The Instigator
Johnicle
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
oboeman
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.

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  
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: 3/2/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,790 times Debate No: 7208
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (7)

 

Johnicle

Pro

Good luck to my opponent in this round, and for the remainder of this tournament. Now, let's get to this debate!

I Affirm, Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.

-Affirmative Action Defined: ""Affirmative action" means positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded"
---(From: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

-Throughout this debate, I will prove that these positive steps are a good thing, and thus, should be practiced for college admissions. Furthermore, it must be noted that Affirmative Action simply breaks ties. In other words, affirmative action will not accept a worse student because of this it will simply take two similarly qualified students and take one over the other because of affirmative action. Furthermore, it must be noted that these establishments may choose to do this. In other words, no one is being forced into anything, it is simply allowing them to choose a way to break ties or not.

Onto my case:

CONTENTION ONE: There is a built in Disadvantage.
---No matter how you look at it, people will treat women and people of other races differently. This is true whether it is subconsciously or not. Therefore, when two people of equal opportunity presents itself, it only makes sense that we rely on this ratio given to us by affirmative action. For example, if there are 2 whites for every 1 black in a community, and there are 99 blacks and 200 whites, it would make sense to give this limited college entry to the man with this built in disadvantage. Especially when, it was only made to break the tie.

CONTENTION TWO: There has to be a tie breaker anyway.
---It's not like affirmative action allows people at a disadvantage to get half the GPA of another individual. Rather, these people are identically ranked on paper when they apply to this college in question. This therefore forces the institution to make a decision. Either way, these decisions will leave someone out. It is therefore acceptable for either decision to be made (I.E. equal opportunity employer or affirmative action employer). This therefore proves the resolution true. We SHOULD allow these institutions to live under these guidelines. Rather than rely on them to make the decision on something else (as proven before, could be racist/sexist against someone with a built in disadvantage).

CONTENTION THREE: It is the choice of the institution from the beginning.
---Finally, I would like to clarify that there are two options. 1) Affirmative action, 2) Equal opportunity. And what you must see is that BOTH of these should be used for college admissions. It is not our duty to force people to believe one way or the other. If you want to break the tie on your own, go for it (equal opportunity). But if you are going to do that, you must recognize that people will eventually be unfair, and thus, you must also recognize that affirmative action SHOULD ALSO be used.

-It is for these reasons, that I urge you to vote pro!

-I reserve the right to add and clarify any and all arguments within this debate.

Thank You and good luck to my opponent!
oboeman

Con

Greetings.
I would like to start by thanking my opponent, Johnicle, for presenting this challenge and the tournament altogether. I'm sure it will be fun.

"No matter how you look at it, people will treat women and people of other races differently. This is true whether it is subconsciously or not."

Could you prove that? Do you have a credible source? Please cite. Thanks.

"For example, if there are 2 whites for every 1 black in a community, and there are 99 blacks and 200 whites, it would make sense to give this limited college entry to the man with this built in disadvantage."
This is racism. This suggests that (a) people of colored skin have some type of superiority over white people, and (b) colored people are not good enough to be accepted into a given institution on their own credibility. No matter how you look at it, it is racism in either direction.
How would we define people of color? Would we start some type of melanin-testing scale to be cast on their application? Are their specific guidelines to how much pigmentation one must have to be eligible for affirmative action utilization? At what point are people colored "enough" to be eligible? This seems futile.
It seems to me it would be much better to just admit the BEST candidate for the position at an institution.
Martin Luther King, Jr. fought for equality and justice for all. And that is exactly the way it should be; no race has supremacy over another race. Mandating the implementation of affirmative action "steps" is just stepping our way to inequality amongst members of our society. This is inherently unjust.

"Either way, these decisions will leave someone out. It is therefore acceptable for either decision to be made (I.E. equal opportunity employer or affirmative action employer). This therefore proves the resolution true."

