The Instigator
alto2osu
Pro (for)
Winning
63 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points

Official TOC Round 1

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,560 times Debate No: 8960
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (59)
Votes (14)

 

alto2osu

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent in advance for accepting this Round 1 debate in the current tournament. The topic at hand is:

Pro-Minority Affirmative Action has led to positive reform to U.S. institutions.

I choose to define these terms lightly, but my advocacy will also frame the debate.

Pro-Minority Affirmative Action: positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Positive Reform: I hope this is fairly clear, but one can differentiate this use of "positive" from the use of the word "positive" in my provided definition of A.A. by considering positive reform to be good or beneficial. Positive steps are simply formal, intentional actions (like "positive" laws).

U.S. institutions: any public sector institution, including both workforces & higher education. Primarily, A.A. has only been applied to these institutions, as private workforces & schools are governed by federal anti-discrimination statutes, such as Title VI.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Onto my advocacy:

1. A.A. was and is a necessary program in combating the systemic discrimination inherent in the U.S. system.

To deny the existence of racism or minority discrimination in the US would be as silly as it would be fallacious. Statistical & empirical evidence abound, though racism is not as readily visible in our public institutions as it has been historically. However, most public institutions, especially schools, are considered more segregated now than they were prior to 1954's landmark Board v. Topeka decision. [1] Mind you, the segregation & discrimination is not based on official statute or policy, but on the phenomena of public behavior, most notably movements such as "white flight." Bottom line: discrimination is not only alive & well, but our recent complacency, as well as our penchant for attempting to eliminate A.A. programs in places like public universities, has actually led to a highly noticeable increase in minority exclusion from both education and the workplace [2].

Funnily enough, the data shows that minority discrimination in both considered arenas (workplace & higher education) has been mitigated significantly since the induction of A.A. programs. However, as the data in my sources demonstrates, this progress has been materially damaged by two things: public outcry about quota & points admission systems, & the banning of A.A. programs in certain states by referendum. I will discuss both of these in turn, but conclude this point by stating that A.A. has been statistically proven to do its job, despite what opponents have to say: it has allowed the public sector to more aptly reflect the demographics of the nation.

2. A.A. is an evolving program that is willing and proven able to adapt to the needs of the public. Its adaptability has ensured its ability to continue serving its purpose properly.

No one can argue that any program in any institution anywhere in human existence hasn't had its ups and downs. No program or institution is perfect. However, the best, most useful of these show themselves able to meet the needs of changing times.

For example, when A.A. was born in the 1970's, directly after a series of monumental civil rights struggles, it manifested itself in the form of hardline quota policies. [3] Since so few minorities could even make it to the college level, much less be remotely qualified for the workforce, more totalitarian policies were required to cause the necessary ideology shift needed to produce lasting change.

A.A. tapered off until the 1990's, when the debate over hardline policies was reborn, and A.A. programs were revisited by their creators & implementers. Since then, A.A. has progressed into a program not of quotas & harsh point systems, but of prejudice confrontation, mediation, & education. In fact, almost all A.A. programs currently in effect employ models similar to the "Confronting Prejudices Response" Model [4], which is entirely selection-free. Now that workforce diversity is stabilizing via a decrease in discrimination in the workforce, A.A. is clearly evolving into an educational institution, rather than a selection program.

Unfortunately, opponents still holding onto the misconception of these antiquated forms of A.A. are significantly slowing the progress of such educational reforms, which is why the recent decline has been seen. However, the point is that A.A., in and of itself, has and will continue, if allowed, to produce an equalized public sector.

3. Any remnants of A.A.'s selection policies are a necessity to the institutions that still employ them.

Selection policies for A.A. now are found only in the form of points awarded on higher education applications for being an identified member of a certain minority group. Since, according to sources, the selection portions of A.A. are the most contentious, this is the point at which A.A. must truly prove itself. Empirical observation has clearly shown that A.A.'s selection policies are producing the positive change required to affirm the resolution.

Spurred by objections to such measurement systems, a number of states have voted on & passed referendums that forbid the use of minority selection points & A.A. selection policies in public higher education institutions. Such states include California, Michigan, Nebraska, & Washington. In these states, the acceptance rates of minorities have plummeted in public universities across the board, showing huge drops in Hispanic & African American accepted applicants. [5] Now, is this simply because those students deserve positions less than competing White or Asian American students?

Most credible researchers in the field, as well as educational researchers, will give a resounding "no." In fact, state universities use primarily statistical data to determine entrance, and these statistics are primarily composed of standardized test scores, such as the SAT. Specific demographics, including the socio-economically disadvantaged & most high concentrations of ethnic minorities (such as inner-city or urban public schools) consistently perform poorly on such tests due to discrimination inherent in the pedagogical methods practiced in their school districts.

