The Instigator
mongeese
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
TheAtheistAllegiance
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

My affirmative action policy is better than my opponent's.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,546 times Debate No: 14179
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)

 

mongeese

Pro

My opponent, TheAtheistAllegiance, has vaguely outlined an affirmative action policy that he would prefer in this thread: http://www.debate.org...

Simply put, I would like to debate him over it.

The hypothetical situation is this: we are both the admission policy writers for two prestigious universities. Their names, history, geographical location, etc. should not be relevant to this debate. In Round 1, this round, I will write my affirmative action policy, and so will TheAtheistAllegiance. I expect his policy to resemble the opinions that he expressed in the above cited thread. In Rounds 2 through 4, we shall debate over how good the policies are, with the ultimate goal being fairness, although what standards we use for fairness what factors we decide to include will be up for debate, as is to be expected. Potential points to bring up would be hypothetical scenarios involving hypothetical applicants and the like.

As far as the burden of proof goes, we each have an equal and opposite burden of proof, I to affirm and my opponent to negate the resolution.

Definitions should be fairly obvious, and are within the context of the above cited thread.

In accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to the rules and terms described above, and does not consider them to be abusive in any way. If he does consider them to be abusive, he ought not accept this debate, and should instead use the comments to haggle for new rules and terms, with an explanation why.

My affirmative action plan:
The matters of race, gender, etc. are to be considered irrelevant to any admission considerations. To try for a lack of discrimination, names and races will not even be provided by the staff in charge of approving applicants
However, a student's family's income and standard of living will have a slight effect on admissions. If a promising individual comes from a low-income family (of around $50,000 or less) and comes within mere points of being accepted into the college instead of denied, he or she shall be accepted, unless the potentially replaced student comes from a family with an income very close to the income of the previous individual (with a point range proportional to the difference in income).

I expect my opponent's plan to be about as brief/elaborate as mine.

Good luck, TheAtheistAllegiance!
TheAtheistAllegiance

Con

Thanks for the debate challenge, Mongeese. It should be pretty interesting. I agree with the terms of the debate, so I'll skip right to my plan for Affirmative Action (AA).

== Con's AA Plan ==

For simplicity and historical context, I'll be referring solely to blacks as the 'minority' race, and whites as the 'majority' race. First of all, it's widely agreed that AA should be focused upon *fairness* in the college admissions process, but that's precisely why it cannot be colorblind. Due to the historical and contemporary limitations that blacks bear in terms of societal and economic opportunity, a gap among income/poverty has formed along racial lines -- blacks are significantly poorer than whites, which isn't fair. The overall goal of AA in my program is to remedy this gap by diminishing these racial inequalities. Although my college acceptance standards are based primarily on socioeconomic standards and qualifications, race is accounted for when making the decision of whom to accept -- if these two factors are marginal or insignificant. This means that rich blacks will not be advantaged over poor whites, but instead, blacks will receive preferential treatment when socioeconomic circumstances and qualifications are relatively similar. This works toward accomplishing the goal of racial equality and opportunity, which is a beacon of fairness.
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Pro

Thank you, TheAtheistAllegiance, for accepting this debate.

My opponent's plan only mentions two races, blacks and whites. However, what is he going to do with Asians, Native Americans, Latinos, and other races? Is he just going to not admit them? What of mulattos and other mixed-race individuals? This requires clarification. "Socioeconomic standards and qualifications" is also rather vague. How significant is it?

Now, here we have a hypothetical scenario: two students apply to the university. Both students are almost equal in family socioeconomic status and intelligence, making similar grades and scoring similar SAT and ACT scores. Their only discernable difference is their race. This seems to be the only scenario in which my opponent's plan takes effect. Under my system, each student would have an equal chance of making it into the college, which is entirely fair. Under my opponent's plan, the black one would be admitted immediately, without the white one getting a fair shot. This hardly seems like the fairness we're striving for.

My opponent's plan's ultimate fault is that it looks not at the individuals, but groups people by race. Why should one individual suffer or be rewarded just because the rest of his race is doing better or worse off than others? An individual is not a race. Racial inequality may seem okay, but it should not ever come at the expense of equality between individuals. If the two applicants are equal in almost all respects, than this supposed disparity between races obviously hasn't made an impact on them; why does the rest of the world affect this?

