The Instigator
NOK_Domination
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
I-am-a-panda
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 3/1/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,838 times Debate No: 7187
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (4)

 

NOK_Domination

Pro

In order to debate the issue, we must first understand what affirmitave action is. Affirmitave action is a policy that is designed to promote equal opportunity in race or sex. In college how would this apply? Let's say the town the college is in, say homoville, is 60% African American and 40% caucasion. Now the school's incoming freshman demographics are supposed to reflect that. If the school accepts 10,000 incoming freshman a year, it would have to take 6,000 African Americans and 4,000 caucasion, however, let's say 20,000 people applied. 6,000 African Americans applied, 4,000 caucasions applied, and 10,000 Asians applied. Now let's say all 4,000 of the Asians are 4.0 students with perfect ACT and SAT scores along with 1,000 whites and 1,000 blacks. Now obviously all of those students would be admitted regardless of the towns demographics. That leaves 4,000 students up for grabs. Now if the 14,000 students remaining all had the same GPA and ACT/SAT scores, then the school would take 2,400 African Americans, 1,600 whites, and 0 Asians. If an African American student is not as qualified as a white student, affirmitave action DOES NOT apply. If two students are virtually identical, affirmitave action simply settles the issue.
I-am-a-panda

Con

I would like to thank my opponent, NOK, for this debate and wish him luck throughout the tournament. I do not have a full understanding of affirmative action, but my opponents explanation has made it easier. For this round, I will refute my opponents argument.

==Rebuttal==

My opponent firstly gives an example using different races and statistics.

"let's say 20,000 people applied. 6,000 African Americans applied, 4,000 caucasions applied, and 10,000 Asians applied. Now let's say all 4,000 of the Asians are 4.0 students with perfect ACT and SAT scores along with 1,000 whites and 1,000 blacks. Now obviously all of those students would be admitted regardless of the towns demographics. That leaves 4,000 students up for grabs. Now if the 14,000 students remaining all had the same GPA and ACT/SAT scores, then the school would take 2,400 African Americans, 1,600 whites, and 0 Asians. If an African American student is not as qualified as a white student, affirmitave action DOES NOT apply. If two students are virtually identical, affirmitave action simply settles the issue."

The first flaw I find is that you have taken it on a basis that that everyone has the same score. In the real world, this is far from applicable. For the convenience of this debate, let's use a scoring system out of 100, instead of the point system. More to the point, 14,000 students are going to have 70/100 on the dot.

However, I see my opponents point. If 10 people have the same scores, and only 6 can get through, you would choose reasoned on the demographics of the area. However, is this reasonable? I do not see the point in having people let in on the basis of race. There are many alternative ways to do this, which include the interviewing process, which I will hold up throughout the debate opposing the affirmative action stance.

In affirmative action, people get in because of the demographics. Under the interviewing process, people get in because they have made the impression they are hard working and deserve a place in college. Affirmative action is unfair as people are chosen randomly out of a group rather than chosen through a professional manner.

Affirmative actions main goal is to promote equality and curb racism. However, is not letting in any Asians in one case of my opponents argument not racism? He is not letting a certain group in because they do not live in the area, but that is in the idyllic world where everyone has the same scores. A college tends to have tens of thousands of applicants. Let's take an example:

College X can hold 18,000 students. In one year, they get 40,000 applications.

There are:
- 10,000 Caucasian applicants.
- 10,000 African-American applicants.
- 10,000 Asian applicants.
- 10,000 Hispanic applicants.

However, the college is based in Randomtown, where 5,000 Caucasian and African American applicants do not live in Randomtown. Because Randomtown has 1/6 Caucasian, 1/6 African American, 2/6 Hispanic and 2/6 Asian.

In affirmative action, Asians and Hispanics would get priority over Caucasians and Africans Americans with the same scores, for no other reason than residence. Is this not a form of racism?

In an interviewing process, African Americans and Caucasian have just as much a chance as Hispanics and Asians. Everything is fairer.

So, to sum up Round 1 for CON, I have proven:
1) Affirmative Action compared to other systems does not provide equality
2) Affirmative Action can be racist, turning the idea on its head.
Debate Round No. 1
NOK_Domination

Pro

I will begin with a quote from my opponent:
"The first flaw I find is that you have taken it on a basis that that everyone has the same score. In the real world, this is far from applicable. For the convenience of this debate, let's use a scoring system out of 100, instead of the point system. More to the point, 14,000 students are going to have 70/100 on the dot.

