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

Democrat and liberal policies have hurt the black community

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,439 times Debate No: 68449
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




It is a well recorded fact an overwhelming majority of the African-American population consider themselves democrats.

This begs the question: has the policies pushed by the Democratic Party and those left of the political spectrum actually helped to advance the black community?

"Advance" and "helped" are broad terms, so it is up to pro/con to explain the ways certain policies have helped or hurt whether it be socially, economically or otherwise.

Rules of the debate are simple: no trolling or forfeiting rounds

Round 1: for acceptance only
Round 2: main arguments
Round 3: rebuttals
Round 4 : conclusion

Given the board spectrum of evidence that could be brought to the table, please try to keep new talking points strictly to round 1, and to use rebuttals to support claims already made, rather than new ones.


i accept so long as we keep the context of this argument between the 20-21st century. Anytime prior to that would be arguing nonsense since the parties ideologies have changed radically since the civil war
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting.

The first thing that is important to mention is that anything I say is not in any way, shape or form, racially based or inherently racist. I will make the use of statistics, studies, and evidence that may cast African-American"s in a bad light, but this is more a critique of policies implemented by the "left" that has hurt, held back, or caused regression. This is a debate about economic and social policy, not about genetics, race, or racism.

1.Affirmative action
We shall first start with a definition.
af"firm"a"tive ac"tion
an action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination, especially in relation to employment or education; positive discrimination.

The Democrat party has been the pressing party for affirmative action for roughly 5 decades. In 1961, Democratic President John F. Kennedy introduced the term, and cited it would be used to redress past discrimination. Fast forward several years Lyndon B. Johnson would enforce some "Affirmative action" legislation, also putting emphasis on creating "equality"1.

The biggest problem with Affirmative action is it is rewarding blacks not based on merit, but on the color of their skin. Martin Luther King Jr. fought for a color blind society, but when governmental policy is focused on having different hiring quotas, regulations, and laws apply to members of different races it is clear that that affirmative action is a step AWAY from a color blind society.

Economist Thomas Sowell, in a Senate Judiciary Committee, told current Vice President Joe Biden in 1987 what issues this might cause in education.

"I think one of the great handicaps that blacks and other minorities face across the country, is that they are systematically mismatched with universities in the admission process" The average black student at MIT is in the bottom 10% of MIT students in math, but he is in the top 90% of all Americans students in math because MIT students are so phenomenal at mathematics. Roughly " of black MIT students don"t graduate! You are talking about a pool of people who are in the 90% in math who you are artificially turning into failures by mismatching them with a school."2

The entirety of this statistic is hard to comprehend. Due to affirmative action allowing African-Americans with lower SAT scores and an unqualified educational backgrounds to get into elite schools that they aren"t able to do well in, it results in thousands of intelligent, driven black Americans who drop out, get loaded with student-debt, and are less productive members of society. This is but one of many ways Affirmative action has hurt the black community.

Affirmative action is effectively racism. When governments, universities, and business practices have affirmative action towards the African-American community, it creates strife. An African-American may never know if they deserved the position, or if it was given to them based on the arbitrary darkness of their skin. Similarly, people snubbed in favor of said individual might feel as if it is unjust, and fellow colleagues or co-workers may suspect that said person got the position due to their race. The problem this creates is human interaction, from the workplace, to business to education, where merit should be the only thing people are interested in, have now become a race issue. If we are to accept Martin Luther King Jr."s assertion that we wish to create a color blind society, can you think of a way to make hiring practices less color blind? Affirmative action creates the stereotype that African-Americans need special rules apply to them, so they don"t have to meet the same expectations as other races, and in affect get treated as lesser beings or children who need help. Personally, as someone who is completely against any idea of inferiority of the races, it disgusts me that Democrat politicians, although well meaning, baby and protect certain sectors of our population from important aspects such as competition and merit.

2.Minimum wage

The Minimum wage is a known Democrat issue, and has been pushed very recently by Barak Obama to be increased3. What is amazing, however, is that very few people question whether not an increase in the minimum wage would actually help poor black families.

