The Instigator
crackofdawn_Jr
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
dvhoose
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points

Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.

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 5 votes the winner is...
crackofdawn_Jr
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,175 times Debate No: 7197
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

crackofdawn_Jr

Con

I affirm that I am CON for the resolution and will give my opponent the opening argument.
dvhoose

Pro

I was just getting ready to sit and type this when I found I had already been challenged. :) To be fair, I'll forfeit my final speech (unless you don't want me to do that, Crackofdawn_Jr). With that said, I'll go ahead and create a case.

I stand firmly: Resolved: That affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.

Contention 1- The United States is a country based on equality.

Evidence of our "equality" is all around us. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal." Self-evident... somebody shouldn't have to point that out.

While discrimination is certainly better today then, say, slavery times or civil rights movement times, racial discrimination exists today, and we can't deny that. The fact that this resolution exists is proof that discrimination exists.

Contention 2- Many minorities live in poverty

Many minorities live in a state of poverty [1]. By continuing to practice racial discrimination, we allow this cycle to continue. By not allowing minorities in college, we take away from them an idea of hope, and we close a window of opportunity that would allow them to become actively engaged in school.

Psychologically speaking, if you tell someone that they're worthless, and you tell them this continually, they will start to believe it. This is what we're doing when it comes to college admissions. By not accepting a proportional number of minorities, we're sending the signal that minorities aren't as good, or that whites are better, whichever way you want to look at it.

*As clarification, this debate isn't about accepting minorities for the sake of accepting minorities. We all know whites that don't measure up, and minorities that far exceed any standard placed before them. Affirmative action ensures that those at college, regardless of race, are those that strive, not only to reach standards, but to redefine those standards. Affirmative action aims to open the minds of those around us, and basically fulfill Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream. "That men will be judged by the contend of their character, not the color of their skin."*

That's all I've got time for now. I'll turn the debate over to my opponent and extend/refute case in the next speech.

Thank you.

--SOURCES--
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
crackofdawn_Jr

Con

I wish my opponent good luck on this debate. If you're okay with forfeiting your final speech, that sounds fair to me.

<>

You admit that there is still discrimination and so do I. However, fighting discrimination with discrimination is not the way to go. You're never supposed to fight fire with fire. Is it fair to look at something and say, "Oh yea them doing that is not okay, so let's do it back at them,"? By making minorities preferred over whites you are doing the very same discrimination you're trying to fight. This is not equality, it's cancelling out.

<>

So you're argument is that because they live in poverty we must be partial to them. If that's one of your reasons then it needs to be changed so that affirmative action affects though who make below a certain amount of income, not their race or culture. It's not just minorities that live in poverty, it's white people too. In a 2006 census it was shown that 10.3% of people living in poverty were white. (http://www.census.gov...)

<>

Well, that depends. Historically (although it's gradually changing) whites have dominated the majority of the ethnicities in terms of percentage in the U.S. If there's 60% white people in the U.S., 20% Hispanic, 15% black, and 5% other (making up these numbers) then we shouldn't force schools to have a 20% black population. Really though, it's a matter of taking who's best for the spot. If a white person and a black person are both going for a spot in the college, and the white person is a better choice, the black person shouldn't be chosen because of his race. That goes vice versa. If you want to make the argument that there's a rich white kid who had better oppurtunities than the poor black kid you should argue to change affirmative action to affect those living in poverty, not those of certain ethnicities.

That'll be all for now. I await my opponent's response.

Good luck.
dvhoose

Pro



How is affirmative action discrimination? All affirmative action does is level the playing field. For centuries, the white man dominated over any other race! This mindset is still present today, and needs to be stopped.



Not necessarily that they live in poverty, but you have to agree that income plays a huge role in a person's outlook on life and education in general. Money is a powerful resource. According to your statistic, 89.7% of people in poverty are minorities... I ask you to look upon your morals and honestly think about what it means to live in poverty. Deciding whether you or your child gets medicine or food, because you don't have the money to get both. It's downright sickening... But I regress. This applies to affirmative action because monetary resources are a huge part of life, and they're being denied to the 89.7% of those impoverished minorities. Say you have a child of a minority. Never been told that education was important. Doesn't know what GPA stands for, much less what it means. Then they reach high-school, and they learn of these wonderful "scholarships". This gives them drive, this gives them the motivation they need to excel in school. And they do... to a point. They study hard, make good grades, apply for college(s), and don't get in simply because of the color of their skin... What now?