As previously argued in my inherency argument, corrective selection practices such as points systems are an equitable way to balance out such disparities, as long as they are applied correctly. The Supreme Court, specifically in the two University of Michigan cases Grutter v. Bollinger & Grantz v. Bollinger, in which the Court made a specific legal & constitutional distinction that A.A. is now adhering to: in moderation & with due consideration, a points selection system for minorities is fair to all & beneficial to the institution, as well as all students involved. [6]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] http://www.umich.edu...
[2] http://www.yaledailynews.com...
[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[4] "The Confronting Prejudiced Responses Model: Applying CPR in Organizations." Ashburn-Nardo, Leslie, Stephanie A. Goodwin, & Kathryn A. Morris. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2008.
[5] "State Anti-Affirmative Action Laws & Title VI." West-Faulcon, Kimberly. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 2009.
[6] http://www.npr.org...
mongeese

Con

Now, an important thing to know when deciding whether or not a policy had a positive effect is the alternate policy. If the alternate policy would have had a more positive effect than affirmative action, then the use of affirmative action over the alternate policy would have a negative effect. An alternate policy to Pro-Minority Affirmative Action is a color-blind Pro-Disadvantaged Affirmative Action. This is the policy that I will be arguing as more effective than Pro-Minority.

By Pro-Disadvantaged, I mean in favor of people who don't have the economic ability to get to college ordinarily.

"1. A.A. was and is a necessary program..."
My opponent cites that racism continues to exist in the U.S. I ask these three questions:
1. Can you show that there is indeed racism against minorities?
2. Can you show that this racism is caused by race itself, and not another factor, such as correlation between race and economic standing?
3. Can you show that this racism is undeserved?
For example, "black taxi drivers avoid picking up black male passengers after dark" (Sowell 172) because they know them to be more dangerous, and if one discriminates against felons, they discriminate more on African-Americans than European-Americans (Sowell 175).

My opponent also cites increased segregation. But I thought A.A. was supposed to help? Obviously, it hasn't. All of the problems among the black population, from increased crime (Sowell 167), children born out of wedlock (164), fatherless families (163), and others have been increasing since the introduction of A.A. And yet, A.A. is called a success.

"[O]ur recent complacency... has actually led to a highly noticeable increase in minority exclusion from both education and the workplace."
So, you stop spoiling a kid, and he complains. We've been spoiling minorities, so we stop, and things go back to normal. That's not bad at all.

"2. A.A. is an evolving program that is willing and proven able to adapt to the needs of the public. Its adaptability has ensured its ability to continue serving its purpose properly."
The quotas were obviously horrible, as they forced employers to hire the worse employees.
I don't know this "Confronting Prejudices Response" Model. Could you explain?

"However, the point is that A.A., in and of itself, has and will continue, if allowed, to produce an equalized public sector."
An equalized public sector? That doesn't even sound good.

"3. Any remnants of A.A.'s selection policies are a necessity to the institutions that still employ them.
"Selection policies for A.A. now are found only in the form of points awarded on higher education applications for being an identified member of a certain minority group."
I can just imagine the conversation:
Professor: "Here are your total points."
Minority: "What's this 'Plus 20' thing written here?"
"That's your minority bonus for being black."
"Why?"
"Because blacks are socio-disadvantaged."
"Wait, you think I grew up in a ghetto or something? I'm middle class!"
"But we generalize that all blacks are socio-disadvantaged, so you get a bonus."
"I feel insulted!"

http://www.bedfordstmartins.com...
Read the part about he's being asked to label his children as "disadvantaged," when they are not.
"Yet good intentions can blind us to the effects they generate when implemented. In our society affirmative action is, among other things, a testament to white good will and to black power, and in the midst of these heavy investments its effects can be hard to see. But after 20 years of implementation I think that affirmative action has shown itself to be more bad than good and that blacks--whom I will focus on in this essay--now stand to lose more from it than they gain."

And then another conversation:
Professor: "Here are your total points."
Majority: "What's this 'Minus 20' thing written here?"
"That's your majority penalty for being white."
"Why?"
"Because whites are all rich bigots."
"Wait, you think I grew up in a mansion or something? I'm middle class!"
"But we generalize that all whites are rich bigots, so you get a penalty."
"I feel insulted!"

"Empirical observation has clearly shown that A.A.'s selection policies are producing the positive change required to affirm the resolution."
Wait, so if more minorities are hired, that is instantly a good thing? I don't think so. Don't forget that fewer majorities are being hired. From a color-blind perspective, affirmative action is completely neutral in all things, except for the fact that it rewards random people and makes them look better than they actually are.

"In these states, the acceptance rates of minorities have plummeted in public universities across the board..."
The numbers never should have been so high in the first place.

"Now, is this simply because those students deserve positions less than competing White or Asian American students?"
Notice how you assume that the Hispanics and blacks are all poorer than whites and Asians.
Asians do better in school than even whites do (155). Where do they fit in this plan? Should they be discriminated for or against?
Let's phrase the question properly: Now, is this simply because the students with fewer qualifications (regardless of race) deserve positions less than competing students with more qualifications (regardless of race)?
Yes.