Since the price of goods we consume must have the cost of production included, a rise in the minimum wage causes a rise in cost4. This results in higher prices. Since there are large portions of the black community who are on the lower end of the socioeconomic structure, they are reliant on cheap stores such as Walmart and Target. If Walmart and Target saw their wage bills rise they would in turn increase prices. These price increases have an adverse effect on groups such as African-Americans who have low income to begin with, and shop at stores such as these to get a discount.

B)Job loss
Young black teenagers, in particular, have staggering unemployment rates. But is this a product racism? Or is in indicative of bad economic policy, fostered by liberals, of the minimum wage? The evidence indicates the latter. Black unemployment have been double that of white unemployment for over 50 years5. But has this always been the case? Economist Walter Williams lays out the facts for us.

"From 1900 to 1954, blacks were more active than whites in the labor market. Until about 1960, black male labor force participation in every age group was equal to or greater than that of whites. During that period, black teen unemployment was roughly equal to or less than white teen unemployment. As early as 1900, the duration of black unemployment was 15 percent shorter than that of whites; today it's about 30 percent longer."5

During an era of segregation, blatant racism, Jim Crow legislation, and numerous other obstacles to blacks in the Labor Market, their job perspectives were still better than under the oppressive force of liberal market-hampering policies. The Minimum wage rate was raised by $0.73 (1996 dollars) in 19617, and t6at was the first year where white labor participation rate started to overtake black5. Rises in the minimum wage has done nothing but make low-skill and low-income workers uncompetitive in the job market. Since low wage jobs are the start of a career, or the first wrung of the ladder to use a clique, a minimum wage essentially cuts off the bottom of the career ladder stopping the advancement of skills and on-the-job training. To show the twisted logic of Democrat politicians, Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House has been fighting for a minimum wage increase, while having unpaid interns work for her7. Her main defense is internships are great learning experience for young workers, and they do it voluntarily, but can"t the same be true for minimum wage jobs? It is clear that the Democrat support for the minimum wage is focused on polls rather than results.


From just the policies of affirmative action and minimum wage, it is clear Liberal polices hurt the black community. Given more time and character space, elaboration on factors like rent control, government housing, and education could also be addressed, but alas I assert this is enough evidence to sway readers to vote Pro for this resolution

2.United States. Cong. House. Senate Judicial Committee. Hearing on the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork. 1987. Washington: GPO, 1987 (statement of Thomas Sowell, economist).
5.Williams, Walter. "Black Unemployment." Townhall (2013). 10 April. 2013. Web. 20 Jan. 2015.
6.United States. Department of Labor. Infoplease. Web. 17 Jan 2015.
7.Pelosi"s Double Standard on the Minimum Wage. Nancy Pelosi and Jan Helfeld. Youtube. 23 Aug. 2008. Web.


I will be defending the policies of the left, as i believe they have not in fact hurt the African American community. I will not try
not to talk about these issues from a Democratic standpoint, but a liberal standpoint as these two things can be distinct.

help-Make it easier or possible for (someone) to do something by offering them one’s services or resources:

Liberal- favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform:

1. voting and the civil rights act of 1964

Democracy-a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives

Voting, the act of being represented in my opinion is one of the most quintessential aspects of a Democratic society. We cannot have a fair and equal society without them all being able to vote and elect representatives. For hundreds of years, Black Americans could not partake in this Democracy that our forefathers have created, thus MLK and his followers sought for change. This monumental change resulted in the assimilation of Black americans into mainstream society and protected Black Americans from all kinds of brutal discrimation and abuse. Jim crow laws for such a long time have barred many of these men and women from voting in regions like the south. Discrimination from this point forward was seen as not only illegal and immoral. The bill also protected from racial prejudice while in a workplace. The bill was proposed by the left during the presidency of JFK until he was brutally assassinated and was signed into law by LBJ. My opponent may point out to the fact that many southern democrats and some republicans filibustered against the bill, but the ideology of these men were in fact conservative and in opposition to liberalism. Liberals advocate for equality and freedom which they stood for in the civil rights act of 1964. This act in my opinion is the moment that African Americans began to truly began to be seen by the law as human beings and not as