Now, to detail the scenario more: the black candidate is the son of a Kenyan immigrant. His father was relatively wealthy in Kenya, and opened up a successful business here in the states. The white candidate is the son of a Polish immigrant. His father was of roughly the same status as the Kenyan, and joined a business in the states and helped it grow. Today, they are equally successful, as are their sons. With all of the equality, why should we make any distinction based on the color of their skin? With equality, from where does one get to earn preferential treatment?

With that, I leave the floor to TheAtheistAllegiance. Good luck!
TheAtheistAllegiance

Con

Thanks for the quick response, Pro. I'll be titling Pro's rebuttals as paragraphs, such as: P1, P2, etc. I'll either list my criticisms as C1, C2, etc, or I'll incorporate them into my responses to Pro's rebuttals.

P1) For matters of simplicity, I stated that I will be referring to blacks as minorities, and whites as the majority race. I may have not been clear, but this means that the term "black" will be accounting for other minorities, such as Latinos, Native Americans, etc. Also, socioeconomic standards will be measured by income, assets, etc. Similarly, qualifications will be measured by grades, extra-curricular activities, among other accomplishments that would qualify a student for a particular college. As for what will amount to a significant difference between socioeconomic status and qualifications, the specifics could hypothetically be A vs. C students, or middle-class students vs. lower-class students. For example, if two white and black applicants applied to the same college, both were A students, but the black had a household income of 30K, while the white had an income of 15K, the white would be accepted. However, if the white's income was 27K, while the black's was 30k, that would be a marginal difference, and the black would be accepted under my AA policy. I hope this clears things up for my opponent.

P2) My opponent's system, as described in this rebuttal, is ruling race out of the equation and admitting applicants under fully equal rules of opportunity. However, this does not accomplish the goal of overall fairness, which is to accelerate blacks (among other minorities) forward within the American economy and American society. In effect, the racial gap between whites and blacks will remain, and the goal of AA is not satisfied. In my system, blacks receive preferential treatment, which will help them climb the economic ladder and attain equality, which is fair when considering that blacks are unequal due to past and current oppression. Rather than just ignoring these racial inequalities, which have been arbitrarily injected into American society, my AA policy will work to actually remedy these issues by helping blacks obtain secondary education.

P3) Pro brings up equality between individuals, which according to him, should not be affected by the totality of where one race might stand over another. The problem is that the average black *individual* is less well-off than the average white individual, demonstrating racial inequality, which AA is meant to diminish. My opponent's policy isn't fair in the long-run because blacks will not be in equal standing with whites. At first, Pro's system of equal opportunity seems like the obviously fair approach to take, but when realizing the historical and contemporary circumstances that led to this issue, it becomes apparent that this system glosses over the very goal of these programs, which is to attain fairness. When black *individuals* sit many rungs down on the economic ladder, which has been largely driven by past segregation and current racism, there is a crisis of fairness that need be accounted for, but under Pro's AA policy, this problem isn't addressed nor solved. Contrarily, my opponent advocates a policy that would pretty much ignore this lack of fairness, which doesn't meet the goals of AA.

P4) Pro cites a hypothetical example, but there are factual inaccuracies within it. The black immigrant may be successful in net terms, but in real terms, when compared to the rest of the population, this average black immigrant is far behind his/her average white counterparts. This, once again, represents racial inequality, which isn't fair, so it must be countered in some way or another. The AA policy that I propose will deal with these issues by accelerating blacks ahead by using the educational medium, which actually deals with this problem, thus being more fair/better than my opponent's system of choice.

Thank you Pro, and good luck with your response.
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Pro

Thank you, TheAtheistAllegiance, for your response.

1) Clarifications

This clarification looks thorough enough, but my opponent fails to consider mulattos, half-minority and half-majority. What is to be done for them? Are they black or white? I'd also like to know how Asians, who you have yet to mention, fall into your plans, as they are minorities, but have been more successful than even whites [1].

2) Color-Blindness

My opponent claims that "overall fairness" includes pushing towards racial equality between blacks and whites. However, I must ask why this racial equality is so important that one must discriminate between individuals based on skin color, which hardly seems fair to the cheated individual at all. If a white kid is rejected from a college based on skin color, what condolence is it to know that the rest of his race is doing better off? It cannot be simply because equality between groups is desireable, for then we open up a whole mess of inequalities. What if immigrants do worse than native-born Americans? Must we discriminate? What if Southerners and Northerners don't quite match up? Must we discriminate? What about left- versus right-handedness? Black versus brown hair? Tall versus short people? Where does it stop?