"Specific demographics, including the socio-economically disadvantaged & most high concentrations of ethnic minorities (such as inner-city or urban public schools) consistently perform poorly on such tests due to discrimination inherent in the pedagogical methods practiced in their school districts."
So, we have a loose correlation between socio-economic status and race. However, there are still rich minorities and poor majorities, so it is far from perfect.

"Corrective selection practices such as points systems are an equitable way to balance out such disparities, as long as they are applied correctly."
So, the brilliant plan put forth by universities was to generalize everybody's economic status by race, regardless of the diverse incomes within each race, and reward everybody points based on the color of their skin, even if the black man is upper-class, or the white man is lower-class. Why not just go PRO-lower-class?

"The Supreme Court ... made a specific legal & constitutional distinction that A.A. is now adhering to: in moderation & with due consideration, a points selection system for minorities is fair to all & beneficial to the institution, as well as all students involved."
Wait, so it is beneficial to me that I have to give up my spot to a less-qualified candidate because my skin isn't dark enough?
If you appeal to the Supreme Court's authority, I shall cite beem0r, the top debater on this site.
"Only if we base it on something meaningful, like economic status. No race/gender crap."
You see, we could easily have it where anybody coming from a socio-economically disadvantaged background gets benefits. Instead, we use skin color as a poor, racist indicator of social standing.

Proof that A.A. is racism:
Racism - racial discrimination - the act of discriminating based on race rather than individually - the act of distinguishing based on race rather than individually (affirmative action)

Pro-Minority Affirmative Action has led to horrible reform to U.S. institutions. It's gotten to where we reward points to somebody for being black, regardless of whether or not he's one of the lower-class blacks that affirmative action was intended for. Worse, it creates insulting generalizations in everybody's heads that all Hispanics and African-Americans are poor, while all Asian-Americans and European-Americans are rich. From the color-blind perspective, I see random people receive positions over the people with more qualifications. From any other perspective, I see racism. How can this racism be considered "positive"?
Debate Round No. 1
alto2osu

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response. I will attempt some form of organization, but it's tough.

Counterplan:

1. Perm it. Not only is my case's AA generally color-blind anyway, but it is only *not* color blind if a student chooses to identify as a specific minority on a college application. Just don't check the box.
2. The Con ignores the fact that A.A. only has only contains *some* weighting, and that it includes far more minorities than just ethnic. He doesn't address the fact that A.A. is now primarily an education and confrontation program within the public sector, and that quotas have been entirely abolished.
3. Even if he does win counterplan, he doesn't win the debate. He's saying something like: if I give $10 to help the Darfur refugees instead of giving $20, then I've done nothing good for the Darfur refugees." It's all positive reform, which affirms.

On the 3 questions/necessity of AA:

1. Sowell is taken out of context. Badly. Sowell never argues that African Americans are more inherently dangerous than any other ethnicity. Furthermore, Sowell is basically a libertarian Jared Diamond. His works espouse the view that multiple factors play into the development of a person, so he would never, ever claim that African Americans are inherently violent or criminal.
2. My case is not race-centered, even though my opponent is unfairly focusing the debate thusly because he doesn't seem to be able to accept the fact that minorities are not only ethnic. Straw man much?
3. To address my opponent's questions:

a. Yes.
b. No, and I never claim to, nor is this necessary to claiming the benefits of my case.
c. Can my opponent please explain to me a situation in which racism is deserved? How about sexism? Ageism? Bigotry at this level is precisely why an educational system like A.A. is an absolute necessity within society.

On increased segregation:

My opponent missed the boat here. I encourage him to re-read my statements. I said that segregation is worse due to factors outside of AA that increased due to resistance to the educational steps AA was taking to correct the subjugation of minorities. See: white flight, for example, which my opponent drops, as well as negative response through anti-AA legislation.

On placating the complaining kid:

By my opponent's logic, women's suffrage is spoiling women, because clearly they don't have the capacity to vote properly; women are stupider than men, genetically, just like black taxi cab drivers are inherently dangerous. So, we should reverse women's suffrage, and everything "will go back to normal."

My opponent ignores the fact that when a problem exists, like women not voting or minorities being abusively discriminated against, we solve the problem. That's not awarding a spoiled child; that's correcting abuses against the child.

On CPR:

As detailed in the source I cited at the bottom of my case, the Confronting Prejudices Response (CPR) Model is the current AA model for the entire nation. Besides the weighting of *some* college applications, this model entails 2 things: 1) Education with regards to cultural diversity, tolerance, & other information necessary to debunk bigoted stereotypes regarding race; 2) Confrontation & mediation of instances of prejudice or discrimination, much like a peer mediation program in a school or in a workplace.

On public sector:

An equalized public sector simply means that each grouping of people has an equal shot at education and employment. Con's "counter plan" equalizes the public sector by giving favor to the disadvantaged, as well. So, clearly, he's contradicting himself massively, because he wants the disadvantaged to be assisted, but only if *he* believes they should be assisted, empirical warrants be damned.

