administrators at the school look at all the applicants' resumes and pick the best ones. They then notice that nearly all of the students are white, so they replace some of them with racial minorities that didn't make it in. The previously mentioned white person was one of the top resumes, but did not make it in because some of the whites had to leave for blacks to take their place. This is clearly racism, as a black person is no more qualified than a white person to get an education.

It encourages racism among students.

Affirmative action is no secret. Students will know that many black students got in the school because of their race, and many will hate black students because of it. There are many examples of this. [1]

It can harm the blacks you are trying to help.

Black students might think that they never deserved to get into a university, while some of them would have gotten in without affirmative action.

Overall, it's just racist.


Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for making his arguments I will rebut his arguments in this round.


Okay, I thank my opponent for his arguments about affirmative action, but Con is not talking about affirmative action right now. However, my opponent and I are talking in different stances, so I will make them clear. Affirmative Action is that we have to make blacks goin in universities. However, my opponent is talking about if a white wants to go to a school, then we kick out the black of the school, and he goes out. He also thinks it is about banning blacks to go out of a school. Not that, the affirmative action means that a number of blacks, or more need to go to schools, universities. Anyways, this is a shared BoP debate, where both needs to fill the BoP to win. I will post my rebuttals. I thank Hayd for hosting the tornuament and also Bob13 for being my opponent.


1. I already rebutted this in my framework. Con had misunderstood this resolution the resolution comletely. It is not about if a white wants to go into a school, we ban the black (it is not racist) from the school. This is not affirmative action. It is when we need blacks. No. The university has to right to choose what kinds of students they want to pick. We are not saying that blacks are not qualfied better than white, we are saying that there is no reason to automatically pick a number of blacks to schools.

2. There is no reason why students will hate black people if they go in schools. There is absolutely no reason to hate these kids because of their race. If it is because of the kids who could not go to universities, they are not part of this. Pro is saying that Students will be mad at them because of their race. I have few questions for Con.

1. Why are students mad at these blacks from race?

This is a question that Con has to answer, or this argument fails, and he fails to fill his BoP.

3. It can harm the blacks you are trying to help

Blacks will probably know their skill of education. As I said, the universities will probably pick the best students. Out of those blacks, they will probably pick the best. The blacks now their own skill of how well they will do. They know. Also, the blacks won't care if they might not go, because even if they might not, they did go to the university. Because they went, it is the end. [1]

I thank my opponent and wait for his response.

[1] :



These are your arguments and my rebuttals:

Universities have the right to decide how they want to select students.

This is not true. Universities are intended to educate people. Discriminating against people because of their race has no benefit to the school and it is unfair to the people being discriminated against. No one has the right to be racist and harm people in any way because of their race.

Racially diverse people can share a lot of different perspectives.

What "perspectives" are you talking about? Do you mean to say that because of a person's race they have different "perspectives"? You are not being clear about anything here.

This also enables universities to create role models for racial minorities.

This encourages racism. You are basically saying that everyone needs a role model of their own race. I am a racial minority, and I see it as completely racist to have a role model because that person is the same race as me. It doesn't matter what race your role model is.

This also helps get rid of the racial stereotypes.

The problem of racial stereotypes can be solved with other methods that are not racist. Racism does not solve racism. Affirmative action does not solve racial stereotypes.

Such policies are needed in order to compensate for past discrimination.

No one needs revenge for discrimination. We need all races to be treated equally. Compensation for discrimination by creating even more discrimination accomplishes nothing but increased discrimination and racism. Racism does not solve racism.

Whites are smarter than blacks.

So what if they are less intelligent? Does that make them better for a university? No. That would be enforcing a the racial stereotype that blacks are unintelligent. If you want people with low IQs for your university, test them instead of using race.

I also notice a serious misunderstanding of yours. I do not think that blacks should be banned from schools, and I have no idea how you misunderstood me. My arguments work well if you realize that I am following the definition. I am talking about whites being less likely than blacks to get into a school. Since all of your rebuttals were based on your misunderstanding, I do not need to respond to them.
Debate Round No. 3


Glad that I can post my argument. I am on my phone now because of the glitch.