TheAtheistAllegiance offers that this blatant discrimination "is fair when considering that blacks are unequal due to past and current opposition." However, if the two individuals are just about equal, then within their lifetimes, they probably faced just about the same opposition, as did their parents. What does it matter the cause of their parents' lower incomes, be it slavery or an uncompensated robbery or an insane lawsuit or a terrible decision made by a higher-up in government or just a long string of really bad luck or what have you? As long as the end result was the same, there's no reason for a third party to treat the victims of slavery any better than the victims of terrible luck.

3) Individuals vs. Groups

It is true that the average black individual is less well-off than the average white individual, but in any comparison that my opponent's policy would deal with, he would not be dealing with the *average* black individual and the *average* individual, but merely two *equal* invididuals that happen to be of different race. I don't really know why my opponent stresses "individual" so much here when he's rather badly misusing the word; he's talking about averages, which are just statistics that relate to no real persons who actually exist. There is no such thing as the average individual of a group. He stresses it again in a metaphor relating to rungs on an economic ladder, but this still doesn't reflect anything significant, because black *individuals* and white *individuals* are actually scattered variably on the economic ladder, and discriminating between individuals who are actually on the same rung just because everybody else is scattered in correlation to race actually seems more unfair now that there's a ladder metaphor. My policy, however, actually does take into account the position of individuals on the economic ladder, which seems to be rather important to my opponent, without discriminating between equals.

My opponent criticizes my plan because blacks will not be equal to whites in the long run. However, I can just as easily point out that by my opponent's plan, right-handed people will not be equal to left-handed people in the long run. I still don't see why equality between groups of people matter to any significant extent that could possibly compare to equality between individuals. Individuals should be defined by themselves, not by groups of people that happen to be like them.

4) More Averages

Maybe the average black immigrant makes less income than the average white person in the U.S. And maybe this doesn't seem very fair. But in my opponent's policy, he isn't comparing the black immigrant to the average white person, he is comparing him to a white person who has the same income. There may be a problem, but discriminating between equals isn't the way to solve it.

Ultimately, discriminating between equals is hardly a sound measure for promoting fairness or equality.

Good luck, TheAtheistAllegiance. I look forward to reading your next round of arguments.

[1] "In terms of race, Asian-Americans households had the highest median household income of $57,518..."
http://en.wikipedia.org...
TheAtheistAllegiance

Con

Thanks for the response, Pro.

P1) My opponent asks for further detail about Asians and half-mixed races. The latter simply depends on how mixed races choose to identify themselves. As for Asians, that race has climbed out of poverty and overcome the injustices of the past, so I don't see the need for preferential treatment, for the problem of racial inequality has already fixed itself. Why fix what's no longer broken?

P2)

A. Pro bluntly asks why an admission policy must discriminate based on race; the answer is simple: That's how the problem of racial inequality is reversed. Without a policy that distinguishes between race, there isn't much way to accurately aim the preferential treatment, which is the mechanism used to accomplish racial equality. Some white individuals might be 'cheated' under this policy, but recognize that black individuals have been cheated for literally centuries, and this has been the root of myriad socioeconomic disparities found among race. To simply leave the situation as is -- to not adequately address the situation in context -- is to abandon any attempt at fairness. And keep in mind, left-handed people have not undergone the historical restraints that blacks have; there is little legitimate reason to help a group that hasn't been arbitrarily forced into unequal circumstances by the US government or American society.

B. My opponent, in this post, continues to gloss over the fact that the *average* black individual earns about half the salary of the *average* white individual, which doesn't address the full context of the situation. Sure, some black and white individuals might be of equal socioeconomic standing, but this is the exception -- not the rule. If it was the rule, then there would be no racial inequality, thus no reason for my AA policy to exist. But in reality, it's apparent what is actually taking place in the US, and it shouldn't be neglected or looked over. Pro also mentions the socioeconomic inequality of those who have bad luck and make bad financial decisions, but these factors are of one's own problems and responsibility; segregation and racism is arbitrarily enforced, thus the two situations are not analogous. This is why AA shouldn't apply to the unlucky, the left-handed, etc. Not to mention, my AA plan focuses specifically on *racial* inequality anyways -- not "luck" inequality...