On the professor to student conversations:

1. The conversation you are imagining is flawed for 3 reasons:

A. Weighting systems don't penalize. They add points to designated areas. Supreme Court precedence makes it illegal to add points to an application to the point where reverse discrimination occurs. I recommend reading the University of Michigan cases I cite in my case.
B. Assignments vs. college applications are apples & oranges. Just because they both start with an "A" and happen in or around universities does not make them correlative in any way.
C. I remind you that, on an application, the applicant can mitigate AA on their own, if their individual ideology conflicts with the policies, by simply choosing not to identify their minority status.
D. This microcosmic example in no way proves that AA has not produced positive reform. 1 person's objections doesn't equate to indication of social change.

On majorities not being hired & rewarding random people:

1. My opponent is arguing quotas here, which are clearly non-resolutional, since quotas haven't been used since the 1990's. AA, especially in the workforce, is based on the CPR model that I outline. If the public sector is hiring more minorities (warrant?), it is not a product of AA as outlined in my sources & case.
2. If by "random people," my opponent is referring to those groups that have been historically abused & robbed of their natural human rights, then sure. Whether they have reached their full potential or not is highly debatable. I would argue, based on historical precedence, culturally accepted fact, & my sources, that these populations don't have full ability to reach the potential of the majority due to the same factors that, funnily enough, Thomas Sowell writes about in his commentaries & books.

On the drastic reduction of minority college admittants:

Apparently, my opponent would be far happier in a "normal" world in which only white males are allowed to attend college, or work in a blue collar establishment. The numbers were never high for minority acceptance. Cross-apply my equalizing the public sector arguments.

On correlation of poverty & race:

1. My opponent is straw manning me here. I make no correlation whatsoever, except to say that minority populations, including the socio-economically disadvantaged, perform poorly on standardized tests. The socio-economically disadvantaged can be any ethnicity. I never said they couldn't be.
2. I didn't assume that any ethnicity was poorer than any other. Based on the common knowledge of discrimination statistics, White populations & Asian-American populations are stereotyped as being more apt, hence statistics show them favored by higher education and the workplace. That's all I said.
3. You are making the assumption that White & Asian-Americans are automatically *more* qualified for a given position merely because they identify with those ethnicities.

On the "brilliant" plan of weighting:

My opponent doesn't get AA. Extend my definitions & framing in RD 1 (no one is correlating ethnicity with poverty directly—that's just my opponent).

On my Supreme Court Warrants:

1. So, are you attempting to claim that "beem0r" is on equal footing in shaping American policy to The US Supreme Court? My argument is not an appeal to authority, but a legitimate citation of the framing of AA in the 21st century. Wanna give me a *good* reason why we shouldn't consider their ruling legitimate to this debate?

On the negative "advocacy" at the bottom of RD 1:

1. I find it laughable that my opponent accuses me of making insulting generalizations about minorities. Which one of us was the one who claimed that all black cab drivers were more violent? I forget…
2. My opponent is arguing only partially within the scope of the resolution. He is attempting to debate the 1990's version of AA, which is not what I've established as AA, nor is it what AA really is. Even if my opponent can salvage some harms out of the weighting system, which he can't, he is still losing all of the benefits I can claim for all *other* minorities he ignores, as well as ethnic minorities.
mongeese

Con

Counterplan:
1. AA is far from color-blind if it rewards one race over another. The pressure to check that box is pretty intense, as seen in the article I cited.
2. My opponent gives no examples of non-ethnic minorities. Any amount of racist weighting is racism. Quotas may have been abolished, but until we abolish the weighting as well, we're still in the hole.
3. Racism isn't positive.

On the 3 questions/necessity of AA:
1. Sowell said that crime rates for blacks have gone up, and even black taxi drivers acknowledge this. He states that black males are more often violent than white males, so the taxi driver is more inclined to pick up a white male.
2. My opponent gives no examples.
3. So, you admit that race isn't the primary factor.
By "undeserved," I mean that the stereotype isn't true. The fact is, banning felons will ban more blacks than whites. It's true. However, those blacks brought it upon themselves by being felons.
For sexism, women are naturally not as strong as men, so having less female firemen makes sense.
People get smarter and more experienced as they get older. The correlation there is extremely strong.

On increased segregation:

I am arguing that the steps are being taken incorrectly. Additionally, not all blacks are impacted by white flight, so rewarding a black man in California for a series of white flights in Mississippi doesn't make sense.

On placating the complaining kid:

Women's suffrage is an equality movement. That's good. If we started a policy where every woman got two votes, that would be bad.
I never said black taxi drivers are more dangerous.

We went beyond solving the problem. We recreated the problem in the other direction. That's like saying, "He punched you, so you punch him." That gets us nowhere.

On CPR:

CPR doesn't even fit the definition from Round 1.

On public sector:

Well, giving certain races more points on their applications isn't creating an equal shot. I think the Pro-Minority thing should be tossed out completely, and it should be entirely replaced with Pro-Disadvantaged, because it avoids the huge problem of having middle-class blacks hired above lower-class whites.