I agree, whites have dominated the other races for most of history. And even if you want to say that schools shouldn't have 20% black students (I'll use your made up stats because the actual numbers are irrelevant), accepting black students who are actually qualified and raising the stats to, say, 15% is still a great thing. We're still opening up opportunities for those who have been oppressed to create a name for themselves and become a contributing member of society.

Basically what it comes down to is this... Whites have always been pretty well off (and I don't mean that to offend anyone... I don't want any of this to offend anyone, for that matter...). This fact has come at the expense of minorities. When we recognize that a problem exists, and we have the power to change it, yet we don't, moral red flags should go up everywhere. As far as affirmative action is concerned, the ends justify the means. No suffering is caused by allowing affirmative action to exist. Even if you don't like the idea of affirmative action because you see it as playing favorites, you have to admit that its goals are sound, and it has a great way to achieve those ends. By allowing minorities to have the opportunity for higher education, you actually allow the American population to be more open and understanding and willing to listen to those from a group labelled "worthless" or "stupid" and allow the entire country to forget hard feelings and allow our rising stars a shot to prove themselves.

Continuing the cycle of poverty does absolutely nothing for this great country. It only worsens the economy. As more people draw unemployment and welfare, the taxpayers financial burden increases. Knowing that 89.7% of those in poverty are minorities, it becomes increasingly clear that the best shot of decreasing those numbers IS in those minorities!

No longer should we discriminate against minorities, nor should we worship the ground on which they walk, but we DO need to treat them equally, with respect, and as if they were the actual human beings they are.

Using your example of a black and white person vying for the same spot, credentials should play a huge role. But what about when the two are alike in every way possible? Is it just for the college admissions board to select the white person because they're biased against blacks? THAT is the reason affirmative action is necessary...

I look forward for another great reply from my opponent.

Thanks
Debate Round No. 2
crackofdawn_Jr

Con

Thank you for a well-thought response.

<>

Two wrongs don't make a right. If you take a small amount of racial discrimination that you can't control and counter it with a large, government-backed racial discrimination that is controlled I don't believe they even out. It's like two guys find a wallet with $50 in it. The first guy takes $30 and gives his friend $20. The friend doesn't think this is fair so he steals $10 of his friends money to switch it out. In this situation, neither of them did the right thing.

<>

You're still using poverty as a reason to back up something that doesn't have to do with income, but instead racial status. Is it fair for those 10.3% of white kids that they are in the same situation if not worse than those minorities and they don't get the same help? If ONLY minorities lived in poverty then your current reason to back affirmative action would be fine but that's not the case.

<>

You're main reason for backing affirmative action is an issue with the classes, not the races. For instance, asians are minorities in this country and are affected by affirmative action. However, they make a higher mean income than white people (http://www.ibrc.indiana.edu...).

My main arguement against you is that affirmative action has to do with RACIAL discrimination, not CLASS discrimination. You're using the fact that a majority (BUT NOT ALL) of poverish people are minorities. Affirmative action (as you seem to advocate) should be changed to affect those in poverty, not a certain race.

I'm having a lot of fun with this, thank you for a great debate so far. :D
dvhoose

Pro

Seeing as a judge told me not to forfeit my last round, I'll go ahead and refute my opponents arguments...

<>

This is a faulty analogy. It'd go more like this. Two friends are walking down a street when one of them sees a wallet filled with $50. They decide to turn it in to the authorities. After the waiting period is up, nobody has claimed the money. The person who spotted the wallet gets $30 (or even $35) while the friend gets $20 (or $15)

We've given the status quo (authorities) a chance at fixing this problem. Now it's time to let affirmative action have a shot. Whites still hold a majority, because whites still have a majority of the population (the person who found it), and minorities actually get a profit out of the deal (the friend).

<>

While I'll admit that poverty isn't the main issue, it is definitely a huge reason as to why affirmative action is needed. We'll say poverty is a symptom of the discrimination placed upon minorities for centuries. Their oppression has driven them to an "out of sight, out of mind" mentality for lack of better words. By recognizing this as a problem, we can start correcting our mistake.

<
Eh, those that are actually educated and hold jobs here. We can't stereotype them, that furthers the discrimination. Any person denied a position in a college due to race is missing out on a huge opportunity, and it furthers any perception of white supremacy. This mindset forces humanity to overlook crucial ideas that are necessary for the continuance of the United States. Without taking fresh approaches and trying new ideas, we lose American ingenuity which allows America to actually create inventions instead of building them for someone else. It ensures the American economy prospers.