Pro says that my rebuttals are false, and I misunderstood the debate. However, following the definitions, I am following the debate, when my opponent is not. Con can't make new arguments in the final round. If he does, vote for Pro on abuse. I will be putting my defense of my opponent's weak rebuttals, and also my opponent cannot make new arguments in the final round.


Okay, I will go on my defense.

1. Universities have the right to decide how they want to select their students.

Con says that this is not true. He says that no one has the right to be rasict. But I did not say that in my argument. I said that the people in the university have the right of choice, liberty in their choices. We can't ban their choice. They don't want to pick some blacks, they have the right to do this. We should not take the right of choice from the people in the university.

2. Racially diverse people

Read my argument... You will get it if you read it a few times...

3. This also enables universities for racial minorities.

Con states that this encourages racism. However, it does not. Models for different race is not racism. Con basically is saying that the work black is racist anytime. This is not racist.

Racist: a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

This does not make it racist.

Due to the lack of time, I will post my defense in the next round.


Universities have the right to decide how they want to select their students.

The main problem with giving universities this right is that whites will be less likely than blacks to get into a university, and since many universities do this, they will be unfairly disadvantaged to the point where they feel oppressed. There was a reason for banning racial segregation, and that is because a race was favored over another. Affirmative action is hardly any better. Blacks and whites are both accepted into the university, but blacks are favored by being made more likely to get in.

Racially diverse people

Pro's response to this is even more insufficient than his original argument. I read it several times. He needs to better explain what these "perspectives" are.

Role models

It is not racist, but can encourage racism. A person's race should not be taken into consideration when choosing a role model because it does not make someone more admirable or inspiring. If you disagree, that is racist, as it implies that one race is more admirable than another.
Debate Round No. 4


I thank my opponent.


Con does not argue my argument from the second one, when I said to just read it, and it is any perspective. Con dropped that argument. Extend it. Don't let Con make new arguments in his last round. My point is that just read the way it is.


1. Universities have the right to decide how they want to select their students

Con states that blacks should be more favored to go in universities. Why? Don't whites and blacks have the same rights of going into a university? Pro does not explain why they need to be more favored to go in, because I think that white and blacks need to go into the universities by their own skill.

2. Racially diverse people

In framework

3. Role Models

Con states that this encourages one race more admirable of others. Pro fails to explain why. In my reason, and from the dictionary, this does not include any racism. Look at the definition.

4. Whites are smarter than blacks

There is a big reason. This is because then that means that there is no need for studying. If you are dumb, you can go in universities. Con fails to state that there is no need for universities and your intelligence, you can be dumb.


There is a lot of reasons why I won this debate. First of all, Pro failed to succeed to rebut all my arguments. He does not defend his own arguments that I rebutted, making them rebutted, and failed. My arguments stand, my opponent's does not, meaning I filled to BoP, and my opponent did not.

Vote for Pro because of the right of the university, and the intelligence is needed. Vote for Pro.




Pro has conceded this argument.


Pro has also conceded this argument.

Right of universities

Pro has failed to explain why this is a right. Since it is harmful to whites, it is best to assume that it is not a right until sufficient evidence is given.


Pro has failed to explain any of his points, and after seeing my response, he merely tells me that I will eventually understand his points with no evidence or defense whatsoever.

Role models

Pro has failed to explain why someone needs a role model of their own race, which easily fits the definition of racism that he provided.


Pro has conceded this argument.


Pro has given no reason to allow students in a university because of low intelligence.


Overall, all of Pro's arguments were insufficient.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
Since this is the Beginners tournament, I will address some points...

For Pro:
Read what your opponent is saying. Don't skim over it. I got the feeling that, at almost no point, did you know what your opponent was saying. I know I may not sound nice... But this isn't a slight concern that hurts your debates... It automatically loses someone a debate. You can't win like that. It's not possible.

Your time limit is your concern. Anything you don't have the time to address, it's your fault that you can't address it. You have to make time long before it starts running out. If time runs out, anything you didn't address, you drop.

You also can't say your opponent is wrong because he just is. Prove it. Denying his argument is not the same as a refutation. Prove it's wrong, don't just say it is.
" There is no reason why students will hate black people if they go in schools..." is not an argument. You didn't prove there was no reason... You just said there no reason, and left. This is especially bad since your opponent sourced his claim saying it would.

