The Instigator
Taffyman
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Sam_Lowry
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Is strong race based Affirmative Action a good idea?

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 4/28/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,701 times Debate No: 11910
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Taffyman

Con

I can't confirm my identity, so I ask please that pro not vote for himself. I am looking forward to this debate, and I will do my best to remain civil. Whoever takes me up, I just want to say I will have tremendous respect for. Now, without further ado!

Wait! I'll start with just saying that AA is bad, and then refuting a few arguments in favor of AA.

1. AA's intents to help one group will inevitably harm another.
As it stands, Over half the population is eligible. As more and more people complain and lobby, that number will grow. Soon, white, Jewish, and Asian males, those hurt most by AA, will be the minorities. Now they'll be eligible, and we've just come full circle. Stupid system.

2. AA destroys the system of pushing people to their best.
Well, it does. Any person who will land himself position just because of his race, won't be motivated to work any harder than he has to, at all. That's how all humans think. They usually won't do anything more than is needed. Also, the fact that he hasn't done that much, and is then a high ranking employee helped by AA, means that he might not be able to carry out his functions. Do what? Fire him? That'll result in a lawsuit. Bad. Well, just let him do his job poorly.

3. AA kills merit.
Asians and Jews who work their butts off, coming from all sorts of families, no matter what their income, are harmed by AA. It doesn't matter on their background. They're going to fall short of the requirements for white students, and way short of those for "eligible minorities". Meanwhile, lower-income eligible minorities who work their butts off don't get anywhere, instead, having their positions taken by those advantaged and eligible minority immigrants (Did you know 2/3'ds of people 'helped' by AA are advantaged i.e. wealthy foreign immigrants?). In that way, the advantaged still win out no matter what. AA still fails in its purpose.

In any case, those minorities who would have landed a position regardless of affirmative action, that is, the best and the brightest of those groups, will have a stigma attached to them. Potential employers, colleagues, and fellow students will inevitable view many minorities 'helped' by affirmative action as inferior to themselves. Therefore, AA, in its mission to "cure" racism, in fact creates racism. That's a vicious circle, and no one likes vicious circles.

Okay, 'nother section

Refutations. I will give an argument for AA and then refute it.

1. We need role models for kids to follow.
Bad idea. You can't have role models who children look up to but then learn have been 'helped' by Affirmative Action. Also, looking at people "like" you, isn't something little kids look for. By the time they DO look for that quality, they've also learned about AA. So it's counterproductive.

2. Promote Diversity
Diversity, the core goal of affirmative action, evidently doesn't help students. In fact, it was ranked one of the lowest on what students valued. Additionally, to those arguments about "Diversity is needed so you'll know what kind of people you'll be dealing with in real life!", ignores the individuality of people by saying they'll all be working in a proportionally represented environment. Nope, not all of them. Even if the say that, they're implying they'll have to deal with each race in a specific manner only learned from years of exposure. That's an overarching, generalizing, and therefore racist statement. See? AA creates racism. Another vicious circle.

3. We need to pay "reparations" to those wronged in the past. Also, current discrimination "holds minorities back"

Can't punish people now for what their ancestors did. Can't repay the "victims" for what their ancestors suffered. Would you convict Adolf's Hitler's entire family for what he did? Or better yet, blame all the Germans (they did that, didn't work out too well.) Actually, why don't we just blame all white people? We're doing that now. Grr...It's not right. And Germany shouldn't have to pay yearly pensions to Israel either. Israel's not asking for it in any case. That's right, minority people never asked for Affirmative Action. Johnson did it on his own and they liked it, so they're supporting it.

Additionally, many groups, such as Asians and Jews, who have suffered historic discrimination in the past (and still are). They are two of the most minor groups in the US, yet they are HURT by AA because they are overrepresented. However, they suffer discrimination on a daily basis just as much as blacks or hispanics. Why aren't they eligible for it?
Sam_Lowry

Pro

Thank you for proposing this argument, I believe I will enjoy it.

I will begin my argument by addressing some of my opponents more dubious points.

"1. AA's intents to help one group will inevitably harm another.
As it stands, Over half the population is eligible. As more and more people complain and lobby, that number will grow. Soon, white, Jewish, and Asian males, those hurt most by AA, will be the minorities. Now they'll be eligible, and we've just come full circle. Stupid system."