On the professor to student conversations:

A. The penalization might as well have existed. It was for imagery.
Any weighting is reverse discrimination. If the points ever make an impact, it's racism. Otherwise, why'd you add the points?
B. The words "assignment" and "application" haven't been mentioned until this point.
C. But even the government is pressuring them to check the box!
D. It's a first-hand experience that affirmative action labels blacks as "disadvantaged" and is reverse discrimination.

On majorities not being hired & rewarding random people:

1. No, this is looking at the weighting for minorities, which edges a minority into a position to replace a majority, even though the majority had more deserved points.
"If the public sector is hiring more minorities (warrant?), it is not a product of AA as outlined in my sources & case."
This is, in fact, a concession that the A.A. that you are using does not lead to an increase in the hiring of minorities in the public sector, which is what the definition of Pro-Minority Affirmative Action requires. You've killed your own case.
2. No black American alive today has experienced slavery. Few black American college applicants today have experienced Jimmy Crow laws. That was the past. This also ignores the fact that there are majority members who are in the lower class. Should we ignore them?

On the drastic reduction of minority college admittants:

Only white males? No. Pro-Disadvantaged Affirmative Action would help minorities, although it is indirect, and a number of minorities and women made it to college before Affirmative Action. Any person who can climb whatever ranks are in his or her way (it's not as many as you think, for a bright enough person) should be allowed to whatever he or she wants, as long as it is legal.

On correlation of poverty & race:

1. However, there is correlation, because the poverty rates and distributions in each race are different in a consistent manner. My opponent admits that anybody can be socio-disadvantaged. So, why should we only help the ones that have dark skin?
2. http://www.apmforum.com...
The Asian work ethic. The Asians actually do have a better work ethic than other races. If all ethnicities have equal income, then why would A.A. even sound reasonable? You assume that Asians are favored by legend, but they started the legend themselves.
3. No. I'm saying that people should not assume that just because those two groups have a higher average income, that all whites and Asians are more qualified than all blacks and Hispanics.

On the "brilliant" plan of weighting:

Your A.A. isn't even A.A. by your own definition.
If you're not going to make the correlation, I am.
http://www.infoplease.com...

On my Supreme Court Warrants:

beem0r is logical, as proven by his debates. The Supreme Court's statement falls at the first application of logic. Something that discriminates against students does not help them. It's obvious that their statement isn't logical, so they become unreliable.

On the negative 'advocacy' at the bottom of RD 1:

1. The idea of affirmative action for all socio-economically disadvantaged minorities (as you have decided to exclude Asians) generalizes that they are all socio-economically disadvantaged, including those in the middle class.
I never claimed that black cab drivers are more violent. I said that even they are less likely to pick up a black male, because they know that there is a high crime rate among black males. The facts are there to support that. However, not all black males are violent. It's just a fact that they are more likely to be violent, which is really the black population's own fault.
2. My opponent hasn't established these *other* minorities. Also, I shall reiterate why my opponent's affirmative action doesn't qualify as Pro-Minority Affirmative Action, as defined in this debate.

From Round 1:
"Pro-Minority Affirmative Action: positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded."
From Round 2:
"If the public sector is hiring more minorities (warrant?), it is not a product of AA as outlined in my sources & case."

1. To qualify as Pro-Minority Affirmative Action for this debate, a policy needs to increase the representation of minorities in areas of employment, education, and business. (Established in Round 1.)
2. The policies that are called affirmative action by alto2osu are not the cause of the increase of hiring. (Conceded in Round 2.)
3. "Affirmative action" does not qualify as Pro-Minority Affirmative Action for this debate.

By this logical syllogism, my opponent's entire case falls apart. She's not even arguing to affirm the resolution. The only thing she does have that can be used for the resolution is the weighting of applications for minorities, which has been conceded to be racism. So, it comes down to whether or not this racist policy is positive reform, and racism is not positive, especially given the Fourteenth Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"[N]o state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Therefore, any law enacted to prevent adding points based on race is constitutional, because currently, universities have been distributing rights unequally, giving an advantage to those of darker skin.

Until my opponent can point out why a middle-class African American deserves more points than a lower-class European-American because he is "socio-economically disadvantaged," it is obvious that weighting applications is unfair, and far from positive.
Debate Round No. 2
alto2osu

Pro

RD 3: I encourage judges to carefully consider this last round. I've primarily made extensions & only addressed new arguments outside of what has already been said. Hold my opponent to the same standard.

Counterplan:

1. The pressure argument is unwarranted. In fact, an incredibly intensive & expansive study conducted in 2008 by Onwuachi-Willig, Houh, & Campbell demonstrates that the stigma you refer to surrounding AA & its current applications in the college sector don't actually exist. [1] Via direct accounts of minority & majority applicants from the 2009 graduating class, authors show that the pressure you speak of—to bend to the will of AA policies—does not cognitively exist in a vast majority of minority applicants.
2. I didn't realize I needed to list the other minorities in question, but those would be women, LBGT, the socioeconomically disadvantaged, cultural & religious minorities, etc. My advocacy is in no way limited to only race.