<>

As I said before, financial status is a side effect of the education discrimination present in today's society. It's a great, easily-understood-by-most idea that we can use to see the extent of the damage. The same way the DOW is used as a gauge on the stock market.

Even if you don't like how affirmative action accomplishes it's goal, you have to realize that it successfully reaches its goal and wouldn't have to be a permanent institution... just long enough to change the American mindset. Look at it big picture and long term, and you'll see it's extremely beneficial to the public.

Crackofdawn_Jr, it's been a great debate, I throughly enjoyed it.

Thank you one and all, and let the voting begin :)
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
[ RFD: Contd... ]

I feel as if Pro kind of ruined his chances of winning in R3 when he stated, "Any person denied a position in a college due to race is missing out on a huge opportunity, and it furthers any perception of white supremacy." I understand where he's coming from; however, by wording it this way, he seemingly discredits his stance that race should play ANY role in a selective process. It must be noted, though, that just because a person should not be denied a position based on their race doesn't mean that someone shouldn't be admitted based on their race, based on Pro's statements. And yet, I can't help but notice that Pro did not work hard enough to convince me of any of his arguments.

Similarly, Con did an awful job at squashing Pro's numerous invalid premises. Further, although Pro holds the burden of proof, I am not a fan of the Con position being lazy in a debate and not even attempting to prove his side as being not only equal to Pro's but superior. Thus, I'd say this debate was not among the best and both sides did an inadequate job. The ‘points' resulted in a tie; however, I think ultimately I'd actually give this "win" to the Pro.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
[ Unofficial RFD: ]

Pro's first contention didn't sell me upon reading it; saying that the resolution is proof that racism exists is not a valid statement. However, Con did not point out this discrepancy. Instead, he made the argument that "you can't fight fire with fire," that is, anti-discrimination cannot be achieved through discriminatory means.

Con did prove superior during his R1 (R2) argument noting that admission for minorities should be based on income, not race, according to Pro's initial points. To respond, Pro first noted that Affirmative Action isn't discriminatory and rather just levels the playing field. Unfortunately he did not explain how or why this is the case.

To combat income vs. racial prejudice, Pro successfully pointed out that over 87% of the impoverished are minorities. I believe that is a useful point to his argument; however, he doesn't successfully make his case with this point. I also don't believe that he properly argued the end justifies the means argument. Nevertheless, Con's R2 (R3) rebuttal was not effective in pointing out these weak arguments. Instead there was a focus on the race vs. class discrimination.

In the final round, Pro's analogy is faulty and doesn't combat the ideology that two wrongs don't make a right. In the end, Con wins this point. Pro then points out, "... Poverty is a symptom of the discrimination placed upon minorities for centuries... By recognizing this as a problem, we can start correcting our mistake." I will have to vote this issue as a tie. This was a more eloquent description of what Pro had tried to address in previous rounds; however, in all fairness this was a somewhat new approach that Con did not have a chance to properly respond to. Nevertheless, Con could have negated this statement's legitimacy by discussing poverty/racial relations more in depth in previous rounds. Either way, it's a tie on this issue.
Posted by sorc 7 years ago
sorc
I thought this debate was like two trains passing in the night; neither side fully understood what the other was saying and how it related to their own contention.
Posted by SuperPerfundo 7 years ago
SuperPerfundo
Good arg by CON that we are classifying on income, not on race. Good answer by PRO that we use income as an educational barometer, but, this still doesn't answer the fact that not only/all minorities are poor and that not only/all poor people are minorities. The question remains, why can't we make affirmative action income based rather than racial?

Good debate by both.
Posted by Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
Both votes are in for this debate.
Posted by Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
Good debate! I have made my decision, but I must wait for all of the other decisions before releasing it :P
Posted by Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
*cough... cough... put this debate in the thread "Complete Debates: Round 1"... link... ect.
Posted by Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
@dvhoose: don't forfeit your last round.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
crackofdawn_JrdvhooseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by trendem 7 years ago
trendem
crackofdawn_JrdvhooseTied
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 
Vote Placed by erbelgerbels 7 years ago
erbelgerbels
crackofdawn_JrdvhooseTied
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 Glitchy 7 years ago
Glitchy
crackofdawn_JrdvhooseTied
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:32 
Vote Placed by SuperPerfundo 7 years ago
SuperPerfundo
crackofdawn_JrdvhooseTied
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