2. Minimum wage and government services

Many African Americans rely on the US federal government in order to meet the basic needs of their survival: food, shelter, and utilities like water. The reason why they vote Democrat is to ensure that thier needs are met and that they can survive. 46 million Americans rely on food stamps to recieve sustenance, and Democrats staunchly support feeding America. Many of the people who rely on government services etc. also earn minimum wage as they cannot afford the cost of living. A moderate increase in the wage does not cause jobs and the impacts of the minimum wage to the ob market is weak. $7.25 to $8.15 will result in almost changes that are neglible to economics. A study indicated that increasing our minimum wage by $1.75 would eliminate about 100,000 jobs, an increased of $2.85 would eliminate around 500,000 jobs, the estimate from basic mathematics for an increase in $.90 would be around 20,000. compared to the number of minimum wage earners at around 3.6 million Americans, the reduction would be around .5% according to my calculations. An incredibly negligible cost in exchange for increasing the livelihoods and reducing the goods and services that the US government needs to provide. A 90 cent increase for a full time minimum wage earner ammounts to $1800 extra each year which can reduce ones reliance on the government. Minimum wage jobs are oftenly not the start of the job ladder, 4 in ten of these minimum wage earners are the sole wage earners for their families. Economists long and hard have debated on whether or not a minimum wage would be good or bad for the economy, but when it comes down to it, we have to atleast adjust our minimum wage to inflation since 2009 when $7.25 was implemented would be worth around $8.00 today and a minimum wage increase in 2015 to $8.10 would be ok and not detrimental to our economy or black americans. a drive to increase the minimum wage is reasonable to around $8.10 will not really affect anyone much for that matter, but it gives more disproves much of your logic. A 10.5% increase in wages will cost 0.5% in jobs, based on cost benefit analysis, we can truly see which is more logical, to increase the minimum wage and make people more self reliant, or not change it and keep people very reliant on the government. Liberal policies are trying to help African Americans since we are trying to offer resources to them like food stamps, health care, a higher minimum wage, and a whole host of other services. Blacks and Hispanics are among those who needs these services the most. It is ethical to try to provide these basic resources.

3. Affirmative action

My opponent has pointed out at the flaws of Affirmative action as well as many of its detriments. Affirmative action has allowed for diversity on many college campuses by allowing underrepresented races to become more apparent. Blacks prior to the affirmative actions were not represented in my southern universities or other potentially racist institutions like workplaces. Affirmative action nonetheless needs to be adapted for the modern day and many liberals support this statement. Affirmative action is good because it allows for underrepresented peoples to rise but i think many liberals like Obama have realized that such a system is no longer needed as our society have progress so much. To counter my opponents responses, the discussion on whether or not MLK supported affirmative action must be developed. MLK never explicitly said he supported it but it can be implied from this quote that he in fact did. "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro." This sentence implies that something 'special' should be reserved for black people in order to make amends for past inequalities. As a liberal, i support equality and empowering many Black Americans to become who they want to be amid the discrimination that they faced up until the modern society. Obama supports a system where instead of encouraging different races to be covered by affirmative action, he encouraged different socioeconomic classes to be aided by affirmative actions. Affirmative action is not a complete failure as you imply it to be. Obama, our current and 44th president openly admitted that it had aided him. Affirmative action is not a topic that i completely agree with and i think that it deserves some tweaks, As a liberal, I am allowed to advocate for social reform of prevous social reforms.