Necessity of AA:

1. I still see no warrants indicating that the crime rate increasing has anything to do with an AA debate. My opponent is trying to convince you that minority populations are inherently less fit than white people, essentially. Don't let him.
2. Check my sources, which explain, in detail, histories of minority discrimination. My word count is too precise to prove the obvious.
3. I freely admitted that racism is caused by a number of things. This question doesn't gain him any offense against my case. Extend my previous response.

Increased segregation:
1. White flight is a country-wide phenomenon. [2]
2. He doesn't answer my argument. Extend the fact that anti-AA action based on misinformation is hurting the ability to provide minorities with fair representation in societies institutions.

Complaining Kid:

1. AA is an equality movement. It is an educational and conflict resolution movement. My opponent is still stuck on this concept of quotas, which is totally extra-resolutional. Don't let him skew this debate.
2. One more time: the Supreme Court actually mitigated reverse racism in those decisions I keep harping on. He's arguing something that no longer exists with totally unbalanced weighting, too. We aren't talking about 200% mark-ups, here. He's being hyperbolic.

On CPR:

Asserting it does not make it so. My definition of AA (as a reminder): Positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded.

How does my definition of CPR not fit this definition, as CPR is clearly positive steps taken to assist in the representation of minorities in the public sector?

If he had this concern about CPR, he should have looked up the easily researchable theory himself before his RD 1 post (I even give him the citation) and attacked my definition then. As it stands, I have a highly credible source detailing the movement & its uses. CPR stands.

Public Sector Equalization:

No warrant for this problem he says will occur. He has yet to address the fact that reverse racism is not occurring according to my evidence.

Professor to student convo:

A. The Supreme Court drew this legal line in the sand with U. of Michigan. Furthermore, impacting an application process does not automatically translate into reverse discrimination. The equality of the transaction is in quantity of points (my opponent is being severely hyperbolic in his arguments here) and in the fact that all of my bibliography shows that minorities are socially discriminated against.
B. I don't know about you, but I've only been talking about college applications the entire time. You just presented two conversations between students and professors. Logic dictates you are speaking of assignments, which is a totally false comparison.
C. See previous response about pressure to use AA.
D. That's still a single first hand experience, which makes it a wash. I could find just as many first hand experiences of people who were properly served by AA (see my source 1 for this RD, actually). Moreover, I have sources that prove broad success (such as the CPR source).

Majorities not being hired/random people being rewarded:

1. You are arguing quotas because your arguments are too hyperbolic to apply to the real world. I keep having to repeat myself: AA weighting systems for colleges cannot, by law, tilt an application so much in favor of a given minority that someone *much* more qualified will get bumped out of college.
2. That's cute, but unfortunately untrue. My definition is clear, and uncontested until now, at which point it was contested poorly. AA is "positive steps to increase the representation" of minorities. Representation need not be in the form of new hires to affirm.
3. You also took my statements entirely out of context. I already said that public sector workplace AA is entirely based on the CPR model. Hence, vast increases in minority hires cannot be attributed to a quota system AA program, which is what you are trying to lock me into.
4. *Sigh* No one is ignoring the socioeconomically disadvantaged of any minority or majority. They are given consideration in CPR & AA weighting, as well. I encourage you to actually read my sources.

Reduction of college admittants:

This doesn't answer my public sector equalization argument at all. Extend me again, please. Not only that, but extend that AA is doing what he wants it to right now.

Correlation of poverty & race:

1. *Sigh* We don't. Again, take a look at all my sources and the entire debate.
2. I don't assume anything about Asians. You are assuming that something about their race (which is a genetic distinction) gives them a better work ethic. This is cultural conditioning, and could be just as easily seen in any other human being if raised in said culture. That is a blatantly racist stereotype.
3. This response has left me without words. Read & enjoy, judges.

"Brilliant" plan of weighting:

My opponent links you to an "infoplease" website about unemployment rates (akin to yahoo answers) & then tells you that I'm violating my own definition again, with no warrants to back it up. Cross-apply my previous responses. I am topical.

Supreme Court Warrants:

In matters of constitutional law & American justice, I defer to the Supreme Court.

Neg "Advocacy":
1. Again with the presumptions and false correlations that he accuses me of. How is a higher crime rate indicative of a flawed race? There are many, many factors that play into crime rates, which include socioeconomic status, family and childhood environment, treatment within correctional facilities and within the justice system, all which are influenced by discriminatory practices that are hardwired into each institution. Totally unwarranted assertion here.
2. I don't need to give a laundry list of minorities in order to affirm. My opponent hasn't actually told you why this is important to the debate. It isn't, because my advocacy never limits itself to race, no matter how much he wants it to.

Neg's new syllogism: totally flawed based on a lack of understanding of AA.