P3)

A. Here, my opponent centers his argument around individuals being of equal standing without regard to statistical averages, for they supposedly do not represent any 'real persons'. For one, an average does actually represent real people; in fact, it represents the *average* person within any given group, with this case being blacks. Although blacks and whites are scattered all throughout the economic ladder, once the *average* of all these individuals are calculated, it demonstrates that there is considerable inequality between these two races. And to reference Pro's claim that his policy accounts for the economic position of these individuals, I'll say that my policy does that as well. My policy will not admit rich blacks over poor whites, but it is geared toward lending blacks preferential treatment in regard to the overall racial inequality found on the economic ladder. So really, my policy accounts for both individual AND racial disparities, while my opponent's plan accounts for only the former. This isn't fair for reasons I've listed multiple times, which are related to where blacks currently stand and why. It also doesn't fully satisfy the goal of AA, which is fairness.

B. My opponent points out that my AA policy will not address inequality between right and left-handed people in the long run, but then again, it isn't supposed to. AA focuses on inequalities between race, and it does that for a specific reason, which is that blacks are very unequal -- largely attributable to historical injustice and current racism. Left-handed people never suffered past discrimination, they aren't discriminated against now, and it hasn't even been established that left and right-handed people are unequal. So, as I pointed out in P2, there isn't much reason for lefties to receive any preferential treatment.

P4) In response to Pro here, I'll refer to the point in my previous post, which is that this black immigrant income isn't equal -- on average -- to his/her white counterpart. If an AA policy is going to solve the issue of racial inequality, then it has to focus on where the average individual stands in each group. If the policy arbitrarily focuses on a relatively rich black and a relatively poor white for its comparisons, then it isn't going to achieve optimal results, such as fairness and equality among race.

I thank my opponent for his on-topic, relevant, clear and concise responses. Good luck with the next round, Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
mongeese

Pro

Thank you, TheAtheistAllegiance, for this debate. This will be my final round; I request that my opponent not make any brand new arguments in this round, as I will be unable to respond to them.

1) Clarifications

My opponent plans to allow mixed-race people to choose which race they are. Obviously, if they want to benefit from affirmative action, they're all going to identify as a minority. I know quite a few people who are a small fraction Native American; even though they've never been oppressed by the fact for generations, and are in all other cases completely white, they're still going to benefit as if they were an oppressed minority. How fair is it to reward someone for having different blood, even though it made practically no difference in their life? The same could be said for any mixed-race individual.

My opponent also claims that there's no problem of racial inequality involving Asians. However, I've already pointed out that Asians have done better than any other race in America. Doesn't this mean racial inequality, which is supposedly a problem? Apparently, it's okay for Asians to be ahead of everybody else, but not okay for whites to be ahead of blacks. This doesn't make sense. Asian success is generally attributed to a culture heavily geared towards higher education, pushing Asians ahead of their peers; it could also be caused by simple genetics [1]. If a culture or gene can exist that increases success, like Asians, why is it unthinkable that another exists that decreases success in other races?

2) Color-Blindness

A. My opponent again discusses racial equality, although why racial equality is so important is still unclear. He points out that black individuals have been cheated for centuries, but if, today, a black individual is equal to a white individual, aren't they overall equally cheated/rewarded? What happened centuries ago is not as important as the result, which is that this admissions policy is deciding between two individuals that are now equal in every respect except race. The paths their ancestors travelled isn't what is important; it's the paths that they travelled, which are pretty much the same.

B. It is true that the average white individual earns more than the average black individual, but in my opponent's affirmative action plan, the only scenario in which our policies would produce different results would be between two individuals of the SAME income of different races. Under both our policies, the poor are favored over the rich, but only in his system is one person preferred over an equal. He calls this scenario "the exception," but because it is the exception, my policy doesn't discriminate upon this exceptional equality, while my opponent's policy does.

My opponent also calls bad luck and bad financial decisions "one's own problems and responsibility." However, it is usually the individual's ancestors that had bad luck or poor decision-making skills. Why should the son be punished for his ancestors' mistakes? Nobody chooses their parents; one could consider being born into any family of low income to be "bad luck"; why should the reason that the family was unlucky make an impact on the fact that the luck was overall the same? If two individuals end up applying for the same college with the same grades coming from families of the same socioeconomic status, doesn't this mean that their luck is equal? And perhaps my opponent would argue that being born into a black family would itself be "bad luck" because black families tend to make less than white families, but as long as the incomes turned out to be equal, the "bad luck" was then followed up by good luck, so race really doesn't matter.