However, I see my opponents point. If 10 people have the same scores, and only 6 can get through, you would choose reasoned on the demographics of the area. However, is this reasonable? I do not see the point in having people let in on the basis of race. There are many alternative ways to do this, which include the interviewing process"

I agree that my example was extremely vague, as it was intended to be in order to help people understand the system. Likewise I completely agree that my example is not applicable in the real world. As you have stated, it is very rare for students to have the same transcript, or "score" as you say. That means that in a very large amount of cases Affirmative action does not really come into effect. Bottom line, if you get good scores, affirmitave action does not apply to you.

Opponents second quote:
"In affirmative action, people get in because of the demographics. Under the interviewing process, people get in because they have made the impression they are hard working and deserve a place in college. Affirmative action is unfair as people are chosen randomly out of a group rather than chosen through a professional manner."

In no way does affirmitave action ban the use of the interviewing process. If a school did indeed want to interview a potential student, it is well within their rights. If it is still a tie after an interview, affirmitave action then applies. However affirmitave action for colleges is much more efficient. It is not in most colleges interests to interview students of similar academic standing, since it would take a gratuitous amount of time. Also interviews allow for people to put on a fake face and tends to favor people who are better at sucking up to the interviewer.

3rd quote:
"Affirmative actions main goal is to promote equality and curb racism. However, is not letting in any Asians in one case of my opponents argument not racism? He is not letting a certain group in because they do not live in the area, but that is in the idyllic world where everyone has the same scores."

Like I said, you get the grades and have the qualifications, you will get in regardless of race. AA settles "ties", if they do occur (which often times they don't). If an Asian doesn't get in, it is because he/she did not work hard enough to get in, not because of ethnicity. However the system that "screwed" him (screwed is inaccurate since it's his fault he wasn't accepted) will actually help him getting into a college where the Asian population is high.

My points in Round 2
1) Affirmative action is a tie breaker to college admissions practices and doesn't decide whether a person of a specific ethnicity gets into a college or not.
I-am-a-panda

Con

To continue on with the debate.

==Rebuttal==

"In no way does affirmitave action ban the use of the interviewing process. If a school did indeed want to interview a potential student, it is well within their rights. If it is still a tie after an interview, affirmative action then applies. However affirmative action for colleges is much more efficient. It is not in most colleges interests to interview students of similar academic standing, since it would take a gratuitous amount of time. Also interviews allow for people to put on a fake face and tends to favour people who are better at sucking up to the interviewer."

I agree in that affirmative action does not ban the use of the interviewing process, but PRO's job is to uphold affirmative action.

My opponent says that affirmative action should apply after the interviewing process, and that as a whole it is an easier process. However, it is also a lazy process. Instead of going through each applicant and choosing the best, they are choosing a group and taking users based on wo is in that group. The group in this case the area.
Let's see how affirmative action makes things worse for the parties involved:

Making things worse for the students:

- If the students are not chosen on intellect rather than race in a "deadlock" or tie, then the varying levels of intellects will not benefit the students. Test scores or transcripts do not fully reflect the abilities of a person. People get nervous in tests, "blank out" or cannot study properly. Especially when its the test that decides your career.

- When affirmative action applies, colleges tend to have 2-3 ethnic groups which are dominant. For smaller ethnic groups, this can be problematic. They can be bullied, mugged, and in general life can be made worse for them. Although other process's don't stamp it out, it is not as bad.

Making things worse for the lecturers and tutors:

- As aforementioned, if the students have varying levels, things can be made hard for lecturers and tutors to keep everyone on the same level at the same time.

Making things worse for the college:

- A lower level of intellect is bad for any college. It lowers it's reputation, and past students can have a harder time finding jobs.

Whilst Affirmative action may make things fairer, it can make things worse for the college.

"ike I said, you get the grades and have the qualifications, you will get in regardless of race. AA settles "ties", if they do occur (which often times they don't). If an Asian doesn't get in, it is because he/she did not work hard enough to get in, not because of ethnicity. However the system that "screwed" him (screwed is inaccurate since it's his fault he wasn't accepted) will actually help him getting into a college where the Asian population is high.!"

I have observed two things from my opponents comment:

-1)Affirmative Action is used sparingly, and has very little applications.
-2) Affirmative action is racist.