Non sequitur. First of all, if two candidates were hypothetically equal, and only one can be admitted, is it not the institution's own right to choose who that person is? It seems that my opponent is suggesting that diversity is somehow superior to the own fundamental freedoms and liberties that are so intrinsic to the fabric of this nation. Sure, the institution CAN pick someone with higher levels of pigmentation in their skin, but still, SHOULD they? I contend that they should not NECESSARILY (but not necessarily that they should NOT) do that.
Secondly, the chances of finding two candidates with the exact qualifications for a given institution seem to be almost negligible. Ergo, many times the institution would be inclined to favor the less qualified (even if only slightly) candidate to make their institution look favorable to the liberal proponents of affirmative action.
If a private institution itself has a philosophy favoring diversity, then by all means they can choose whoever they feel necessary to be admitted. But this can be accomplished without governmental interaction and affirmative action-like "steps."
However, no matter how appealing it may sound to people, the statement that a given level of diversity is better than a different level of diversity is only an opinion. I happen to favor diversity. But my opponent must recognize that private institutions reserve the right to choose the level of diversity they so like. I am not affiliated with private institutions. Therefore, I do not get to make the decisions best suited for that institution, nor should I. And neither should the government.

It may indeed be the choice of the institution at times, but this raises the question of this debate topic: SHOULD it be practiced in college admissions? Merely because some private institutions may reserve the right to choose who and who is not admitted does not mean they SHOULD. Since when is it right to socially engineer the student populous at colleges and universities?

I look forward to the coming rounds.
Cheers,
Oboeman.
Debate Round No. 1
Johnicle

Pro

Thank you for accepting my challenge and I hope that this will be a great debate.

First of all, I would like to flow through my framework found in-between my definition and contention one. This is extremely important within this debate because affirmative action is simply a tie-breaker. At no time during this process do we go out of our way to admit a minority or woman. Rather, we find to equally qualified candidates in which we can only accept one, and we have the option to use affirmative action (if previously accepted). At this point in time, my opponents burden shifts to having to prove that this tie-breaking method in some way should not be used.

---‘Prove it'-->
-From: http://www.washingtonpost.com...
-"it is a remedy for the preferential treatment white men have traditionally received and continue to enjoy. In 1993, women made, on average, only 71.5 cents for every dollar made by men." (There is also more in the article if you are interested.)
---My point stands. There is a built in disadvantage for women (proven by the evidence), and I am positive that it is the same for minorities. I would urge my opponent to prove anything else if I am wrong.

---‘racism in either direction'-->
-This is where my opponent is wrong. First of all, he cold drops my interpretation and framework that explains that affirmative action is simply a tie-breaker. Secondly, without affirmative action, women and minorities would receive the worse end of tie-breakers that were just made ‘on the spot' by administrations (therefore creating a single discrimination which was truly the problem to begin with). Finally, Affirmative Action is a choice and is in no way FORCED upon these groups of people.

---‘BEST candidate'-->
-Well, if institutions believe that this is what they want to do then it is legitimate. However, they should also be able to select affirmative action so that in the rare instance you have someone with an identical GPA and SAT scores and both were active in their community and extracurricular activities, then what do you do? It would be ‘racist' to choose the white man over the black woman wouldn't it? The problem here is ‘equal opportunity' will find SOMETHING to break the tie, but there is a legitimate option just to admit the one with the built in disadvantages as proven above.

---‘institution's own right to choose who that person is'-->
-I am not denying legitimacy to equal opportunity institutions. I am merely defending the rights of these institutions to have a built in tie-breaker when that situation arises (rare or not).

---‘fundamental freedoms and liberties that are so intrinsic to the fabric of this nation'-->
-I could be mistaken but aren't you referring to the nation that enslaved millions of African Americans and treated them like dirt for 2 centuries? I guess I could have gotten that nation confused with the nation that employs women at equal job tasks yet less pay. OH WAIT! We ARE talking about the same nation aren't we?! I, once again, defend the institutions right to choose affirmative action as a way to evaluate two equal components.

---‘chances of finding two candidates with the exact qualifications'-->
-Irrelevant. Not to mention that it has happened before and it will happen again.

---‘governmental interaction'-->
-the government isn't infringing on Caucasian rights, they are simply allowing institutions to pick their own methods.

---‘private institutions may reserve the right to choose (doesn't mean they should)'-->
-Right, they get this right. But what if we were to FORCE them to always be equal opportunity? Would you trust a board of people to make the choice between a rich white boy who played QB for his high school, or some black person who lived in poverty all their life? CERTAINLY they could make the right choice, but in all reality, affirmative action will confirm that these people have a built in disadvantage, and thus should be given the tie-breaker.

My case therefore stands and my opponent, well, doesn't really present any offence through his own case. Therefore, I can only see vote for PRO because there is a built in disadvantage, it is only a tie-breaker, and it is a choice made by the institutions.