1. I told him that my definitions were relatively loose, and that I would clarify my position throughout my RD 1 post. I did so, establishing AA with reputable sources, none of which, mind you, bore "wiki" in them.
2. Since when did we decide that positive steps *or* representation directly equated to increased hiring? Representation is logically & easily applied to them being given a voice within the workplace via conflict resolution for discriminatory actions, or education as to their culture within the workplace.
3. Even if I don't hire huge numbers of minorities, how does that negate positive reform? Go back to my $10 vs. $20 to Darfur refugees analogy. I have increased education, decreased discrimination via conflict resolution, & improved higher ed. admission practices.
mongeese

Con

Counterplan:
1. Simple. The minority members who like affirmative action feel no pressure. However, the few who question the morality of affirmative action start to question the idea of marking themselves as "disadvantaged." See the man I cited in R1.
2. Women are not a minority.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
The ratio is in favor of women.
Sexual orientation is an even worse basis for affirmative action. Wait, are we now rewarding people with points for being gay? That can't make sense.
The socio-economically disadvantaged aren't a real minority. There's no set line to distinguish when one is socio-disadvantaged, and there's a huge difference between being unable to make a house payment and living in a box.
Culture and religion are also poor bases for A.A.

Necessity of AA:

1. The crime rates are linked to the fact that felons aren't allowed to apply for many jobs, so it explains the underrepresentation of blacks without racism. I believe that races are generally equal, although the difference in crime rates is a fact.
2. You can't fix racist history with a racist present.
3. However, it isn't racism if it isn't even caused by race. This racism isn't nearly as real as you think. The only real racism is A.A.

Increased segregation:
1. Your source is too long. I'm not searching it for any mentioning of country-wideness.
White flight isn't confirmed by this source. It only says that socio-economic standing isn't the only factor. Perhaps blacks tend to live near each other by cultural or family ties.
2. Misinformation? The fact is that racism is present in university applications, so it needs to be stopped.

Complaining Kid:

1. Your AA isn't part of the debate, by the definition.
2. Any mark-up, even by 0.1%, is racism. I don't even know what 20 points does on an application.

On CPR:

"If the public sector is hiring more minorities (warrant?), it is not a product of AA as outlined in my sources & case."
This means that your AA does not increase the hiring of minorities. Increasing application to universities for minorities would directly lead to more hiring, so your AA does not increase that, either. Therefore, it is not PMAA.
You said yourself that the increased representation is not a product of your AA, so if that's what it was supposed to do, it wasn't working.
Again, CPR is not AA, by definition.

Public Sector Equalization:

You said that points were given to minorities. Even one point is reverse discrimination. The Supreme Court apparently thinks that a little bit of reverse discrimination is okay, but it's not. It's not about whether or not it's greater than a set value. It's about whether or not it's greater than zero.

Professor to student "convo[sic]":

A. The legal line should be zero. I don't care how many points it is, because it's still racism.
This social discrimination is not caused by race. Plus, social discrimination should not be countered with political discrimination. That just warps everything into a mess.
B. I was talking about the professor as the interviewer, and the points being application points. I'm sorry that I implied it to be assignments.
C. Your source talks about the majority of minorities. It is obvious that some feel this pressure, as I cited.
D. Your source talks about segregation in schools. And CPR isn't applicable to this debate.

Majorities not being hired/random people being rewarded:

1. Either what I described has occurred, or none of the points have ever done anything, making the addition of points a waste of time. "Much" is subjective. The more qualified should get the job, always. Even if by a little bit. Race should not change that. That's racism.
2. However, increased representation would lead to more hirings, which you said isn't caused by CPR. Therefore, CPR doesn't cause increased representation.
3. In your quote, you say that AA could not have caused increased representation in employment, which is a requirement to be known as affirmative action, by definition.
4. I shouldn't have to read your sources. You should outline your arguments quoting your sources.

Reduction of college admittants:

Yes, it did. You completely misinterpreted my intentions. I'm for people doing whatever they can do. I'm not a racist. I'm anti-racist, and therefore, anti-affirmative action. Things will balance out over time, and if they don't, it doesn't really matter from a color-blind perspective.

Correlation of poverty & race:

1. Then why are all African-Americans getting additional benefits?
2. The fact is, Asians have a culture that currently works harder, which means that an over-representation by them is justified. Same thing goes for under-representation.
3. Anti-generalization leaves you without words?

"Brilliant" plan of weighting:

Cross-apply my argument against CPR being AA. My opponent does not deny the correlation.

Supreme Court Warrants:

All authority should be questioned. The fact that the Supreme Court isn't logical makes them unreliable. You didn't deny that.

My Advocacy:
1. Flawed race? No. Different race. It is crazy to expect that all races be the same (Sowell 156). "What reason was there to expect these groups to be the same in the first place?" The fact is, there is a higher crime rate, which explains underrepresentation, as African-Americans have a higher felony rate, as well. Or should we allow X black felons to be hired against the will of the employer every year?
2. Well, just saying that there is race plus a bunch doesn't help you. You never really explained your "laundry list," either. How do they help your argument if you never address them?

Again, to readdress my advocacy: There is no such thing as an okay amount of racism. Any addition of point based on race is racism. The addition of points for being a minority is racism. Any affirmative action that could actually affirm the resolution is racism.

My syllogism: Logical.