1) My opponent says Affirmative Action is only used in tie-breakers, and by the context of these they aren't common. The interviewing process is used by many colleges before scores are looked at, which is acceptable, whereas Affirmative Action before looking at scores is unprofessional.

2) My opponent concedes that if someone Asian can't get into one college, move to an area with more Asian people. This ideology supports separatist movements of races. It tells a race that you should move to an area with more of your own race. This is a dangerous way of thinking, as it is racist and close minded.

It also favours the race of one area, which is a form of racism.

I await my opponents response, alas!
Debate Round No. 2
NOK_Domination

Pro

Opponent states:
"I agree in that affirmative action does not ban the use of the interviewing process, but PRO's job is to uphold affirmative action."

I understand my job and the con brought up the use of the interviewing process as a reason affirmative action should not be implemented. To that I simply stated the interviewing process can definitely be used, thus upholding affirmative action.

My opponent makes a case for why this is worse for students:

1) Con attempts to make the case that students are not chosen based on intellect. This is simply not true. I agree that standardized tests are not the best barometer on the intelligence of a person, but if a person is a bad test taker or blanks out, then would the university not want to take someone that doesn't fold under pressure like the aforementioned person does? Once again affirmative action doesn't really apply to the case you're trying to make since you're assuming one person did well on the ACT/SAT and another did poorly. Looking at the scores, one is better than the other and that has nothing to do with race.

2) In his second argument he tries to make the case that most colleges have 2-3 dominant ethnic groups. He finds this to be problematic for minority groups; however AA would help them in this case. If a college is largely of a certain group, AA guarantees that minorities are represented. As for the bullied part, this is not a debate about how people will fit into college. It is highly unlikely that racism occurs in extreme forms like that on college campuses these days anyway and the person that is subjected to "bullying" made the decision to go there in the first place. If bullying were to happen then the applicant probably wouldn't have applied there. At the end of this argument he says, "Although other process's don't stamp [AA] out, it is not as bad." He just said AA is not as bad so I'm not really following his case. I'm assuming he meant something else and it just didn't come out right.

Next he constructs a case for why AA is bad for teachers:

1) Apparently you haven't been to college. If you're behind and doing poorly in the class, the professor will fail you and not feel sorry about it. Colleges are collecting your money so they don't care about your grades. It's not like high school where the teachers are subjected to teaching down to the lowest level of intelligence in the classroom. Professors teach what they want and you either understand it or you don't, but it is not their problem. Also AA doesn't take a person of inferior intellect and allow them entrance over a smarter person. AA applies with people of similar intellect meaning if a person were to struggle or do well in a class, then so would've the person that did not get in to the school.

Finally he makes his case for why AA is bad for the schools:

1) He states lower intellect is bad for the college. Like I said in the rebuttal for why it's bad for teachers; AA doesn't take a person of inferior intellect and allow them entrance over a smarter person. Schools aren't forced to accept students with low intellects. Furthermore...

"Whilst Affirmative action may make things fairer, it can make things worse for the college."

My opponent concedes AA makes things fairer. This isn't a debate about what's best for the college, but whether AA should be practice and if it makes things fair, then by all means AA should be practiced. I will humor him however and say that AA is not bad for colleges. Earlier he states, "[AA] is also a lazy process" AA makes the admissions job easier and also saves time and money by not forcing tons of interviews upon the college. He calls that "lazy". It's more of a dollars and cents deal and it allows the college to save money, which does not make things worse for the college, but rather makes things better. None of that matters since it's not what we're debating, I was just pointing out the flaw in con's thinking. Since con basically conceded the debate by saying AA makes things fairer there is no real reason to go on, however I will continue to pick his case apart.

My opponent's final points are this:

1) "It's used sparingly" - That is not a reason for it to not be implemented. This is like saying, "Well, I don't use pens very often so I don't think I'll get one." It may not be used often because you have a laptop, but when there's a test or writing assignment in class it is very useful to have and you'd be screwed without one. So the occurrence of usage is not grounds to dispel its implementation.

2) My opponent calls AA racist. He previously stated AA makes things fairer and therefore cannot be racist.