My opponent makes the assumption that all all AA is inherently based off population of a given race, when this simply is not true. I'm also confused by my opponents statement "Jewish and Asian males . . . will be the minorities". Asians and Jews are already minorities, and as a whole are entirely unlikely to ever need AA. Jews and Asians are (as a group) already perform stellar when it comes achievements in education.

"Asians and Jews who work their butts off, coming from all sorts of families, no matter what their income, are harmed by AA. It doesn't matter on their background. They're going to fall short of the requirements for white students, and way short of those for "eligible minorities". Meanwhile, lower-income eligible minorities who work their butts off don't get anywhere, instead, having their positions taken by those advantaged and eligible minority immigrants (Did you know 2/3'ds of people 'helped' by AA are advantaged i.e. wealthy foreign immigrants?). In that way, the advantaged still win out no matter what. AA still fails in its purpose."

My opponent has offered no source to back up his claim that 2/3 of affirmative action beneficiaries are wealthy, or for any of his other facts. My particular point of contention in this point is the idea that Asians are harmed by affirmative action. I know full well what information he is using and the matter in which he is attempting to interpret it is dubious at est. I fully concur that Universities often end up setting a de facto "Asian ceiling". This does not mean that Asians are intently harmed by these policies. It simply means that the chance of an Asian student getting into any one given college is lower due to affirmative action. I highly doubt that my opponent is seriously suggesting that hardworking Asian students are being denied a college education due to their status as Asians. Rather, he is taking a statistic that implies an "Asian Ceiling" decreases the chances of an Asian student getting into their first school of choice, and turning it into something sinister.

"Diversity, the core goal of affirmative action, evidently doesn't help students. In fact, it was ranked one of the lowest on what students valued.

My opponent has not shown any evidence to back this statement up. I have found the opposite; many students also considerable weight on the diversity of their college.

http://www.fathom.com...
http://www.diversityweb.org...

"Additionally, to those arguments about "Diversity is needed so you'll know what kind of people you'll be dealing with in real life!", ignores the individuality of people by saying they'll all be working in a proportionally environment. Nope, not all of them. That's an overarching, generalizing, and therefore racist statement. See? AA creates racism. Another vicious circle."

This is a gross oversimplification. I highly doubt that my opponent would suggest Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, Indians, Native Americans all have the same exact culture and background, and all come from identical cross sections of society. Is acknowledging the fact that many races have cultural, linguistic, and demographic differences as a whole racist? Absolutley not.

My opponent also falls into the ever so common logical trap over the nature of racism and discrimination. He assumes that all discrimination and racism is inherently wrong, which is not true. Abolition of slavery hurt whites while greatly benefiting blacks, and in that sense could be considered a racist policy. Obviously slavery itself was also a racist policy. Both can be interpreted as racist. However, one would be hard pressed to accept the idea that in this case, one racist policy replacing a different racist policy was not the morally correct thing to do and outright necessary.

"Can't punish people now for what their ancestors did. Can't repay the "victims" for what their ancestors suffered.

This is both a straw man and a false premise. I have never seen an AA policy that actively sought retribution for the horrendous crimes committed against blacks during their oppression. Rather, the goal of affirmative action is to rectify the unfair disadvantages that have burdened the black population as a direct result of the actions of the majority. Your use of the Hitler analogy shows your clear lack of understanding of the goals of affirmative action. Few people would want Hitler's descendants to be killed or persecuted for their ancestry. However, if it was discovered that the descendants of Nazis had in their possession a "horde" of wealth and which had been originally stolen from the Jews during the Holocaust, your logic becomes indefensible. While no one should be punished for the deeds of their ancestors, one can hardly argue that they should be be able to enjoy the fruits of their injustice.

"Additionally, many groups, such as Asians and Jews, who have suffered historic discrimination in the past (and still are). They are two of the most minor groups in the US, yet they are HURT by AA because they are overrepresented. However, they suffer discrimination on a daily basis just as much as blacks or hispanics. Why aren't they eligible for it?"

I have already addressed this in a previous point, but I will address it again. While Jews and Asians do suffer from discrimination, they simply do not need affirmative action. This is because while they have been historically discriminated against, this discrimination has not resulted in widespread deficiencies among their culture. Jewish and Asian culture has dramatic focus on education and prestige, which helps to explain why Asian and Jewish students tend to outperform white students. Compare this with the culture faced by those living in inner cities, which tends to revolve around crack cocaine, prostitution, and gangs. THIS is the true cycle. Children of uneducated drug abusers tend to eventually abuse drugs and remain uneducated themselves. Something must be done in order to break this cycle and give these children the education they need to become productive members of society. My opponent seems to contend that AA will always be necessary, because someone will always be a minority. This not true. AA will be necessary for as long as there is an unbreakable cycle of poverty and lack of education among a particular group of people.

http://www.hopenetworks.org...