3) Individual vs. Group

A. Yes, averages represent groups, but there is no one average person that you're discriminating for or against. And yes, there is a significant difference in the average incomes of blacks and whites, but why rely on overall statistics when you can look at the exact income of each individual? There may be racial equality overall, but if the two individuals have the same family income, then the racial disparity doesn't apply; as my opponent himself said, we have come across an exception to the rule. Shouldn't this exception be treated differently from cases in which the white individual is richer than the black individual? Doesn't the equality of two individuals demand equal treatment? Anything short of equality would be unfair.

B. My opponent claims that discrimination against whites and for blacks is okay because the inequality is largely attributable to historical injustice and current racism. He hasn't actually made any arguments using current racism yet, and doesn't establish this claim very well. However, I have already explained why historical injustice is irrelevant: it happened in the past, to the individual's ancestors. The net effect of everything that happened in the past is the current status of each applicant, which, in our only debatable scenario, is exactly the same. Equality. It is only fair that they then be treated with such equality.

4) Averages

Most of these points are repeat points, I'll just use my opponent's quote here:
"If the policy arbitrarily focuses on a relatively rich black and a relatively poor white for its comparisons, then it isn't going to achieve optimal results, such as fairness and equality among race."

Both of our policies will favor a poor white over a rich black and a poor black over a rich white. The only situation in which our policies differ is when the two individuals are equal; we have a relatively rich black and a relatively poor white. My opponent himself claims that this discrimination won't help to achieve fairness and equality, even though he's the only one who uses such discrimination. In effect, by claiming that the only action he will take that I won't doesn't contribute to fairness, he has admitted that his policy is no more fair than mine. As I have already explained why such discrimination not only doesn't increase fairness, but actually decreases fairness, as it discriminates between equals, my policy is more fair than my opponent's, affirming the resolution and winning me te debate.

To conclude, I will quote myself to summarize my position:
"Ultimately, discriminating between equals is hardly a sound measure for promoting fairness or equality."

Thank you, TheAtheistAllegiance, for this debate. I've enjoyed discussing our affirmative action policies with each other. Good luck with your final round. I would also like to thank the readers if you've managed to read this entire debate, which took no small portion of your time.

1. http://freewill.typepad.com...
TheAtheistAllegiance

Con

Thanks for the quick response.

P1)

A. My opponent initially referred to mixed races in the context of a 50/50 mixture, and that's the scenario in which an individual can choose to be recognized as black or white under my policy. In cases where individuals have a small amount of a particular minority race (40% or less) in their bloodline, they would be viewed as the majority race (white), and vice versa. For instance, an individual whom is 75% black will be recognized as black.

B. Here, Pro wonders why it's okay for Asians to be ahead of everyone, but not for whites to be ahead. Well, my system incorporates factors of history into its design, which is why this difference in application exists. The problem isn't that whites are ahead of everyone else, but instead that everyone else is behind whites, which is the result of historical injustice. Asians were victims -- not perpetrators -- of this injustice, so its okay that their race has worked ahead. For whites, the situation is different because other races were held back while whites were able to excel, which isn't fair.

P2)

A. In this rebuttal, my opponent shapes his argument around the assumption that whites and blacks are currently equal in every stance, except for race. If this were the case, then my AA policy would have no place in today's society. But because a very checkered history has caused the individuals of these two races to currently be unequal, it is necessary to reform these disparities. Also, racial equality is important for the same reason that any form of equality is important, which is fairness and justice. Would it be fair if blondes were currently unequal due to past oppression and current discrimination? Of course not, and the same applies to race.

B. Pro outlines the specific difference between our policies, which is the different approach taken to two persons of equal standing, the only difference being race. The reason this difference exists is because my AA policy is geared toward solving the issue of racial inequality, while my opponent's is not, thus being less fair in the long run.

C. Here, Pro is asking why luck is any different than race when determining which individual should receive preferential treatment. The reason is that luck is a simple reality of life, and everyone suffers some degree of bad luck, while racism is an arbitrary limit on a specific race's ability to progress socioeconomically. And even though two individuals of similar status can be considered similarly lucky, the black individual is less advantaged on average, which isn't fully the result of bad luck, but past and contemporary racism, which is key. For example, it would be as if we were both running track and you happened to trip and lose; that would be unlucky, but I would still be considered the rightful winner. However, if we were both racing, and I tripped you, then that's no longer a matter of luck, but cheating. The same concept applies in the real-world, which is why luck and racism are two distinct issues.