No matter how obvious you think the case is, explain it in full, each round. Even if it means repeating yourself... Explain everything like the voter knows nothing. Remember... It's never obvious. If it were, would you be debating it?

Also, cite your sources. You had a lot of sources in R2, but didn't say where any of them went. And proof read (unlike me when I'm writing an RFD...)

For Con:

If someone drops a case, bring it up that round.

Expand on each argument... Think of where you can take it. There is no reason to leave your cases small and narrow. Expand on them.

Remember to quantify harm. Saying it cause "harm X" is great, but explaining how big "harm X" is is 1000x better. Saying it's cost a lot is nice, but saying it'll cost "$10 billion" is better. Quantify your opponents benefits as well to show your harms are larger. Voter's love quantifiable stuff. Remember that a quantified number is o
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago

Establishing BOP: BOP will be shared, as are the rules of the debate. Let's establish quickly that this is about legalizing the right to use AA. Con must prove that you can never use AA in your establishment.

I am separating arguments by A (pro's cases) and C (Cons cases.)


I don't care for this. It doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know. More importantly, in the third round, it seems entirely wrong. Con was on topic completely in his second round. In fact, I feel Pro didn't even read Con's case.

A1: Rights of the University.

Pro starts off with the right of Universities to enroll whomever they please. This is a strong case.

Con seemed to understand the case... But did little to refute it. His first part didn't really explain why AA is not allowed. And the second half is just wrong. Saying people don't have the right to be racist... Why, that just isn't even true. And Con gave me no reason to believe it was. So far, Pro's case is unrefuted. However, since Con did address Pro's actual argument, it's not dropped.
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
Pro reassures us that they do have the right to choose who they want. The problem for Con is that, unless he shows strong negatives, the right of choice is incredibly strong. I can do a lot of 'bad' things because I still have the right to... Con MUST show that the negatives outweigh the right.

Con replies to this in his Defense round... I'm... um... not sure if I should count it. Con says that AA will lead to less white being getting in, making them feel oppressed. But I feel this cases could be turned on him, since no AA would do the same to Blacks. Con still doesn't convince me that it's not a privately owned Universities right.

Luckily for him, Pro doesn't seem to carry on the case for rights... Instead saying that people should go in for their own merits and skill, not race... Odd, since that sounds like a concession. And I don't recall Con saying black people should be picked over white people...

A2: Benefit of AA

Later, he brings up the benefits of diversity. The first being the benefits of different backgrounds. I don't buy this, as Pro fail to establish that black people have different backgrounds from white people growing up in the same scenario. The second is the creation of role models. I kinda buy this, but kind of don't.

Pro brings up the need of the Government to encourage Racial Diversity. This is a strong case for now. Pro also brings up the need to remove racial stereotypes, but I don't find his reasoning convincing. If someone is capable of succeeding the sane as a white person, wouldn't they already get into University?

Con hits the lack of clarity on what these "unique perspectives" are. Con also does well with the role model point... Hitting an argument I didn't even catch... That making people think their role models must be the same race is, itself, spreading racism.
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
Con then attacks the "ending racism" argument by claiming that racism can't beat racism. As Pro does nothing to address the topic of spreading racism from Con's own R2 arguments, this case is far stronger for Con.

This case is dropped by Pro. I don't want to say that, since he did post an reply... But it is. A reply =/= an argument. To start... Pro literally only replied to the first half with "reread my argument." This is an auto-drop. The second didn't even respond to the counter-case Con made. It only stated that Con's wrong. This is an issue I'm seeing often in Pro's case.

Con correctly states that teaching people to idolize people because of their race leads to racism, and that he never said it was, itself, racist.

Pro only says Con didn't reread his argument. Too bad. Pro should address a point instead of ignoring it, which is what "reread my case" essentially is. This point is still dropped by Pro, who gave no attempt to argue it past his first round.

As for role models, Pro isn't reading his opponents case. Con's case stands. Encouraging people to praise someone for their race leads to racism. Even by Pro's definition, that exactly what racism is. A Con win.