"AA destroys the system of pushing people to their best.
Well, it does. Any person who will land himself position just because of his race, won't be motivated to work any harder than he has to, at all. That's how all humans think.n They usually won't do aything needed. Also, the fact that he hasn't done that much, and is then a high ranking employee helped by AA, means that he might not be able to carry out his functions. Do what? Fire him? That'll result in a lawsuit. Bad. Well, just let him do his job poorly."

This point contains a clear contradiction in which is uses the terms "all" followed by "most". I would ask my opponent to cite his sources from which he derived the conclusion that firing an employee due to incompetence would result in a lawsuit, as well as citing his source for the statement that confirms that humans do not work any harder than they have too. If this was truly the case, people would only work hard enough to feed themselves and stay alive.
Debate Round No. 1
Taffyman

Con

Thank you for accepting and for your timely response. Now, the counterattack begins!

"My opponent makes the assumption that all all AA is inherently based off population of a given race, when this simply is not true. I'm also confused by my opponents statement "Jewish and Asian males . . . will be the minorities". Asians and Jews are already minorities, and as a whole are entirely unlikely to ever need AA. Jews and Asians are (as a group) already perform stellar when it comes achievements in education."

Already perform stellar'. Who says? The socioeconomic and educational status of southern Asians, that is, Cambodians, Thai, Vietnamese (all war-ravaged) is similar to that of hispanics in the United States at the moment. It is the eastern Asian immigrants that primarily have such stellar performances, but they are derived from discipline-infested cultures. As a whole, yes, Asian Americans and Jewish Americans are more wealthy and somewhat more advantaged, but are we not going to give the individual some consideration as well? Race seems to just be a convenient category to filter AA benefits through.

"My opponent has offered no source to back up his claim that 2/3 of affirmative action beneficiaries are wealthy, or for any of his other facts."

It is an estimate by Henry Louis Gates Jr. I cannot find the source at the moment, so I will concede this to you and toss it out.

"My particular point of contention in this point is the idea that Asians are harmed by affirmative action. I know full well what information he is using and the matter in which he is attempting to interpret it is dubious at est. I fully concur that Universities often end up setting a de facto "Asian ceiling". This does not mean that Asians are intently harmed by these policies. It simply means that the chance of an Asian student getting into any one given college is lower due to affirmative action. I highly doubt that my opponent is seriously suggesting that hardworking Asian students are being denied a college education due to their status as Asians. Rather, he is taking a statistic that implies an "Asian Ceiling" decreases the chances of an Asian student getting into their first school of choice, and turning it into something sinister."

Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to point out. While the results may not be as pernicious as it seems, it is the intent. Otherwise, the police may find themselves outmatched when they attempt to arrest people for 'conspiracy to' or 'intent to' *fill in the blank here*.

"My opponent has not shown any evidence to back this statement up. I have found the opposite; many students also considerable weight on the diversity of their college."

Quote John McWhorter: There was a poll of University of Michigan minority law school grads from 1970 to 1996. To them, being called on as a diverse person in class was at the very bottom of what they valued most about their experience, as was the diversity.

Source: http://www.npr.org...

"My opponent also falls into the ever so common logical trap over the nature of racism and discrimination. He assumes that all discrimination and racism is inherently wrong, which is not true. Abolition of slavery hurt whites while greatly benefiting blacks, and in that sense could be considered a racist policy. Obviously slavery itself was also a racist policy. Both can be interpreted as racist. However, one would be hard pressed to accept the idea that in this case, one racist policy replacing a different racist policy was not the morally correct thing to do and outright necessary."

This is correct, but do take into account the fact that helping people with Affirmative Action hurts the people ineligible for Affirmative Action, indirectly albeit. Is giving one group RACIAL preference 'politically correct' discrimination? Hypothetically, a wealthy black student whose parents earn over 500,000 dollars a year would be chosen over a poverty line East German refugee with similar qualifications specifically because AA is RACIALLY based. Does that sound like AA is "correcting" social ills?