Debate Round No. 2


Rebuttal: and the civil rights act of 1964
On the topic of Civil Rights, Republican President Dwight D Eisenhower championed the civil rights act of 1957, essentially proclaiming the same legislation as 1964. In 1957, however, the bill was filibustered by Southern Democrats in the senate, led by Lyndon B Johnson (1). Later, in 1964 under Lyndon B Johnson, the civil rights act would be made into law. What is perhaps more noteworthy is what Johnson had to say about it. "I"ll have those N*ggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years (2)" Using the example of the Civil Rights act of 1964 as an example of democrats or liberal politicians helping African Americans is absurd. Democrats filibustered it in 1957, only to enact it 7 years later and claim it as a Democrat victory. This is an example of good politics, not an example of Democrat"s benevolence.

2.Minimum wage and government services
Rebutting Cons statement is almost as easy as repeating what (s)he said.
"Many African Americans rely on the US federal government in order to meet the basic needs of their survival: food, shelter, and utilities like water."
Thank you for proving my point, Con, this is exactly what I am talking about. In the United States, vast disparities of income, education, health, and others have left the blacks on the bottom of the socio-economic scale. A sign of real progress would be self-reliant African-Americans who are helping to build America and making it a stronger, wealthier nation, rather than finding themselves unemployed and/or living off the government payroll.
Secondly, the use of the minimum wage example seems to have been blown out of proportion by my opposition. A minimum wage essentially only hurts young Americans who are trying to find entry-level work. In no way shape or form does this correlate to the stereotype that Con gives of African Americans living off of minimum wage jobs. Only 3% of workers above the age of 25 earn the minimum wage3. Since con admits that increasing the minimum wage would cost anywhere from 20,000-500,000 jobs, why would democrats want to do this to help "support African-American Families" as (s)he put it, when less than 3% middle to old age workers actually earn this wage? Instead, these jobs are stolen from young Americans, which give them more time on the street, give them less job opportunities, and robs them of job experience. Once again the use of statistics shows the futility of the minimum wage.
Thirdly, con says:
"Liberal policies are trying to help African Americans since we are trying to offer resources to them like food stamps, health care, a higher minimum wage, and a whole host of other services."
This is a ridiculous notion of "help". A sign of these policies working would be poor African-Americans making use of these services, and then moving off them as they got educated, found work, and became productive members of society. Under the liberal policies of Barack Obama and even Bush, we have seen the exact OPPOSITE trend. Since 2001, the amount of people on food stamps has gone from 17 million to 44 million (4). And the cost of food stamps was 15 billion in 2001. In 2011 it was 72 billion. Liberals, loose with taxpayer money as always, have been pouring money into this program, in the face of no results. Despite how hard con is trying food stamps sound like it is helping poor Americans, instead this actually creates the situation where you have 43 million people who start to rely on the government for these handouts. The path to African-American prosperity is not more expensive welfare measures. Another approach, such as Reagan"s economic policy "Reaganomics", actually produces results. In 1982 when Reagan"s tax cuts started to take effect, black unemployment was cut from a high of 19.5%, all the way down to 11.4%. Black-owned business" income rose by an annualized 7.9% (6), and the black middle-class expanded by a third. Compare that with Obama, and his liberal policies. From 2009 to 2011 black unemployment rose by 1/4 to 16% (6). Under Reagan, the African-American community had more work, their incomes were rising, and they were closing the income gap to whites. THAT is real progress. 43 million people on food stamps, billions of dollars spent on expensive welfare measures that creates dependence and a rising African-American unemployment rate is not progress.
Furthermore perhaps one of the greatest disadvantages that African-Americans face in American is the pathetic education they receive in government schools. Republican policy-makers in an attempt to fix this issue, has tried to get legislation for school-choice. Essentially this is giving vouchers to parents so they can choose a better school for their children. Personally, I tried a public school, and the academic standards were pathetic. My parents saved the money to put me through private high school, where I learned more, was put in a competitive educational environment, and I stayed away from drugs, crime, etc. Giving vouchers to poor parents gives them the same advantage my family had, so that their kids might get a better education. This model has been tried, to great effect, in Europe. Despite this, liberal politicians backed by public teaching unions are the biggest obstacle to reform.

