The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Resolved: Affirmative Action is Reverse Discrimination

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 980 times Debate No: 61819
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




Affirmative Action is a form of reverse racism because: it imposes a race-based evaluation system for admission to colleges and other programs, which favors non-whites and minorities and is, hence a form of racial discrimination against Caucasians.

In other words, merely being Caucasian can cause you to be rejected for admission to a college and that is same as the earlier forms of racial discrimination against Blacks and Jews that we deplored in the past, only in reverse. All forms of racial discrimination should be wrong.


"The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in the 1996 Hopwood v. Texas case that race could not be a factor in admission decisions. The defendant, the state of Texas, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, but the appeal was refused. Similarly, in the 2001 Johnson v. University of Georgia case, the U.S. Court of Appeals held that the university's admission policy, which used race as a factor in admission decisions, violated the Equal Protection Clause. "



My argument(s) to follow will largely be semantical, which I assume will be okay with my Grizzly friend given the private interactions that lead to this debate--namely, I jokingly called Mr. Bear a "racist" with regard to his stance on Affirmative Action, which resulted in him getting all squeamish, feeling the weight of social stigma. Surely, in honour of that noble creature from which my opponent takes his name, he would not have us quibble over mere words, but rather the force with which words might meet the world. I will not be arguing, then, that Affirmative Action is not discrimation--for indeed it is, sans connotations which include prejudice, intolerance, unfairness, etc.--but rather will argue that this in itself is not a substantive argument to the negative. I look forward to a good debate--and I mean "good" in every sense of the word (besides the bad ones).

The first argument that comes to mind, then,--and this is how I shall be doing it, because Mother Chaos, maaaannn--is that Affirmative Action is easily reconciled with such things as welfare (which my opponent takes the affirmative stance on, by the way :,) and so uh... what exactly is the problem? THAT'S RIGHT! F*CK BLACK PEOPLE! No, but seriously... What's the issue? Are poor people and rich people not discriminated between when it comes time to decide who gets a welfare check? Indeed. And is welfare immediately discredited by the simple fact that it is dispensed in accordance with discrimation? No. And so we have a problem: there exists a disparity between welfare and Affirmative Action in their justification which can only be seen as counter-intuitive, my opponent's arguments to the negative remaining as they are. Indeed, discrimation can be a very good thing--is it not sensible, for example, that the most seriously ill patient receives medical attention first? or that the most malnourished child be fed first?

Now, what I think resides at the heart of this argument to the contrary,--that it is "reverse racism"--is somewhat of a societal sickness. Perhaps it is fear of the other. Perhaps all those other orderings which I have mentioned take into their catchment all creeds, colours and ... creatures? No ... amm, countries! Nope... But you get the picture, right? Alliteration is indeed hard. No wait. I mean maybe denying Affirmative Action on the basis that it is "reverse racism" is actually just reverse reverse racism, right? Think about it. And actually that brings us right back to plain ole racism, because if you reverse it twice... well... right? African American people are at a disadvantage, it's as simple as that. If they don't get a chance to get in the game,--and let's not pretend they wont be discriminated against in trying to get into the game--then they don't have any chance. It's about racial standing, not reverse racism--heck, you could call it positive racism on the behalf of the current culturally dominant ethnicity ...that is, white people. (There's definitely some small conspiracy in it being called "Affirmative Action," by the way; to resemble "African American" and maybe elicit some immediate recognition and visceral reaction. And then we lump them in with the alcholics of Alcoholics Anoynmous, too, and there's a whole chain of negative connotation going there...)

In conclusion: word play does not suffice as a real argument in politics. I might say uh... that "Barack Obama" sounds like a terrorist's name (and it does), but that shouldn't discredit him, should it? Even if it does look suspiciously like Illuminati manipulation: a black man to promise gentler black people to come; named for a terrorist to promise gentler terrorists to come (and we're getting back to the A.A.'s here, right? See what I'm saying???) *bows* Good day, folks! *explodes and everyone gets covered in my guts*
Debate Round No. 1



Rarely have I seen someone start out their counter-argument by conceding the point of the debate, ie: 'Resolved: Affirmative Action is Reverse Discrimination,' and basically admitting that I was right, by saying [and I quote here]: 'I will not be arguing, then, that Affirmative Action is not discrimination--for indeed it is.......'

In fact, so rare is it, that I am temporarily at a loss for words how to respond.

The other thing which makes response difficult, is that the rest of my esteemed opponent's arguments appears to be 'stream of consciousness' which goes on for several paragraphs, wherein I'm not actually sure exactly what he is trying to say, other than things like: "African American people are at a disadvantage, it's as simple as that. If they don't get a chance to get in the game,--and let's not pretend they wont be discriminated against in trying to get into the game--then they don't have any chance."

So..........from all this, I surmise that 1) he concedes my point, but, 2) he still believes that AA is necessary to rectify past wrongs against Blacks.

So, he is basically admitting that I am right (see original quote above) but stating that he is still against Affirmative Action.

If that is the case, then, I accept your concession but respect your opinion.



Indeed, I care not for trifling wins, but for rightness, righteousness, correcting societal wrongs, etc. And you may indeed accept my concession, Mr. Grizzly, but it comes with a depreciation of your character in my regard. For shame--and you were doing so well!

Scrounging racists, eh? No, we can't give the blacks the leg-up they so desperately need! I want that!
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
I cannot believe that anyone other then a greedy dark skin tone human could not realize this.
Posted by GrizzlyBear 2 years ago
My apologies to AnDoctuir. That comment about gender was *not* supposed to be a public comment--I thought I was sending it privately. I have asked for it to be deleted. Please forgive the noob. I'll get it right one of these days.
Posted by AnDoctuir 2 years ago
"Was there some reason you decline to state your gender? You've posted a profile pic of what appears to be a you mind telling me which it is? I sort of like knowing what gender of person I'm debating with. Not that it's important in any existential sense, but you know.......just nice to know sometimes. ;-)"

Solid F*cking Troll.
Posted by AnDoctuir 2 years ago
If I win, will you change your stance, and then we'll be 100% in agreement on the Big Issues?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: concession
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession by Con in the Finial Round.