"This is both a straw man and a false premise. I have never seen an AA policy that actively sought retribution for the horrendous crimes committed against blacks during their oppression. Rather, the goal of affirmative action is to rectify the unfair disadvantages that have burdened the black population as a direct result of the actions of the majority."

So why does it only apply to blacks, hispanics, and Native Americans? My opponent may have noticed that some minority groups that suffer similar levels of discrimination are overrepresented. There is no more 'burden' from the majority to blacks, hispanics, and native americans today than there is to Asians and Jews, while the former enjoys racial preference and the latter 'enjoys' discrimination from potential employers and universities. The categorization of race seems just to be a convenient eligibility test.

"While no one should be punished for the deeds of their ancestors, one can hardly argue that they should be be able to enjoy the fruits of their injustice."

Do most people still believe that white racism is the primary proponent of the horrendous living conditions of minorities? Even if so, why is it that only three-quarters of those minorities are even eligible for Affirmative Action?

Also, please elaborate on the "fruits of their injustice" that is clear and present today that warrants the need for affirmative action policies.

"I have already addressed this in a previous point, but I will address it again. While Jews and Asians do suffer from discrimination, they simply do not need affirmative action. This is because while they have been historically discriminated against, this discrimination has not resulted in widespread deficiencies among their culture. Jewish and Asian culture has dramatic focus on education and prestige, which helps to explain why Asian and Jewish students tend to outperform white students. Compare this with the culture faced by those living in inner cities, which tends to revolve around crack cocaine, prostitution, and gangs. THIS is the true cycle. Children of uneducated drug abusers tend to eventually abuse drugs and remain uneducated themselves. Something must be done in order to break this cycle and give these children the education they need to become productive members of society."

Applying a blanket to a race will give inaccurate and skewed results. Surely my opponent is not suggesting that only black, hispanic, and native american (those eligible for AA) people are the only ones growing up around a life that revolves around crack cocaine, prostitution, and gangs, are you? Plenty of white and southern Asian people live in similar conditions of squalor. For example, how "advanced" and "pristine" is a large inner-urban Chinatown, or those Japanese WWII internment camps? And did you know that the ghettos originated for Jews? Additionally, my opponent is implying that these 'afflicted' peoples are so handicapped that they require a preferred race policy to lift them out of their destitution and lack of education. By engineering a system of Affirmative Action that incorporates a mere fraction of them into colleges, much of it through racial preference, you are surely goading them towards a cure for their 'condition', and turning them in productive members of society. -sarcasm-
Sam_Lowry

Pro

"Do most people still believe that white racism is the primary proponent of the horrendous living conditions of minorities? Even if so, why is it that only three-quarters of those minorities are even eligible for Affirmative Action?"

I would first like to point out that "what most people believe" is irreverent in comparison to reality. To more directly answer your question: No, institutional and de facto racism do not play as nearly a big of a role as they used to. However, I do think that most educated people would agree that the primary cause for the disproportionate level of low education and poverty among blacks would be due to the fact that they were systematically enslaved, oppressed, and discriminated against. Blacks had trouble getting even a basic education as late as the 60's, and the full effects of the civil rights movement did not bear fruit until much later.

In fact, you can trace such things as ancestral Cocaine addiction to the oppression of blacks. Cocaine was commonly used as a stimulant in order to make the heavy work load (which often included multiple days without sleep) bearable for black workers.

http://books.google.com...
http://www.drugpolicy.org...

"Already perform stellar'. Who says?"

I'm sure we both know that you are trying to play semantics here. You seem to believe that these underrepresented subgroups cannot be given fair treatment in race based AA. However, according to Khin Mai Aung of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, "Under a well-functioning affirmative action program, underrepresented Asian American ethnic subgroups like Southeast Asians, for example, Cambodians, Laotians, Hmong, and Vietnamese as well as Pacific Islanders who are often grouped with Asian Americans are given diversity consideration."

http://www.mochimag.com...

"So why does it only apply to blacks, hispanics, and Native Americans? My opponent may have noticed that some minority groups that suffer similar levels of discrimination are overrepresented."

Actually, I have not noticed any other minority group that has seen similar levels of discrimination compared to blacks and Native Americans. Arguabley the levels of modern racism are much more even, but the historical impact of the repression of blacks is almost incomparable to any other race in the history of the United States. Without Affirmative Action programs, African Americans would make up 2% or less of all selective colleges.

http://www.understandingprejudice.org...

"Also, please elaborate on the "fruits of their injustice" that is clear and present today that warrants the need for affirmative action policies."