A3: Compensation.

Pro's next case is to compensate for racial harms of the past. This case stands for now.

Con repeats his own case about how racism creates racism, and how "compensation" would not solve the problem. I feel Con could have addressed the issue of how compensation should only be made by those who caused the racism in the first place, but seeing as he didn't, this case is irrelevant. The argument he did put forward is still strong, as AA being racist was, by my account, dropped.

Pro then drops this case. Not having time is not a reason to drop cases... Your time management is you're to account for. That, and Pro literally drops it next round.
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
A4: Whites are smarter.

Pro's last argument doesn't seem to connect... There are no reasons to choose black people, so pick AA?

Since this case seemed odd and pointless to me, I won't mind Con's response much attention, but he does address the issue of letting black people in because they are, by default, assumed to be dumber.

Pro drops this case (review A3, paragraph 3). I read his final round argument, and... what? What?
"Con fails to state that there is no need for universities and your intelligence, you can be dumb."
What? Con win.

C1: AA is Discrimination.

This case is strong... However, I felt Con should have expanded on it. Most importantly is that it's dropped. Pro seems to have not read this argument at all. Con's case was about picking black people over white due to race... Pro seemed to think it was about how we shouldn't ban black people... This is a HUGE hit against Pro.

The problem is that Con then doesn't address this in his Defense round... So... A double drop? Since the only return to this argument is Con saying it was dropped in the final round, I'll give him it. Pro never addressed this case. Which, technically, means Con had nothing to reply to. Be aware, Con, this is dangerous ground to thread on... Always address your argument. I waited to see who called the drop first, and if Pro had, you would have been in trouble. Since he didn't, he continued to drop it.

2: AA leads to racism.

This point is strong. It greatly counters Pro's own case about ending racism. This is strengthen by the sourcing (Pro should cite his sources. I'm not doing the work for him...)

This (sourced) claim is then dropped by Pro. Pro only says there is no reason why white people would hate black people. There are no arguments, counter-sourcing, or explanations. Pro simply denies the claim and moves on. Another HUGE hit against Pro.
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
C3: It hurts Blacks.

This could have been a HUGE case, but it wasn't expanded on. Con could have brought up that AA makes Blacks less likely to get hired, or hurts the will of black people who feel their color will let them succeed at life without effort. At least, this could have become a huge case, but Con instead focused on how black people will feel like they couldn't do it on their own... Odd path...

This, again feels dropped. Not because Pro seems to not understand the argument, but because his case seems... confusing. Not the "I just misread it" confusing. I reread a few times. It was the "What's he saying" kind of confusing. It didn't make any sense, and spelling and grammar is 80% of that.... More importantly, it doesn't really make a strong point. All I got from it was that Black will know they couldn't or could get in... I think. If that is the case, it seems to support Con's case about how they will know they couldn't have made it in otherwise, and would feel bad.

Pro finally linked his source to the argument, although the source didn't seem to match anything he said either.

Pro seemed lost. He never seemed to know what his opponent was saying... Never actually addressing his opponents actual case.

Pro seemed... Not to be mean... arrogant. Like his argument were right for no reason. He wouldn't really explain his rebuttals, or defend his cases because he just assumed Con was wrong, and that was it...

Con stayed easy to read, and his points stayed relevant to what his opponent was saying. Con's case about AA being racist, and harmful, were dropped. Pro dropped all of his cases in favor of random, unrelated refutations that didn't address what his opponent was saying. Even dropping his best argument... The Universities rights.

Con wins entirely. His cases were the only ones left
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
That framework... I'ma throw it out the window soon.
Posted by fire_wings 2 years ago
@ballcrook21, it is okay.
Posted by bballcrook21 2 years ago
@fire_wings and Bob 13

Meant to write it on a different debate, not this one. My bad.
Posted by Hayd 2 years ago

What the hell is wrong with you? Are you serious right now? The fact that you would go out of your way to insult someone for no other reason than to inflict harm is stupid, and frankly pathetic 2) not true, for this was a good debate, better than the noobsnipes you do.

You're true colors shine bright here, and they are ugly. Apologize to fire_wings and bob13
No votes have been placed for this debate.