P3)

A. Statistical averages demonstrate where the average individual of any particular group stands, which is why averages must be incorporated into a fair AA policy. It is true that an entire group cannot be identified by its average member, which is why my AA policy will not admit a rich black over a poor white. But, this doesn't mean that these averages should be totally discounted, otherwise the issue of racial inequality between the average black and the average white will go unaccounted for. This is why my policy will admit a black individual over a white individual of equal income; it's a process of counteracting the unfair reality of racial inequality that has been driven by historic injustice.

B. Current racism, like historical oppression, limits the socioeconomic ability to progress for blacks, which is unfair, and why it's addressed in my AA plan. In any case, Pro claims that historical injustice is irrelevant because it happened in the past, but what he fails to realize is that the effects are still being felt to this day by the average black. Certainly poverty and contemporary inequality matters, and because it's largely the result of what happened in the past, the historical events are relevant as well...

P4)

A. My AA policy discriminates to reverse the effects of past discrimination, which establishes racial equality, and in turn, contributes to societal fairness. My opponent's plan may not discriminate at all, but that's specifically why it is less fair than mine. In order to solve the issues of racial inequality, the college admissions process is going to have to recognize race, or else none of the current racial problems America is facing will be fixed, thus fairness will not be accomplished.

== Conclusion ==

Pro's plan does not discriminate based on race, which is a seemingly valid objective at face-value. However, this means his policy is also inadequate in addressing the racial inequalities that have been derived from past oppression and current racism, which certainly fails to achieve fairness. On the other hand, my AA policy understands that the average black individual is less than equal, and it also acknowledges why, so it's able to properly solve this issue. And by accomplishing the goal of racial equality, my plan inevitably becomes the fairer and better policy. So, please vote for Con.

Thanks again to Pro for an awesome debate, and good luck.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
A good debate by both sides, with clear arguments and rebuttals.

So, should the son or daughter of rich, powerful, and privileged Black parents get extra points for college admission over the offspring of a poor disadvantaged White family? Affirming it says that race trumps merit. The argument is inherently and fundamentally racist.

The State of California awarded 200 extra SAT points to anyone with an Hispanic surname. This was a boon to foreign students from the privileged classes of South America. (A ballot proposition later prohibited the practice.) Asians were 45% of Berkeley students; when affirmative action by race was banned, Asians went to 55% at the expense of all other groups. There is a school (Kentucky?) that does genetic testing to hand out extra aid. Some students discovered they had enough Native American and Black genes to qualify, even though no one every though they were anything but White. Racism is inexcusable.

Racial discrimination is wrong. Helping people with genuine disadvantage is a good idea. Pro made the right arguments.
Posted by TheAtheistAllegiance 6 years ago
TheAtheistAllegiance
I agree. Asians are in a different scenario altogether, so I think it was justified to ask how my AA policy would address that unique situation.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
True, but I got you to clarify that point. I don't think it was a waste of debating space at all.
Posted by TheAtheistAllegiance 6 years ago
TheAtheistAllegiance
It's not that my principles are inconsistent; if Asians were still behind, then I would support AA geared toward them as well.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
But any principle applied inconsistently is more easily doubted than a consistant one.
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
Its peripheral. Maybe TAA is inconsistent on his principles because he feels so sorry for blacks. It doesn't mean his principles are wrong.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
Actually, how he treated Asians was quite important. Many colleges actually discriminate against Asians due to their overprevalence; I wanted to see how comitted my opponent was to racial equality.
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
I refuse to vote on arguments. Pro!!!!!!!!!!!!! What is wrong with you. You let Con pretend like he is the only one helping blacks. Well you help blacks too! Under your policy, blacks would also become more equal to whites because blacks are more likely to be economically disadvantaged. Because you didn't point this out, I refuse to vote for you on arguments.

I take conduct from Pro because he needlessly complicated the debate with the "other" races, when clearly examining the specific case of blacks/whites should clarify TAA's stance on every other race relation.

Pro also didn't seem to think his arguments through carefully, often repeating himself ad nauseum. You need to focus your arguments - place them in a logical sequence - for maximum effect. I see what you are saying but I just can't bring myself to care.

The rounds could have been maybe 1000-2000 chars long but instead you had to double or triple it. TLDR
Posted by TheAtheistAllegiance 6 years ago
TheAtheistAllegiance
Thanks.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
That was a strong finish. Nice job.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by WillMurray 6 years ago
WillMurray
mongeeseTheAtheistAllegianceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
mongeeseTheAtheistAllegianceTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
mongeeseTheAtheistAllegianceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
mongeeseTheAtheistAllegianceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by belle 6 years ago
belle
mongeeseTheAtheistAllegianceTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:31