Thank you and good luck!
oboeman

Con

Here goes:

"At no time during this process do we go out of our way to admit a minority or woman."

But this would still inevitably happen anyway. If an institution is afraid they do not have "enough diversity," then they might feel inclined to admit extra people representing specific minorities or genders that are not necessarily as qualified for the position.

"There is a built in disadvantage for women."

Then perhaps this nation should work on mandating equal pay for women in the workforce. Admitting a higher proportion into a given institution would seem to do nothing in regards to that…meaning affirmative action-like steps are only a red herring in regards to this important point.

---‘racism in either direction'-->
"Without affirmative action, women and minorities would receive the worse end of tie-breakers that were just made ‘on the spot' by administrations (therefore creating a single discrimination which was truly the problem to begin with)."

Can my opponent prove this with some evidence? I fail to see how minorities and women would consistently receive the worse end of tie-breakers.

"It would be ‘racist' to choose the white man over the black woman wouldn't it? The problem here is ‘equal opportunity' will find SOMETHING to break the tie, but there is a legitimate option just to admit the one with the built in disadvantages as proven above."

It would not be "racist" to not admit the colored person. Referring to this as racist would imply some type of prejudiced belief that one is superior to another. In such the scenario as extrapolated, neither is "superior." Choosing one over the other does not mean racism. It is a fallacy to assume reasoning regarding such a decision. Perhaps the better tie-breaker, if deemed so imperative, would be financial status of the family. Statistically speaking, many times the family with the lesser amount of money may end up being the minority, but that is irrelevant. A less fortunate financial background often times means less opportunity. Under that variable, it would seem most reasonable to admit the one that did the most work to work their way up to where they are, as they had less of a given opportunity to initially start at the top.

"I am merely defending the rights of these institutions to have a built in tie-breaker when that situation arises (rare or not)."

Sure, such private institutions have the RIGHT to have that tie-breaker. But this is irrelevant to the debate topic. The debate topic addresses whether or not affirmative action SHOULD be practiced in college admissions. It most definitely can be in a variety of instances. But this does not mean it SHOULD. The resolution is definite, meaning the Pro side must be affirming that the practice SHOULD definitely be used. I negate that affirmation.

"I could be mistaken but aren't you referring to the nation that enslaved millions of African Americans?"

Reverse discrimination is not a logical solution to past racism. After all, I'll take a wild guess that most of the slaves from before the Civil War are not still applying to colleges today…meaning that we'd pretty much just be making it easier for minorities of whom have not suffered any of the social ills experienced previously in this nation to get into college. While the symbolism does seem commendable, it is still unfair to others and illogical.

"I, once again, defend the institutions right to choose affirmative action as a way to evaluate two equal components."

I, once again, still defend the right for a private institution to choose their policy regarding minorities and their admittance. But yet again, this is only a red herring. Whether or not the institution has this right is no indicator of whether or not affirmative action SHOULD be used. There is a difference between whether a private institution SHOULD BE ABLE TO choose their respective policies and whether or not said decision is a good one.

<'chances of finding two candidates with the exact qualifications'>
"Irrelevant. Not to mention that it has happened before and it will happen again."

Sure, it is possible to find identical candidates when comparing every respect. But even so, the odds of finding those two (or more) identical candidates, WHILE having those two identical candidates being exactly on the deciding line of whether or not they should be admitted is extremely low. But sure, it is possible. In that extreme case, why not admit both candidates?

"The government isn't infringing on Caucasian rights, they are simply allowing institutions to pick their own methods."

And again, I am in favor of private institutions being able to choose their own methods. But affirmative action steps, as prescribed by the government, would MANDATE and require particular methods.

"Would you trust a board of people to make the choice between a rich white boy who played QB for his high school, or some black person who lived in poverty all their life? CERTAINLY they could make the right choice, but in all reality, affirmative action will confirm that these people have a built in disadvantage, and thus should be given the tie-breaker."

That decision is not mine to make (about who would get accepted, if only one could). The point is, the private institution has the right to make that decision. And having the right to make that decision is imperative for a free state. Sure, it would be better to choose the candidate that made the most progress from where they started out (such as regarding financial background), but (a) this would not qualify as "affirmative action" under the definition my opponent provided (as race is irrelevant and unneeded in determining student progress); and (b) the private institution STILL has the right to choose which one to admit (if in the extreme circumstance that only one can be admitted). And the private institution SHOULD maintain this right.

