The Instigator
JrRepublican
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

RESOLVED: Affirmative action is a failure and should be repealed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,589 times Debate No: 15809
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

JrRepublican

Pro

I will attempt to prove that the United State would be better off without affirmative action. My opponent will attempt to show that affirmative action should be retained. I am a minority (or at least close to being legally one) and I oppose AA, since I desire to be hired on my merits, not my race. The real arguments will begin in rd. 2
Ore_Ele

Con

I am going to assume that we are talking about legal Affirmative Action (AA) as it pertains to the USA.

What is AA [1]? If you look online, you'll find many "definitions" which claim that AA is the promotion of a "protected group" in an attempt to undo past "harms." But none of these hold any merit to any law which could be "repealed." When talking about officially repealing something, we must be talking about a law to repeal, or a governmental policy. When looking through the EEOC [6], we see that no where is one required to promote any "protected group." In fact, all it calls for is to, "make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or genetic information."

If we look at the original AA documents, executive order 10925 [2], executive order 11246 [3], executive order 11375 [4], and the civil rights amendment of 1964 [5], we see that no where is promotion of one "protected group" over another in those legal laws. Infact, title 7 of the civil rights amendment of 1964 actually classifies any reverse discrimination as a violation of the amendment (unless you were a member of the communist party, they're cool to discriminate against).

We can see that the really AA is not something that should be repealed or pulled back in any way, as it only promotes that people should be hired on their merit and nothing else. AA, as viewed in blogs and on talk radio is something entirely different, and is not what we really have.

Thank you.

[1] http://definitions.uslegal.com...
[2] http://www.eeoc.gov...
[3] http://www.archives.gov...
[4] http://www.archives.gov...
[5] http://www.archives.gov...
[6] http://www.eeoc.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
JrRepublican

Pro

AA is the system of quota hiring of racial minorities to the disadvantage of white males. Although I am not quite legally a minority, if I had a little bit more Native blood I would be legal. However, I would not desire to be hired based on my race. I have no problem with making it illegal to discriminate, but to institute racial regulations into a non-racially charged workplace is counterproductive. I support anti-discrimination laws, but I oppose quota systems of hiring.
Ore_Ele

Con

My opponent states that "AA is the system of quota hiring of racial minorities..."

I'd like to point out that such a definition cannot really apply to this debate as there are no legal policies that require that, and so, nothing to repeal.

The supreme court already established in 1978 that quotas are a violation of the constitution and defined as racist policies by the civil rights act of 1964 [1]. Affirmative Action is already being upheld to the true intent of the civil rights amendments by the EEOC [2], and it clearly states that it is about "equality" not "reverse racism."

I think my opponent and I can both agree that reverse racism (which is just another form of racism), however, I have shown that this reverse racism is not what affirmative action is, nor is it any policy which should be "repealed."

Also, all previous arguments extended.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.eeoc.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
JrRepublican

Pro

What about the ruling by Kagan (I think it was her) in the case of the firefighters, all hwite, that were refused promotion and raises because only whites passed the test? How is that something that should not be repealed, or at least, if you disagree that it is a policy, eschewed?
Ore_Ele

Con

I believe you are thinking of the New Haven firefighters and it wasn't Kagan, but Sotomayer who originally withheld the decision [1]. This is, again, something that went before the supreme court, and was found to be in violation of section 7 of the 1964 civil rights act. And these policies should be shot down every time someone tries to use them. But, we should note that these are not Affirmative Action policies, these are anti-affirmative action policies, as it is the Affirmative Action laws which are shooting this discriminative laws down.

So I will repeat that Affirmative action laws, like the civil rights act of 1964, are what is correcting these discriminative policies from staying in place, and if we remove them, such discriminative policies will continue to be formed and only hurt americans, our society, and our economy.

Thank you,

[1] http://www.csmonitor.com...
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Ryanconqueso 6 years ago
Ryanconqueso
I agree wholeheartedly it's a sad state of affairs
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
It should be common sense, but sadly it isn't. And until it is, the AA laws are needed.
Posted by Ryanconqueso 6 years ago
Ryanconqueso
I believe the point that was trying to be made is that there shouldn't be a clause for affirmative action in the first place. Rather, it should be common sense for hiring by merit in the first place. There is a stigma that does coincide with AA and that being if a workplace, college, what have you has an abundance of a majority it is viewed as a prejudice organization. I come from a college town and the biggest complaint I had heard(though not entirely factual, or seen to be entirely proven) is that "they have to adopt to foreign country and poverty programs to provide scholarships". If this indeed were true then the University is in fact denying education by merit, and caving ethnically and socially.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
JrRepublicanOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Assertions are not arguments. Pro made a horrible attempt at debating.
Vote Placed by tribefan011 6 years ago
tribefan011
JrRepublicanOre_EleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to provide any original or thoughtful arguments on the subject. He also completely misunderstands what affirmative action is.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
JrRepublicanOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: This was not even a debate, Con lectured to Pro.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
JrRepublicanOre_EleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: con had sources. And con had alot of unanswered arguments