In closing, AA helps college admissions and more importantly it spreads equality. My opponent has given no reason as to why AA should not be practiced. Thank you for reading this debate (if you skipped down to this point of the debate, I don't blame you because I would do the same thing and don't bother reading the rest, because I totally won) and thank you to the people that took time out of busy day to judge this debate. I would also like to thank Mr. Cumbee for setting up the tournament, although it didn't come out of his busy schedule since he has no life outside of debate (jk I love you Luke). And finally and most importantly thank you for the debate Panda. I have enjoyed it and good luck throughout the tournament.
I-am-a-panda

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, and wish him well in the judging.

==Rebuttal==

"Con attempts to make the case that students are not chosen based on intellect. This is simply not true. I agree that standardized tests are not the best barometer on the intelligence of a person, but if a person is a bad test taker or blanks out, then would the university not want to take someone that doesn't fold under pressure like the aforementioned person does?!Once again affirmative action doesn't really apply to the case you're trying to make since you're assuming one person did well on the ACT/SAT and another did poorly. Looking at the scores, one is better than the other and that has nothing to do with race."

Firstly, I agree that intelligence is not too heavily a factor, especially in a tie-breaker situation. However, some of the greatest minds can buckle under pressure when they are not in their comfort zone. A person brilliant at accounting could do it flawlessly in an office, however in a room packed with students, his future dependent on it and the clock ticking, he could do sub-par, and then be level with someone who is average at accounting. If affirmative action were to apply then, he could be left out because of the matter of race.

Through this comment my opponent has agreed that:
- Standardized tests do not accurately measure someone's intelligence
---> Tie-breakers may not be true tie-breakers with factors such as pressure
---> Affirmative Action is not fair in situations of tie-breakers.

"In his second argument he tries to make the case that most colleges have 2-3 dominant ethnic groups. He finds this to be problematic for minority groups; however AA would help them in this case. If a college is largely of a certain group, AA guarantees that minorities are represented. "

In this case I meant the smaller ethnic groups. For example, in an area predominantly populated b African Americans and Hispanics, Caucasians and Asians would be minorities, and therefore be subjected to bullying

As for the bullied part, this is not a debate about how people will fit into college. It is highly unlikely that racism occurs in extreme forms like that on college campuses these days anyway and the person that is subjected to "bullying" made the decision to go there in the first place. If bullying were to happen then the applicant probably wouldn't have applied there. At the end of this argument he says, "

Bullying is often common up until and including college. Adding dominant ethnic groups can make the case worse for smaller minorities. Although racism is nowhere as bad as it was years ago, you must agree that young students on college campus can be easily persuaded into racism.

" "Although other process's don't stamp [AA] out, it is not as bad." He just said AA is not as bad so I'm not really following his case. I'm assuming he meant something else and it just didn't come out right."

I was not referring to Affirmative action. The context of the sentence was saying racism. The sentence meant: "Although other process's don't stamp [racism] out, it is not as bad."

"Apparently you haven't been to college. If you're behind and doing poorly in the class, the professor will fail you and not feel sorry about it. Colleges are collecting your money so they don't care about your grades. It's not like high school where the teachers are subjected to teaching down to the lowest level of intelligence in the classroom. Professors teach what they want and you either understand it or you don't, but it is not their problem. Also AA doesn't take a person of inferior intellect and allow them entrance over a smarter person. AA applies with people of similar intellect meaning if a person were to struggle or do well in a class, then so would've the person that did not get in to the school."

From this comment, it would suggest more students are likely to fail college. Given certain circumstances as aforementioned, students with lower intellect can get into through the system and therefore cause higher failure rates, which reflects badly on the college rather than the teachers.

"My opponent concedes AA makes things fairer. This isn't a debate about what's best for the college, but whether AA should be practice and if it makes things fair, then by all means AA should be practiced. I will humor him however and say that AA is not bad for colleges. Earlier he states, "[AA] is also a lazy process" AA makes the admissions job easier and also saves time and money by not forcing tons of interviews upon the college. He calls that "lazy". It's more of a dollars and cents deal and it allows the college to save money, which does not make things worse for the college, but rather makes things better. None of that matters since it's not what we're debating, I was just pointing out the flaw in con's thinking. Since con basically conceded the debate by saying AA makes things fairer there is no real reason to go on, however I will continue to pick his case apart."

Firstly, I said may make things better. This is an indefinite verb, rather than a positive or negative. Whilst the debate may be concerning AA, it is also concerning the colleges. If it makes things worse for a college, why would they allow such a system. PRO has said that AA saves time and money, and is not lazy, however when compared to the interviewing process it is. It is a short cut compared to other process's. It allows people to get in based on race (in a tie breaker) rather than a formal meeting face to face.