3.Affirmative action
Con admitted that my argument on affirmative action was solid, and was open to reform it. Once again, this shows the fallibility of liberal logic (or lack thereof). When affirmative action, minimum wage, government housing, food stamps etc. don"t work, they offer reforms and tweaks. But what they never offer is a change in direction. How many black college students who are set up to fail by affirmative action have to drop out of college before we scrap affirmative action? How many families need become dependent on government handouts before we realize they need a helping hand up, and not a hand out? How many young black children need to be failed by the public school system before liberals are open to reform? These are but some questions liberals often struggle to answer.

When you claim "The reason why they vote Democrat is to ensure that their needs are met and that they can survive." (They being African-American), I think we have struck the root of the problem. Democrats benefit off a group of people dependent on the government handouts. Democrats have not won the white vote in a presidential race in decades (5). Having a minority that will always vote for the party that will "insure their needs are met" is exactly why democrats are so uninterested in reform (such as school choice) that will actually help African-Americans escape poverty and become independent. In a perfect society, all African Americans would have great educations, have good-paying jobs, and be productive members of our society. However if this were the case, they would have a whole lot less of a reason to vote Democrat, which is why I believe that Democrat policies are not geared towards creating this environment for blacks, but rather one of governmental re distributive justice. I hope my arguments have been enough thus far to sway undecided readers to realize the left-wing and liberal policies don"t promote the progression of African-Americans.
1.Hickey, Walter. "The Longest Filibuster In History Lasted More Than A Day " Here's How It Went Down." Business Insider (2013): n. pag. Web. 23 Jan. 2015.
2.Kessler, Ronald. Inside the White House: The Hidden Lives of the Modern Presidents and the Secrets of the World's Most Powerful Institution. New York, NY: Pocket, 1995. Print.


1. in my previous speech, i have noted that these were democrats, but they were conservative democrats who filibustered against the bill. My opponent has refuted the fact that these were southern democrats who hated black people. The Democratic senator who helped launched this filibuster was Richard russel. He was the founder of the conservative coalition that dominated congress. President Dwight D. Eisenhower was a republican, but he supported much of the New Deal programs by not repealing much of it and he expanded social security, something strong conservatives wouldn't do. This is an example of liberalism at work against conservativism. Liberalism sought to allow the black people to vote.

2.Pro agrees with me, vast disparities have led to blacks being near the bottom of the socio-economic scale. This is why we must try to aid them and support them so they can become self sufficient. These African-americans are in fact trying to become stronger and wealthier, but they are stuck in underpaying jobs because many conservatisms and their social darwinism don't allow them to access resources "to make them stronger." Much of con's evidence cites results from 2011, when unemployment peaked. current black unemployment is lower then 11.4% that he sited, as of december 2014, it is at 10.4%, down from 16% since 2011, which is proof that liberal policy works. Like Reagan, Obama took office when their economies were in recessions and turned it around with their policies. , money that republicans try to save by slashing people's grocery funds and essentially starving them. It's a fact, people need to survive, they can't get sustenance at their underpayed, minimum wage jobs and still expect to pay for their kids, rent, and other expenditures. My opponent stated that only 3% of minimum wage earners are adults, 3% is a lot of people, thats approximately 1.7 million Americans(4). My opponent cites Ronald reagan and the fact is, he opposed the civil rights act of 1964 and voted against it on numerous occassions.(5)

rebuttals is where you refute evidence, not create new arguments. Bringing up school choice is a violation of the debate rules you set forth since you should have brought that up in the constructive. Also, his argument that these african americans should get better education kind of conflicts with his argument against affirmative action. We need a reform in the public school system, yes i support that. I do not support it if it revolves around private schools as you indicate.

