The Instigator
RaeeeRaeee
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
INTJ
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

RESOLVED: Affirmative Action to promote equal opportunity in the United States is justified.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
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: 3/4/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,315 times Debate No: 11331
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

RaeeeRaeee

Pro

AFF
It is with these words that my partner and I affirm the resolution that; affirmative action to promote equal opportunity in the united states is justified.
"You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free t go
where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please. You do
not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring
him to the starting line of the race, saying ʻyou are free to compete with all the
others,ʼ and still justly believe you have been completely fair. Thus it is not
enough to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to
walk through those gates. This is the next and most profound stage of the battle
for civil rights." President Johnson

Definitions:
Justified: rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason
Affirmative Action: the set of public policies and initiatives designed to help eliminate past and present discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin that is under attack.
Equal Opportunity: policies and practices in employment and other areas that do not discriminate against persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, mental or physical handicap, or national origin.
United States: The country in which this debate is help
Contention 1: Affirmative Action has relativity to todays situations dealing with
For example in California and Michigan they have implemented propostion 209
The passage of proposition 209 amended the California Constitution to include a new section (Section 31 of Article I), which reads:
(a)The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
Since the passage of Proposition 209, higher graduation rates have been posted at University of California schools, which led opponents of affirmative action to suggest a causal link between Proposition 209 and a better-prepared student body. The African American graduation rate at the University of California, Berkeley increased by 6.5 percent, and rose even more dramatically, from 26 percent to 52 percent, at the University of California, San Diego.
INTJ

Con

Here are three things that I do not want the lines to be blurred between. They are:
(1) Legislation that prohibits others on the bases of race or gender
(2) Legislation that privileges others on the bases of race or gender
(3) Equality before the law

Privileges(v) – to grant a privilege(n)
Privilege(n) – a right or benefit enjoyed by a person beyond those of others

Affirmative Action is special treatment of the sort that grants rights and benefits to others based on their race or gender, (2). It is not equality before the law, (3). Advocates of Affirmative Action say that they want the net result to be an equal standing, but they are attempting to do so by inequitable legislation, (2).

My opponents presented Proposition 209 as an example of Affirmative Action. But, Proposition 209 reads, "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin…." So, it is clearly legislation that creates equal standing before the law, (3); it was not Affirmative Action. Here is how the Encyclopedia Britannica defines Affirmative Action: "In the United States, an active effort to improve employment or educational opportunities for members of minority groups and for women," by means of, "that has consisted of policies, programs, and procedures that give preferences to minorities and women in job hiring, admission to institutions of higher education, the awarding of government contracts, and other social benefits," (The Encyclopedia Britannica).

"It is with these words that my partner and I affirm the resolution….": My opponents quoted President Johnson who clearly believed that equality before the law is not enough. "You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying, ‘Now you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.'" I don't know if "the scars of centuries" could ever be healed or wiped away, if that's the goal. But, I do know that equality before the law includes equal protections before the law, no special treatment in the exercise of those rights, and no exclusionary benefits.
Debate Round No. 1
RaeeeRaeee

Pro

RaeeeRaeee forfeited this round.
INTJ

Con

I hope RaeeeRaeee signs back in for the following rounds. But, so as to not forfeit this round as well, I'm going to make a few more points.

My opponents' position has fundamentally conflicting principles—the premise that it is objectionable to have laws which grant special treatment on account of race, and the promoted resolution, Affirmative Action, which does precisely that. I advocate the explicit repeal of race-based privileges and prohibitions, similar to how the fifteen and nineteenth amendments are written in the U. S. Constitution.

And, I want to emphasize that equal protection includes the full arsenal of protection, rights, and liberties, so much so, that if anyone attempted to prohibit you, or privilege others, on account of race or gender they would have no legal grounds to do it. But yet, there's an exception; Affirmative Action maintains such grounds and criteria.
Debate Round No. 2
RaeeeRaeee

Pro

RaeeeRaeee forfeited this round.
INTJ

Con

Ok, it's hard to debate without some continued exchange. So, if my opponent doesn't return in Round 4, I guess the above rounds conclude our debate.
Debate Round No. 3
RaeeeRaeee

Pro

RaeeeRaeee forfeited this round.
INTJ

Con

INTJ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by bombmaniac 6 years ago
bombmaniac
wiped the floor with him. good job :D
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bombmaniac 6 years ago
bombmaniac
RaeeeRaeeeINTJTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05