I would like to ask my opponent to clarify some things I inquired about during my Round 1. How would we define people of color? Are their specific guidelines to how much pigmentation one must have to be eligible for affirmative action utilization? At what point are people colored "enough" to be eligible? Is the government going to issue a point of pigmentation at which affirmative action should work upon someone? It seems to me that there is no universally defined standard for how affirmative action-like procedures would work anyway…meaning the institution would decide their own policy on it anyway. But perhaps my opponent could clarify.

I would like to state that I have presented all the offense thus far that I have needed. I have not necessarily addressed these in organized contentions, but have made my (logical) point nonetheless.

But to remind those reading this debate, I have basically contended that affirmative action should not NECESSARILY be used. It is up to the private institution to choose what they want to do in regards to admissions. Diversity is often nice, but the extent can be decided upon by the individual institution. It is not just to admit minorities because of past wrongs on other people of their ethnicity throughout history.

I await the remainder of this fun debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Johnicle

Pro

Thank you to my opponent.

For clarification, I will be putting my opponents arguments in "<,>" and my own after with "---".



---This entire argument lives upon the idea that these institution will abuse this power. Well this is certainly true, but A) There will be more abuse with simple ‘equal opportunity' (if you can even call it that) and B) The resolution looks at affirmative action as an idea (ignoring the abuse of the possible institution). Therefore, we SHOULD allow this idea to exist, that way we could have a tie breaker to help the disadvantaged as PROVEN with evidence.



---I wasn't showing how we should increase pay for women (that is given). What I was trying to prove is that there is a built in disadvantage. And as you have yet to disprove this, it must be flowed through to the end of this debate which shows that Affirmative Action is the ONLY way to create fairness for college admissions.



---Cross-apply the money disadvantage first of all. Getting paid less shows a favoritism game.

---Furthermore, from: http://www.now.org... (if you want the actual source, click on the link and go to the bottom of the page, it gives SEVERAL)
-QUOTE: "Affirmative Action is fair… Women and people of color still face discrimination…Affirmative Action is necessary so that women and people of color of every economic class have the opportunity to enter all fields…Affirmative Action helps qualified candidates overcome racism and sexism… (in) Fact: If half of the people of color who are admitted to schools under affirmative action programs were cut, the acceptance rates of white men would only increase by 2%... Lots of people get "special" consideration when applying for jobs or to schools… Everyone benefits when discrimination is eliminated… (in essence) Affirmative Action = Equal Opportunities." END QUOTE
---Need I say more? This shows that the only way to give equality is through affirmative action, and to the point where the resolution says that "Affirmative Action should be used" we must pass this resolution, because without it, there would be too great of a deficit for women and minorities to overcome.



---No one is superior to anyone. That is exactly why we need affirmative action as well as equal opportunity (give the institution the choice). By recognizing the fact that this built in disadvantage makes it more difficult for a minority or woman to get into college, then we SHOULD use affirmative action (as well as equal opportunity).



---Actually, people with poor financial records have no problems getting into college if they try just like everyone else. In fact, once they get into college, they get a bunch of free money just because they don't have any money (FAFSA, etc.) while someone like me who has parents that make plenty but don't give me a dime for college. Furthermore, this point isn't backed up with any evidence that this would be the way to go (he just says it). Not to mention that Affirmative Action STILL gives a disadvantaged group. Perhaps if you accept this argument, then give impoverished people AND minorities and women special acceptance policies. Either way, affirmative action should STILL be used.



---Flow this through to the end of the round IMMEDIATLEY!



---First of all, I don't see ‘definite' in the resolution. Second of all, just because something SHOULD be done, doesn't mean it's the only thing that should be done. For example: Women SHOULD have the right to vote. I would affirm this topic, however, it does not mean that men should not have the right to vote because generally every SHOULD have the right to vote. Also, my opponent is simply switching his position to squirrel out of my argument. If you refer back to my second speech, I flowed through my tie-breaker argument BECAUSE IT WAS DROPPED. Only now does he pick it back up again, don't let him do this. Finally, affirmative action is a choice. Saying it should be used is like saying it should be a choice.
-If I win this argument, I win the debate. If I lose this argument, they are still at a disadvantage and we still need this tie breaker anyway.