Certainly. Black people have been historically repressed to a great degree up until very recently. The people that have have unarguably have been the white majority. It can accurately stated that many aspects of wealth in our country can be easily traced back to slave labor and oppression. Even the the Capitol building was raised with the aid of slavery. Of course , you are obviously looking for something much more "concrete" than that. In that case, I would happily point out the tradition of "Legacy" in many Universities. Legacy was a tradition established in part to prevent blacks from entering colleges and selective schools without outright denying them solely due to race. Today, legacy continues, and white rich families benefit solely because they have always been white rich families. In fact, according to Daniel Golden, "The number of whites enjoying preference far outweighs the number of minorities aided by affirmative action."
http://diverseeducation.com...
http://www.thenewblackmagazine.com...

"Applying a blanket to a race will give inaccurate and skewed results. Surely my opponent is not suggesting that only black, hispanic, and native american (those eligible for AA) people are the only ones growing up around a life that revolves around crack cocaine, prostitution, and gangs, are you?"

Obviously I'm not suggesting every crack user is Black. However, 80% of all federal convictions for Crack Cocaine are black. That's not a typo. Crack Cocaine, gangs, and prostitution are all intrinsically linked in many black communities, as they are issues that feed off of one another. Taking a "color blind" approach to a problem like this is absolute lunacy.

http://stopthedrugwar.org...

"Plenty of white and southern Asian people live in similar conditions of squalor. For example, how "advanced" and "pristine" is a large inner-urban Chinatown, or those Japanese WWII internment camps? And did you know that the ghettos originated for Jews? Additionally, my opponent is implying that these 'afflicted' peoples are so handicapped that they require a preferred race policy to lift them out of their destitution and lack of education. By engineering a system of Affirmative Action that incorporates a mere fraction of them into colleges, much of it through racial preference, you are surely goading them towards a cure for their 'condition', and turning them in productive members of society."

If by "plenty", you mean an undeniably smaller proportion or percentage, then yes, they do. As far as the Internment of the Japanese during WWII, I make no effort to defend a flagrant violation of human rights. However, the intention of the internment revolved around the idea of nationality security, and had some rational basis. To compare it to the outright white supremacist roots of African American oppression is laughable. I am not sure why my opponent is bringing Jewish persecution in Germany in this debate, as Jews in America are have had no problems integrating and even exceeding the standard of the majority.

By looking at affirmative action as only only helping a "fraction" of minorities is to miss the bigger picture. The more minorities become educated and successful, the less affirmative action is needed. I have no doubt that there will be a time where affirmative action will not be necessary.
Debate Round No. 2
Taffyman

Con

"I would first like to point out that...did not bear fruit until much later."

(My last argument was significantly truncated, so to save space I'm abridging the quotes. Hopes you don't mind =))

Today, you can see all the effort that schools and universities have injected into correcting the so called "achievement gap." It's getting to the point where people like Harvard Alumni Roland Fryer Junior and co. are beginning to experiment with bribing students. Yes, even a few decades ago, minorities were being denied a proper education, but it's not so anymore. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Today, immense amounts of time, money, and resources are being poured into this issue. Those politicians who advocate Affirmative Action are ignoring the root of the problem: Low socioeconomic conditions of those minorities. AA does nothing to help lift those people out. It only exacerbates it by showing that "Hey! look! There's a lot of minorities in Harvard. I guess their problems are over!" The reality is anything but.

"In fact, you can trace such things as ancestral Cocaine addiction to the oppression of blacks. Cocaine was commonly used as a stimulant in order to make the heavy work load (which often included multiple days without sleep) bearable for black workers."

Please, Cocaine was used in Coca Cola in the 20's. Yes, people all across America became addicted to coke, but I don't really sense any social upheavals of America when the government outlawed its usage in the soft drink. In fact, banning the usage of substances is liable to cause more prosperity for those who are "afflicted by addiction", case in point: Prohibition and speakeasies. The conditions of minorities today are not entirely the fault of majorities in America.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org.... Fact 8. There are five times as many white drug users than blacks. That means that the percentage of whites who use drugs as opposed to blacks is nearly as much. In fact, this means for the urban/suburban settings, that there are in fact a slightly greater percentage of whites that use drugs than whites. But there is no affirmative Action for whites.

"I'm sure we both know that you are trying to play semantics here."

Oops. But 'you' switched from a third person reference of me to a second person POV.

