Resolved: Affirmative Action to Promote Equal Opportunity in the United States is Justified.
Debate Rounds (5)
"If you don't like affirmative action, what is your plan to guarantee a level playing field of opportunity?" Because I agree with the words of Maynard Jackson I am in support of the resolution
Resolved: Affirmative action to promote equal opportunity in the United States is justified.
American Webster's Dictionary
Affirmative Action- A policy or program providing advantages for people of a minority group who are seen to have traditionally been discriminated against, with the aim of creating a more egalitarian society through preferential access to education, employment, health care, social welfare, etc
Opportunity- a good position, chance, or prospect, as for advancement or success.
Justify - show to be right by providing justification or proof; "vindicate a claim"
This debate should be centered on the capability for humans to compete on educational, equal level. To promote equality in the United States, we must have affirmative action because for minorities, disabled, and challenged people we can't discriminate against any race, gender, or age or ethinicity. I'm not saying that we should focus on racism but why affirmative action is justified.
Contention 1- AFFIRMATIVE ACTION HELPS LEVEL THE EDUCATIONAL PLAYING FIELD Daily Illini ,"Keep Affirmative Action About Race," UNIVERSITY WIRE, April 1, 2008,npg.
To quote professor Dyson, "to understand affirmative action one must look at the historical context....since race was used as a demerit in the past, it is only just and logical to use it as a merit in the present." The purpose of affirmative action is to level the playing field. Since blacks were historically discriminated against because of the color of their skin, they should be given a preference today to make things equal.
One example is that many schools give credit for legacies. If your mother or father attended a university in the past, you are given preference. Blacks, who have historically been unable to go to college, are at a disadvantage. Affirmative action helps correct that scenario as well. In order for someone to have equal opportunities we must have affirmative action for their educational experiences to be met and leveled out with everyone else.
The direct clash in the round is that we need to equalize and give them an opportunity to every citizen in the United States.
SPA- It is against the constitution to reject equal opportunity. Therefore we need affirmative action.
In the United States Constitution Amendment 15, Section 1 The rights of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the US or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
The 14th Amendment, Section 1 states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States: nor shall any Senate deprive any person of life liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Thus by having discriminating people, we must have affirmative action for justification of being equal.
Contention 2- DIVERSITY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS NOT IMMORAL -- IS JUSTIFIED ON MULTIPLE GROUNDS James P. Sterba, Professor, Philosophy, University of Notre Dame, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND RACIAL PREFERENCE: A DEBATE, Oxford University Press, 2003, p.308-309.
Cohen also goes on to identify all diversity affirmative action with the pursuit of racial proportionality and to condemn it on those grounds. But this hardly does justice to diversity affirmative action. Racial proportionality has its applications in the context of remedial affirmative action. By contrast, diversity affirmative action is a nonremedial form of affirmative action; it claims to be justified on the basis of the future benefits that diversity provides, not as a remedy for past discrimination. Diversity affirmative action aims to achieve a critical mass of underrepresented minority students in order to attain the benefits of racial diversity in various academic settings. That critical mass is determined not by the percentage of underrepresented minority students graduating from the relevant high school populations, as would have to be the case if racial proportionality were the goal. Rather, the number of students admitted is designed to be "sufficient to enable under-represented minority students to contribute to classroom dialogue without feeling isolated."
In conclusion, affirmative action is justified because equal opportunity is important in every person's life. Due to the context of what is morally right for citizens in the United states we should be civilized and treat every citizen with respect under or own jurisdictions. .
stephenm forfeited this round.
and loses thanks for the debate
stephenm forfeited this round.
To state that, in specification, "blacks" or African Americans should be supplied additional merit or preference for success as they have been previously "demerited" is to ignore the "now". Equal opportunity, as you explained clearly by defining "opportunity", is "a good position, chance, or prospect, as for advancement or success." The turn "opportunity" into "equal opportunity is to simply hold this to be true in regards to any race, disabled society, or challenged society. To supply supposed "blacks" an advantage is to turn "affirmative action" into action that holds African Americans in its preference. This, obviously, supplies Asians, Whites, Oceanics, and Latinos an obvious disablement and disadvantage as far as their ability to succeed goes. By supplying one minority an advantage, you henceforth supply every other minority and majority a disadvantage and therefore promote "unequal opportunity". The present ("Affirmative ACTION"), not the past, should be held as the looking glass for our discussion and to bring up past disadvantages or unequal opportunities is to continue former disputes between ancestors with their children today.
Another important point that my opponent made was the point of legacies. Although he/she pointed out that many schools do have legacies, he or she did not cite any sources to prove this to be true. I would appreciate any sources if possible. Another important point to make is that numerous amounts of great educational institutes have either developed in the past 70-so years or ignore the idea of favoring the children of graduates over minorities.
My opponent then went to point out that "we need affirmative action", but did not prove that it was "justified", as part of the debate topic. Furthermore, my opponent went on to point out that "everyone" should have the right to vote as amended in the constitution, however, everyone is supplied the right to vote definitively and affirmative action to justify this is unnecessary in this day and age.
In his or her next contention, my opponent made several grammatic errors as I struggled to follow along. However, he made a second reference to the constitution and how it pertains to the deprivation of privileges in accordance with race, religion, etc. Again, this point did not pertain to the set debate topic.
My opponent first point states that present affirmative action is more important than the past. Well I would say that from the 1960's, during the Civil Rights Act, we used affirmative action too move the minority forward and to equal their oppourtunity. The reason why affirmative is justified is because we have used it in the past and we must use it now.
Providing every other minority is false because when educating someone for life skills we have to equalize every oppurtunity in order for it too be justified. Justification in stance is what is just and equal in todays society. Today no one person is fair or treated equally because we discriminate whether by gender, race, or ethnicity.
So affirmative action is justified because we must provide an equal opp. to every single person in the US. The constution arguement is justified and relative to the topic because if your denying someone the right too vote, under our const. we must provide an equal opp. to that person.
DIVERSITY IMPROVES EDUCATION OUTCOMES
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and American Civil Liberties Union, Amicus Brief in Grutter v.
Bollinger et al., Supreme Court Case No. 02-241, 2002, http://www.aclu.org..., accessed
Indeed, studies show that meaningful cross-racial interaction in institutions of higher learning has significant social
and educational benefits. The more racially diverse a student body, the more likely that students will socialize across
racial lines and talk about racial matters. These interactions have a positive impact on student retention, overall
college satisfaction, and intellectual and social self-confidence among all students.* Faculty have also reported that
racial and ethnic diversity in the classroom helps students broaden the sharing of experiences, raise new issues and
perspectives, confront stereotypes relevant to social and political issues, and gain exposure to perspectives with
which they disagree or do not understand.
We stand as a nation of one. Not multiple groups.
Through these examples, one can obviously see why this opportunity is not taken up, and all this work that majorities put into supporting minorities is literally useless and has no large effect on the strength of this nation. Over in Detroit, where blacks have demanded higher pay for their (supposedly strenuous) work of handing a door to a machine in the car production lines, has led automakers like Ford and GM downhill rapidly. Currently, in fact, the United States government owns a majority stake in that business.
Resolved: CON : Affirmative action to promote equal opportunity in the United States is juustified.
I again thank my opponent for his patience and wonderful points and opinions!
debate11 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by stephenm 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.