conclusion: The fact of the matter is, Americans need the government for food, housing subsidies, and social security. My opponent continued ways to solve this problem when the problem is fixing itself, black unemployment is going down, black poverty rates are going down, and their college graduation continues to increase. My opponents "school choice" cannot be accepted as an alternative solution since it was proposed so late into this debate. The thing is, affirmative action in some cases has helped many black americans to attain success, like Obama. Affirmative action may not be perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. The government can't just stop feeding hungry americans by cutting food stamps and such, it's immoral. We as humans need food to survive, and cutting the food supply "to make them productive" is a really flawed ideology. First, people who live off $7.25 an hour cannot support themselves on a 40 hour week making 18k a year and expect to cover all their expenses. Second, it may cause people to get food from other sources like crime. third increasing our minimum wage will help the government to give less benefits and give more americans money to be more stable. Giving education to Americans will not feed them or house them, its that simple. The single most important thing that liberalism has pushed, is the civil rights act of 1964, which Reagan and many other conservatives opposed. The civil rights act that gave voice to the African American's and gave them rights to not be discriminated against. Some democrats opposed the civil rights act, but no liberals opposed it. Liberal policy has in fact progressed African Americans legally and socially. Before 1964, the idea of school choice would have been preposterous to conservatives.

Debate Round No. 3


Thank you for participating in what has been an engaging and thoughtful debate

Here is the final summation of my argument.

As a Canadian looking down across the border, I truly believe that the United States of America is one of the greatest, and freest places to live. That being said, the quality of life the majority of Americans has enjoyed has not reached all citizens. There is a group consistently at the bottom, and that group is African-Americans. In the modern era, much has been done to try compensate for the atrocity that is slavery. From the new deal, and the expansion of the welfare state, minimum wage laws and affirmative action, much has been done to try to alleviate African-American poverty. Despite these measures the black community has found themselves in a place of no hope. What is important to stress, is that the very things that have been tried to help them, namely the welfare state, minimum wage, affirmative action ect. Have had little too no affect if not making them worse off, and yet, all of these measures have been liberal policies.

What con has tried, to great effect, is to redefine what it means to be a liberal. In his first argument he gave a lexical definition of liberal, and hence forth has picked and chosen the things he liked and deemed them liberal, and cherry picked the things he didn"t like and called them conservative. Unfortunately, in the land reality where it seems much of the left has never visited, lexical definitions have absolutely no correlation with results. For example, the lexical definition of communism is "a socioeconomic system characterized by the absence of social class, money, and the state." What appears to have been left out of this definition is the millions upon millions of people who died under leaders who ascribed to this vision. Likewise, when con says liberals are "favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform" this has no correlation to the results of the policies put in place by those who call themselves liberal.

The undeniable attempt of gannon260 to change the focus of the debate to what he deems as liberal is nonsensical. Instead, we have to look at what liberal politicians have done, yet what have they done?
1.Minimum wage
2.Affirmative action
3.Welfare schemes
4.Fight against school choice
It is curious that none of these things are mentioned in gannon260"s definition of liberal. The plain fact is results matter more than ideology. And the results of liberal policies are detrimental to the African-American community

1.Minimum wage:
Minimum wage has made it, as I have proven, harder and harder for young African-Americans to find low-pay work so that they might get skills to be productive enough to earn a higher wage

2.Affirmative action:
Affirmative action has left thousands of black college students racked up with student debt and without a school due to their inability to meet the expectations they were expected to meet due to being put in schools they were unqualified for

3.Welfare schemes
Con claims that welfare schemes are designed to help African-Americans escape poverty, and yet we find welfare rolls swelling with each passing day. Even as con claims how great the Obama recovery has been we have record amounts of African-Americans on food stamps.

4.School choice
Despite con saying school choice is "new evidence" I actually brought it up to point out that the reason why so many African-Americans find themselves poor is due to lack of access to quality education. Secondly he said he was against school choice if it was about private schools. If, by his own definition, liberals are for individual liberty, why won"t liberals let poor African Americans choose their own school? The hypocrisy is unbelievable, and it proves exactly why lexical definitions have no place in a debate over policies and their results.