"That is not a reason for it to not be implemented. This is like saying, "Well, I don't use pens very often so I don't think I'll get one." It may not be used often because you have a laptop, but when there's a test or writing assignment in class it is very useful to have and you'd be screwed without one. So the occurrence of usage is not grounds to dispel its implementation.!"

Firstly, I do not see how pen usage can be compared to the usage of AA. Whereas a pen is needed at any random moment, Affirmative action would be used on an annual basis. To continue, my point was the interviewing process can be used for everyone, whereas if used for everyone, AA is racist at best.

"My opponent calls AA racist. He previously stated AA makes things fairer and therefore cannot be racist."

I said it may make things fairer, not fully conceding the debate. My opponent has not addressed the point, therefore it stand that AA is racist.

I would like to finally thank Nok for the debate and Johnicle for setting it up.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NOK_Domination 7 years ago
NOK_Domination
Yea sorry, I kinda read it wrong although I didn't ask those questions. My bad, I need to read more carefully.
Posted by Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
I'm not biased towards either side, I'm not sure what you think I said, but I'm simply thanking you both for doing a swell job in your argument style. I didn't say I thought panda's argument was right or yours wrong, I just stated that it was a nice setup and gave an example as to why it was. No need to be defensive my good man! (and BTW all the examples I took at random weren't my personal answers, they were Con's and they did partake in the debate, its called signposting)

Thank you L-M I was about to ask if RFD's are legal, I didn't see it posted. But I could still hand out the flow I suppose because It doesn't show any results or bias, just a sum up of the arguments which ones were dropped etc.

Good debate to you both.
Posted by NOK_Domination 7 years ago
NOK_Domination
alright i don't want the RFD's then lol. I wouldn't want to break rules, which epicism apparently has no problem doing. Also I'm awaiting a challenge for round 3 Logical-Master.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
I was under the impression that judges were not allowed to give students . . er I mean debaters their RFDs due to some asinine rule which I seem to have forgotten. Anyway, johnicle hasn't posted any RFD's from judges, thus I'm pretty sure you aren't allowed. Then again, how could he stop you?
Posted by NOK_Domination 7 years ago
NOK_Domination
Thanks for judging this, but you're a judge, not a debater. While the answers to the questions may be right, the con did not address them as such and therefore they are not a part of this debate. Please keep your bias out of this debate. Thanks. And yes I would like your bias flow and RFD.
Posted by Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
I've been assigned to judge this, and I'm already squealing with joy like a little school girl because of all the warrants on why I should care... Ex. why should I care about racism? Answer it causes sepratists movements. Ex. Why should I care about scool rep. going down? Answer it causes students to have a harder time getting good jobs. Thank you two so much. I'll vote in a bit, I haven't finished reading yet. If either of you would like the flow and RFD I can e-mail it for you. When I judge tournaments either one side gets all or none of my votes, my RFD will consist of who was the better debater/ more convincing arguments and why.
Posted by trendem 7 years ago
trendem
Convincing Arguments: Pro. Many of Con's arguments centered around the argument that AA would let in students with lower intellects, but I couldn't buy this given that Pro had explicitly repeated that AA was to be a tie-breaker only between students with the same qualifications. Furthermore, the scenario of a student being poor at test-taking but brilliant at accounting would be inapplicable to AA, because some other student would excel at BOTH accounting and test-taking; hence, the latter student would be a better student. Since the students would be unequal, AA would be inapplicable.
Perhaps if Con had expounded more on the harms of reverse racism of AA, and why these harms outweigh the benefits, it would have been more persuasive.

Conduct, Spelling and Grammar, Reliable sources: Tie.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
I just posted my first argument. My idea of AA is a bit sketchy, but I got the jist of it. Over to you.
Posted by NOK_Domination 7 years ago
NOK_Domination
somehow it says there are only 2 days and 20 hours remaining, but no big deal, just post as soon as you can
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Thank you John!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by NOK_Domination 7 years ago
NOK_Domination
NOK_DominationI-am-a-pandaTied
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 The_Booner 7 years ago
The_Booner
NOK_DominationI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Zeratul 7 years ago
Zeratul
NOK_DominationI-am-a-pandaTied
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:43 
Vote Placed by trendem 7 years ago
trendem
NOK_DominationI-am-a-pandaTied
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:30