---From the same link from earlier in my speech:
-"Myth: ‘Affirmative Action is "reverse discrimination" — let's stop giving special rights to certain groups while others are left out'… (wrong) ‘Fact: Affirmative Action is fair!' Affirmative Action levels the playing field so people of color and all women have the chance to compete in education and in business. White men hold 95% to 97% of the high-level corporate jobs. And that's with affirmative action programs in place"
-You see, affirmative action is not racist it DOES just level the playing field (as proven time and again). My opponent talks about how we USED to be racist with slavery. But all this proves is that racism (and sexism) is not AS BAD. But saying that it doesn't still exist is completely non-factual. You could even look to Obama, but unfortunately at school, I have heard students talking about how he will (and should) die. RACISM STILL EXSITS.



---Ok, thanks. But if you don't buy that (even though he said it), generally affirmative action is used for admission to RARE seats in college. 10 seats with 10,000 applicants, the odds are not as low as you'd think.



---Funny, I thought affirmative action IS being 'used' right now, but there are NO mandates whatsoever. The resolution says that it SHOULD be used, not that it MUST be used.



---Affirmative action does NOT infringe upon this right.



---My arguments about women stands regardless of this.
---Unless this person is going to apply for application and lie on his application, and then continue to wear a bag around campus, I doubt he will slip by. Furthermore, when you apply for a driver's license, you must put your race. If you lie about it, you will be caught eventually. But in reality, if one guy slips by the system, my benefits of giving disadvantaged people an equal playing ground FAR outweighs the chances for abuse. Not to mention that my opponent did not give ANY statistics or pragmatic methods that this system even could be abused.

For all of these reasons, I urge my judges to vote PRO!

(As far as a personal preference however: Please make sure that my opponent does not use any new arguments in his last speech. This causes obvious abuse.)

I want to thank my opponent for this extremely educational and extremely fun debate! It has been an honor and I hope to see you in the single-elimination bracket in April!

Good luck in your final speech!
oboeman

Con

Thanks to my opponent for the delightful debate. Here goes:

"What I was trying to prove is that there is a built in disadvantage."

While this may be somewhat true (i.e. smaller proportions of specified minorities in a given workforce, etc.), it does not justify affirmative action being used. If my opponent chooses to call this a disadvantage, I'll go ahead and agree with that. But whether or not women make less than men on average is a separate issue that should thus be dealt with separately. Affirmative action in college admissions is a different topic.

"Affirmative Action is necessary so that women and people of color of every economic class have the opportunity to enter all fields."

But who is to say that women and minorities do NOT have the same opportunities as others have? The color of the skin of an individual does not alter the opportunities in which they are presented. Rather, if a major determining/causative factor were to be established, then it would most likely be financial status of the individual. More money means more opportunities (as many opportunities cost money, sometimes lots of it).

"Affirmative Action helps qualified candidates overcome racism and sexism."

Again, if the institution wanted there to be more diversity in their admissions, racism and sexism are not things to worry about. Even if affirmative action were to only be applied to tiebreakers, it is unjust. Just as I can CHOOSE to watch CNN or MSNBC over FOX News, a private institution for college should be able to choose on their own, without interference, their admitted students.
Not admitting a minority (even if they are hypothetically equally qualified) does not equal racism. Similarly, not admitting a women (even when hypothetically equally qualified) does not mean sexism.

"Everyone benefits when discrimination is eliminated."

Discrimination would unlikely even be limited, much less eliminated altogether, with affirmative action steps. Caucasians are the ones being discriminated against in affirmative action. Merely because they were born with less pigmentation is not a justified reason to not include them in tiebreakers. As well, my opponent has already stated that there would be few spaces in which affirmative action would likely be used anyway, reasoning to be a less-than-significant factor in reducing said discrimination.

"People with poor financial records have no problems getting into college if they try just like everyone else."

But my point was this: if there should be a tiebreaker, it should be awarded to the individual who had less opportunity. This would most easily relate to the one who had less money to support opportunities that others may have taken for granted.

"Not to mention that Affirmative Action STILL gives a disadvantaged group. Perhaps if you accept this argument, then give impoverished people AND minorities and women special acceptance policies."

What affirmative action does is it makes a sweeping generalization, making it appear that all minorities and women are disadvantaged. This is not at all the case. If there should be a valid tiebreaker, then it should go to the individual who worked hard to acquire the same opportunities as many wealthier kids already had. There should not necessarily be any distinct and intentional correlation between tiebreaker winners and ethnic groups.