Whether it be at the federal, state, or local level, liberal policies have left their mark. The top 10 poorest cities, have been ran by democrats for decades (1). Meanwhile, the top 5 ranking states are all run by republicans, and the three worst states are run by democrats (2).
Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and always expecting different results." My question to you, neutral reader, is: while 90% of African-Americans vote democrat year after year, and as these democrats leaders hold office in the worst run states and the poorest cities, is it really intelligent and sit around and argue whether or not they are actually "liberal"? For me personally, I will take their word for it. And I will take the results of their polices as my standard rather than what they say they believe in.
Ultimately, the path forward for African-Americans is access to good education, colleges where they can succeed, a road off of dependence and towards independence, and too live freely, richly, and happily as the majority of Americans do. The real question, is whether we wish to see those results with a conservative, free market roadmap, or whether we will keep going along the same liberal path of government intervention, planning, and the typical results of strife and poverty. I urge all readers to vote pro, and vote out democrats in your next election. Whether or not they are "liberal" under con"s definition is irrelevant. They themselves call themselves liberals, and their policies are horrible. Thank you


Hello, Firstly, i would like to point out to the fact that my opponent in his conclusive speeches failed to mention the civil rights act of 1964 which was in fact a liberal policy as my opponent has failed to negate. I do not argue for communism, just liberalism as my opponent has tried to tie me to.

In accordance to my past speeches, i will conclude with my arguements

1.Civil rights act of 1964- a liberal policy that enabled black people oppurtunity to work etc and to not get discriminated against. Ensured their rights (suffrage and freedoms). Most quintessential piece of legislature by the USFG in my point of view. This allowed black people to get jobs, go to college, get welfare, and attend schools without fear of being mistreated for being black. Without this one since piece of legislature, none of the harms that pro states have any impact since without the black community having their freedoms, then they cannot attain all of this.

2. Minimum wage- i have broke down the analysis and cost versus benefit in one of my rounds using statistics and proved that new minimum wage increase to $8.10 would only cost 20,000 jobs and therefore only .5% out of 3 million. This increase would therefore increase wages by 10.5% which increases the livelihoods of many afro-americans. I never admitted that the minimum wage increases would cost 200-500 thousand jobs, i merely stated estimates of higher wage increases cons. I do not advocate a massive minimum wage increase, but one to $8.10 has more benefits than consequences since 10.5% wage increase is worth .5% of them losing jobs.

3. Welfare- I never stated that welfare was to allow them to escape poverty, but a means to alleviate it. Why was the welfare increasing? Simple, people aren't getting paid enough and unemployment soared after Bush's housing bubble and Obama helped stabilize it. Welfare is now constant and remains pretty high. How do we solve it? Give people more money for their work by increasing wages. More money in the system means more demand, more demand means more needed supply. Economy startes churching and leads the economy forward. simple economics really since lower paid people have a high money multiplier thus spend more then if a middle class person recieved it since the middle class person isn't living paycheck by paycheck so doesn't need to spend it. People are starving and can barely scrape along and your alternative is to stop giving the money for food so they starve and stop helping them have a roof over them so they start freezing without a home. And somehow, through some divine magic, they find jobs and work harder. Yes, someone would love to hire someone homeless and starved, genius logic. No, giving them basic resources allows them to be productive, afterall, if your eating off a really low budget from the government, i would be incentivized to work.

3. Affirmative action- it give Black Americans oppurtunity. Yes it may cause them to amass student loan debt if they drop out, but isn't it worth that extra chance for them to escape the cycle of poverty that mention? since pro advocates for educational aid, i don't really see why hes arguing against me here.