"Under a well-functioning affirmative action program...Asian Americans are given diversity consideration."

The key word here is 'well-functioning'. Affirmative Action is anything but well-functioning at the moment, otherwise there would not be court case after court case debating the extent to which race can play a factor in qualifications. Ricci Vs. Destefano, Calif. Regents Vs. Bakke, they're all prime examples, especially since those affirmative action cases were divided 5-4.

And if you don't know, on most resumes and test booklets, there is no distinction under the bubbles of race, between Asian and SE Asian. There is only Asian/Pacific Islander. Under those conditions, how is the employer or admissions officer to determine the ethnicity and 'eligibility' of the applicant in question? They can't.

And I think that Affirmative Action working against Asians is still not fair.
http://www.associatedcontent.com...
Did you know that they have the highest suicide rate of any ethnic group in the US? Sounds like they need AA to deal with the stress. But no, they don't get it.

"Actually, I have not noticed any other minority group that has seen similar levels of discrimination."

Africans Americans and Native Americans have historically suffered the most under Americans, but the case is it's no longer like this. Under penalties of law, employers, teachers, admissions officers, all actively FAVOR minorities lest they be sued against. Historical racism extends and its effects (in your own words, the 60's, or over 4 decades ago) to mostly to the previous generation, who are now mostly retired. So that case is irrelevant as of now. AA may have had a place a few decades ago at the apex of the civil rights movement, but is hopelessly obsolete today.

"Without Affirmative Action programs, African Americans would make up 2% or less of all selective colleges."

This shows just how skewed Affirmative Action is making admissions processes. By merit alone, those 2% of talented minorities are being placed in the same group with those 8% of "Affirmative Action Babies", attaching a terrible Stigma. Clarence Thomas himself laments: "[I was] asked pointed questions, unsubtly suggesting that they doubted I was as smart as my grades indicated." Polls say that nearly 90% of AA beneficiaries say they are not shamed by AA policies. But then, there is the other 10%.

And what you're implying is that AA creates a quota, and that we need to have proportional, or at least close to proportional representation. Well then, in that case, we should have Affirmative Action for white basketball players hoping to make it to the NBA.

"Certainly. Black...The number of whites enjoying preference far outweighs the number of minorities aided by affirmative action"

Yes, now we see. There is legacies for wealthy and advantaged white Americans, AA for blacks, hispanics, and Native Americans, but nothing for poorer whites. So pretty much, the only discriminated group is poor whites. But isn't Affirmative Action supposed to let disadvantaged people get ahead?

"However, the intention of the internment revolved around the idea of nationality security, and had some rational basis. To compare it to the outright white supremacist roots of African American oppression is laughable."

The enslavement of Africans had some rational basis too, that is, to maintain the economic power of the South. Notice that shortly after Emancipation the South became a wasteland economically. There is still no excuse for their enslavement, just like there is no viable basis for internment. The point is, you can have a good reason for doing anything, but that doesn't make it any more right. And certainly that doesn't mean you give one group special privileges for their ordeals while discriminating against another group.

"By looking at affirmative action as only only helping a "fraction" of minorities is to miss the bigger picture. The more minorities become educated and successful, the less affirmative action is needed."
It is much easier to implement race-based AA policies than it is to delve to the root of the poverty and suffering of the races. Therefore, AA stays. It would be much more effective [albeit costly and time-consuming] to improve the socioeconomic conditions of the raised environment of these people. Improving a school does wonders to the people that come out of it, and if all schools were given that kind of treatment, then AA would certainly not be necessary.

"I have no doubt that there will be a time where affirmative action will not be necessary."

I do believe that in the 60's, there was a need for AA, and there still is a need for AA, but not as strong as it is now. The fact that underqualified minorities are being selected over overqualified majorities because of racial preference is inexcusable. Comparably or equally qualified minorities should get some preference, and I believe that that was the intent of the ruling in California Board of Regents vs. Bakke.

Phew! Good argument. Can't wait for the next!
Sam_Lowry

Pro

Affirmative Action are ignoring the root of the problem: Low socioeconomic conditions of those minorities. AA does nothing to help lift those people out."

Common sense would seem to dictate that higher education would inherently increase socioeconomic conditions of a given minority group.

"Please, Cocaine was used in Coca Cola in the 20's. Yes, people all across America became addicted to coke, but I don't really sense any social upheavals of America when the government outlawed its usage in the soft drink. In fact, banning the usage of substances is liable to cause more prosperity for those who are "afflicted by addiction", case in point: Prohibition and speakeasies. The conditions of minorities today are not entirely the fault of majorities in America.'