1. However, you went against your own definition. A loose definition allows for things that aren't restricted, but your statement about AA directly contradicts the definition, which is unacceptable.
2. You claim that it is easily logically applicable, and yet you never make the "easy" logical application. Therefore, it should be dropped, as you don't do what you claim you can do to save yourself.
Representation - the action of representing
Representing - serving ... by delegated authority...
By these definitions (http://www.merriam-webster.com...), increased hiring is increased representation, and having more successful applications for universities is increased representation, but voice is not.
3. Increased education? That isn't affirmative action, by any definition.
Decreased discrimination via conflict resolution? That still isn't affirmative action.
Improved higher education admission practices? With racism? Even worse, it's legalized racism. How can that be improvement over equality? Why couldn't it have been like it was with the Civil Rights Acts that promised equality for all, not benefits to some because they look like those oppressed people way down south?
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Oddly enough, I'm in Texas, and I see no racial conflict whatsoever, nor do I see any CPR and whatnot.

In conclusion, this Pro-Minority Affirmative Action is racism, and violates the idea of equality, so it cannot be considered as "positive" reform. Note that my opponent makes no motion to affirm the resolution anywhere in the last round.

With my remaining characters...

http://vids.myspace.com...

"When the last thing we notice is the color of skin
And the first thing we look for is the beauty within
When the skies and the oceans are clean again
Then we shall be free"
-Garth Brooks

That is all. Thank you for your time. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
59 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by commonprotocol 7 years ago
commonprotocol
speaking of epic fail that book is, if we are thinking of the same one.
While a noted Psychologist and Statistician both wrote it, it's widely mocked in the community mostly because it ignores a simple problem, normal deviance. Minor differences in statistics don't actually represent any actual difference, because of the ability for outside influence to change things. Thus unless there is a vast statistical gulf(there wasn't) then statistically speaking you CAN'T claim that a difference really exists.
Additionally it's impossible to prove something like that because of the foggy nature of the human mind, unless two groups of children of different race were raised EXACTLY the same, there is no proof from any survey done. Because any variance could easily be chalked up to things like the way they were raised.
And finally the littlest things like having too much coffee before the exam, or not getting enough sleep, or not eating enough before it can in fact skew the score enough to make it seem like there is a difference.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
The books on the subject may or may not be of assistance in this particular case. I have a passion for genetics, evolutionary theory, etc., and current scientific consensus is that too many factors play into intelligence to call one singularly responsible for its development. However, it is also widely acknowledged that "intelligence," assuming it can be measured one-dimensionally (i.e. via man-made testing and the like-- also a highly disputed process), is not primarily or even in majority a "racial" trait. The vast majority of genetic scientists and biologists (excluding splinter radicals like those that wrote The Bell Curve...who are not scientists, ironically enough) have published conclusions that show no correlation between inherited traits and intelligence; in fact, the correlation was initially made with racist intentions. In its strongest forms, it still is.

I'd love to know the title and author of the book, to see if I've read it or had any encounter with it :)
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
"I don't assume anything about Asians. You are assuming that something about their race (which is a genetic distinction) gives them a better work ethic. This is cultural conditioning, and could be just as easily seen in any other human being if raised in said culture. That is a blatantly racist stereotype." -- Pro

Actually, it has been scientifically proven that there are biological reasons why certain races are "smarter" or more apt to certain aspects of intelligence, with Asians being the most advanced... I read it in this book I have at my parent's house; I'll have to see if I can find it to cite the source for you. Anyway, good job to both of you : )
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Who did you agree with before the debate? -- Con
Who did you agree with after the debate? -- Con
Who had better conduct? -- Pro
Who had better spelling and grammar? -- Pro
Who made more convincing arguments? -- Con
Who used the most reliable sources? -- Tie
Posted by commonprotocol 7 years ago
commonprotocol
and the whole judging concept is fundamentally flawed.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Nope :) Chunks of them bailed for, what I can tell, two reasons:

1) No monetary pay out for the winner (cuz THAT'S what debate is all about...)

2) No proper notification of nomination for entry (shocker...)
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
Actually, you're right. I thought there were more contestants than there are.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
I was under the impression that 1/2 (3) of the TOC rounds had started. Yours, mine, & PCM vs. WJ.

Not a clue why this is getting bogged down.

I haven't seen a word from the illustrious director, either...not on judging updates, etc. Kind of seems to be derailing...
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
By half, you really mean three fourths, right?

Seriously, why is everyone taking so long?
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
CCState: The numerical vote is *not* the TOC vote :) The TOC vote is supposed to go through USAF. At least, that's what I thought. I haven't seen any updates, and half of the RD 1 debates haven't started.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
alto2osumongeeseTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
alto2osumongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
alto2osumongeeseTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
alto2osumongeeseTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by moonshine311111 7 years ago
moonshine311111
alto2osumongeeseTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
alto2osumongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
alto2osumongeeseTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Vote Placed by seeley.linda 7 years ago
seeley.linda
alto2osumongeeseTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by LuxEtVeritas 7 years ago
LuxEtVeritas
alto2osumongeeseTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
alto2osumongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60