4. Why won't i let poor African Americans choose their own schools? well first you worded that oddly, the real question is why won't you let everyone choose their schools? Simple really, everyone would just go to the school thats really good, then all the other schools suffer and teachers lose job etc. We cn't have everyone running around going to whatever school they desire, they need to put quota's etc since it'll lead to a brain drain. All the smart kids will probably be filtered off since these schools need to put quotas, they'd probably start admitting the best and brightest. Since we all deserve equal oppurtunity, i don't really see the benefits in school choice. Sure it may encourage diversity, but all the black people may want a sense of racial unity and all may go to one school or another. Why do black people tend to live together? sense of unity, we hang around people with commonalities. Would this school choice thing really work? doubt it, it won't encourage diversity, moreso encourage indiversity as people move to schools with similar cultural backgrounds. Also i'm having to refute this argument with completely new evidence since i really couldn't have argued it earlier in the round when we were supposed to. By the way, people can choose whatever school they want to go to, they just have to move there. Even if school choice was implemented, how much transportation complexities, money problems, potential seperatism, and other problems would we have to solve for? tons. How do we transport a kid from one side of the county to the other without sacrificing the kid's time and the states money? How would we deal with everyone trying to go to to the best school? do we make the school established elitist and only accept intelligent people?(elitist)

pro, Why are you deciding to use all these statistics to prove why conservative states are better? You should have presented that evidence like a week ago. btw, the majority of the top 10 states in america are democrat and the cities arguement is kind of bad since cities don't have as much governmental jurisdiction as states and therefore are not a good measurement of policy.
states by income

2.alaskar jerseyd
5.massachusettsd hamshired

""Ultimately, the path forward for African-Americans is access to good education, colleges where they can succeed, a road off of dependence and towards independence, and too live freely, richly, and happily as the majority of Americans do."" Pro has offered no way to attain this goal. Doesn't Affirmative action partially solve for this though? I mean colleges don't permit really undereducated Afro-americans as my opponent implies, but they are still relatively smart, they may not be tip top, but still have that oppurtunity to succeed now affirmative action is present. Now i do not support the current state of the action since i see it as semi-bias, but i think our predecessors truly tried to solve the afro-american economic difference. Affirmative action may not have it's intended consequences but the effects were both good and bad and as a Liberal, there are ways that we can tweak the system aside from getting rid of it altogether. We can make the action based upon economic status as i mentioned. Since many afro-americans are of low economic standings, maybe we can help them too as well as poor white students.

To conclude, i would like to state that no political ideology can be perfect in no way shape or form in it's actions and the same can be said for humans. Humans are flawed creatures, but before 1964, African Americans were not even considered human according to law and did have the rights that many of the others had. Thanks to Liberal ideology of equality, it was able to pass this piece of legislature. Yes some liberal policy may have had inintended consequences in providing new oppurtunities to affrican americans(affirmative action) by having some students unable to take advantage of that oppurtunity to become successful. Liberal ideology also supports some aspects of minimum wage and welfare on the basis that all humans deserve to live and we are all equal. We can't expect them to pay poor people the same wage with inflation catching up to their current wages and expect them to swim, but we must constantly adjust for inflation so people aren't as needy of the government or as destitute. In the end, Liberalism has done more good then bad for the African american community, vote con, it's the most logical decision.

Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by gannon260 2 years ago
anyone want to vote?
Posted by gannon260 2 years ago
too late
Posted by maydaykiller 2 years ago
@Wylted Not true, I'm considering
Posted by ColeTrain 2 years ago
@Wylted lol
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
The fact that nobody has accepted means that even liberals agree.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
This is simply a constructive debate on race baiting and how it is hurting the "black Community."

"There is (a) class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. ... There is a certain class of race problem-solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public."

Quotes by Booker T. Washington (1856-1915) African American political leader, educator and author.
Posted by Beagle_hugs 2 years ago
I might be willing to debate this, but the issue is that any party's policies are going to have, at least arguably, hurt a given group's interests at one time or another. I think the question would need to be--was the alternative better? That might be worth debating, but it's not worth discussing the trivial fact that one or more policies of any party have hurt a particular group's interests at times.
Posted by LostintheEcho1498 2 years ago
If anything it has helped the black community in general...I personally am not going to debate this as I really do not pay attention to what Obama does anymore...makes me depressed for the future.
No votes have been placed for this debate.