Being a drug user is not the same thing as being a drug addict. Cocaine was a common additive in many patent medicines, but the concentration was rarely enough to cause addiction. The push to ban Cocaine was strongly instigated by the fear of African Americans becoming immune to pain and going going into a drug rage.

'http://www.drugwarfacts.org....... Fact 8. There are five times as many white drug users than blacks.

Yes, and being a middle class drug user is different from a poverty stricken crack dealer. Like I mentioned before, the overwhelming majority of federal Cocaine convictions are of African Americans. Impoverished black communities are essentially the Walmart of illicit drugs for the middle class.

"And if you don't know, on most resumes and test booklets, there is no distinction under the bubbles of race, between Asian and SE Asian. There is only Asian/Pacific Islander. Under those conditions, how is the employer or admissions officer to determine the ethnicity and 'eligibility' of the applicant in question? They can't."

Correct me if I' wrong, but this debate is about a strong race based AA program, and not necessarily limited to the current system. The fact that our system may be flawed does not mean that all race based affirmative action must be flawed.

"This shows just how skewed Affirmative Action is making admissions processes. By merit alone, those 2% of talented minorities are being placed in the same group with those 8% of "Affirmative Action Babies", attaching a terrible Stigma."

How would you suggest that the problem of the overwhelming disparity of minority education be dealt with if not allowing for them to be educated? It should be noted that giving preferential treatment to non qualified applicants is illegal, and that all candidates helped by affirmative action must be considered qualified for their position. It's unlikely that being admitted into college with the help of affirmative action is going to carry any worse of a stigma than being forced to work at Walmart or as a crack dealer due to pre-existing socio-economic conditions.

"The enslavement of Africans had some rational basis too, that is, to maintain the economic power of the South. Notice that shortly after Emancipation the South became a wasteland economically. There is still no excuse for their enslavement, just like there is no viable basis for internment. The point is, you can have a good reason for doing anything, but that doesn't make it any more right. And certainly that doesn't mean you give one group special privileges for their ordeals while discriminating against another group."

The basis for enslaving blacks was that they were naturally inferior. The basis of interning Japanese Americans was that they may have had ties to Japan and could leak critical information. Hardly a realistic comparison.

I eagerly await your next argument.
Debate Round No. 3
Taffyman

Con

Taffyman forfeited this round.
Sam_Lowry

Pro

My opponent has forfeited his argument. I will take this time to rebate whatever I feel I have not properly or fully addressed rather than introduce new arguments.

My opponent contends that AA will result in a quota, either de facto or dejure in nature. Quotas, official or not, have been declared unconstitutional and illegal for some time. The fact that AA helps minorities by a quantifiable percentage does not indicate the presence of a quota.

My opponents states that Affirmative action will hurt poor whites. This is true, but is a necessary cost in the effort to break the cycle of poverty caused by historic oppression.

My opponent's main gripes tend to deal with the fact that current AA is inefficient or underdeveloped. I can agree that current AA policy has not been perfected, just as programs such as Medicare Medicaid, and Social Security have severe flaws. These flaws do not indicate an inherent need to remove a program, rather they indicate the necessity of improve them. If we were to eliminate every inefficient government program or institution, we would have no government.

Since my opponent has forfeited his final argument, I will keep this round short. I thank him for providing the opportunity to present my arguments in this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Taffyman 6 years ago
Taffyman
I apologize for my mishaps. This is my first debate, and I appreciate any help you could give me.
I did not know you had to cite sources. I will do so from now on.
Okay, I retract my request.
Posted by FormAndTheFormless 6 years ago
FormAndTheFormless
I wish that the instigator would cite his sources. Some of his claims are very interesting, but without sources we don't know how accurate they are. The study claiming that students do not value diversity is particularly intriguing but I could find no such study using google.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
He's not fine with his opponent voting for himself, but he is perfectly fine with his opponent voting for him.
Posted by rougeagent21 6 years ago
rougeagent21
"I can't confirm my identity, so I ask please that pro not vote for himself."

You are assuming that AFF is going to win. If you kick his/her butt then they may vote for you...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sam_Lowry 6 years ago
Sam_Lowry
TaffymanSam_LowryTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Taffyman 6 years ago
Taffyman
TaffymanSam_LowryTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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