"First of all, I don't see ‘definite' in the resolution. Second of all, just because something SHOULD be done, doesn't mean it's the only thing that should be done. Finally, affirmative action is a choice."

Pro logically must prove with evidence that affirmative action should be used in college admissions. There is no room for potential doubt that it might not be good to be put to use. Meanwhile, I, as the contender, must show that affirmative action should not NECESSARILY be used in college admissions. I do not have to prove that it explicitly should not be used, but rather take a position that would negate the resolution. The resolution does not state that affirmative action should be a choice. Instead, it reads, "affirmative action should be practiced." The verb usage of "practiced" signifies, according to a standard dictionary search, it should be carried out, applied, performed, engaged in, etc. This is definite. I have been arguing that affirmative action should not necessarily be "practiced" in college admissions.

"Affirmative Action levels the playing field so people of color and all women have the chance to compete in education and in business. White men hold 95% to 97% of the high-level corporate jobs. And that's with affirmative action programs in place."

Since when was the playing field not "level?" Rarely, if ever, do I hear of college institutions that are racist. I am not arguing that tiebreakers should go to the Caucasians, but rather that a neutral stance should be given. Instead of it going to any specific group, the private institution should decide upon the admission independently. The race of the applicants should be irrelevant and have no bearing on the decision. If "white men hold 95% to 97% of the high-level corporate jobs," then perhaps Caucasians are on average more qualified for the specified jobs, and/or the Caucasians are more abundant in the referred workforce.

"RACISM STILL EXSITS."

Unfortunately, it does still exist. But my impression of racism was anything the included the color of the skin of an individual as a part of making a decision that could include other people as well. Ergo, making Caucasians automatically not win tiebreakers would be considered a racist fashion.

"The resolution says that it SHOULD be used, not that it MUST be used."

However, there is a difference between "it should be used" and "it can be used" (with the latter referring to the choice of it being used or not). Whether or not it "must" be used is irrelevant. When one says, "affirmative action should be used," they are restricting the decision-making capability and right of the private institution that SHOULD be the one that decides anyway. Of course it should be a choice amongst private institutions. Along that assumption, I win this debate.

"Affirmative action does NOT infringe upon this right."

The way the resolution is worded assumes an infringement upon this right. See above.

The reason I previously brought up the issue of how we should define people of color was mainly to stress the fact that there is somewhat of a subjective authority here. That is, is a Mexican a person of color? Does it only apply to a specific group of ethnicity? These are questions that are instrumental in establishing the ethics of affirmative action. For example, it may seem that the government is giving preferential treatment to African-Americans more than Asian minorities. Assessing the level of color in the skin of an individual seems like either an arduously irrelevant or far too arbitrary of a task for maintaining a proper and logical system. Secondly, I brought it up as a practicality of how ridiculous and futile it would be for the development and implementation of a logical system of affirmative action. See prior rounds for further detail.

For the reasons of the inequality (whether intentional or not) caused by the affirmative action as addressed during this debate, restrictions of private institutional liberty of choice given by the wording of the resolution, and social effects (racism in either direction: see the above rounds) that would likely be caused as a result of affirmative action implementation, I stress a CON vote.

I would like to thank my opponent for providing an exciting and rigorous debate. It has been a joy participating.
I would also like to thank any audience, judges, or people speculatively interested in this debate topic for reading it.
Good luck in future debates during this tournament as well.

Cheers,
Oboeman
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by younstownsoldier 7 years ago
younstownsoldier
as long as we have things such as affirmative action around, we will have racism. the jobs and positions should go to QUALIFIED personnel, regardless of reace, gender, creed, etc. i feel that all gender-based and race-based scholarships should also be banned. it makes no sense at all that they exist.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
The premise that affirmative action is used as tie-breaker is completely false. For example, UC San Diego added 200 points to the SAT scores of all applicants who had an Hispanic surname. This worked to the great advantage of applicants from South America, who were fully competitive before they received the 200 points. There is a university (Kentucky?) that does DNA testing to determine if applicants should be eligible for a special affirmative action scholarship pool. Applicants who never guessed they were minorities and never suffered any discrimination were found to have just enough Black and American Indian heritage to trigger the benefit. Women are a clear and growing majority of college students, so the idea they need extra privilege is college admissions is absurd.

It's reasonable to extend extra help to applicants who have suffered disadvantage. That might be done with some sort of remedial course work upon reasonable evidence of disadvantage. However, supposing that race or gender is a good measure of individual disadvantage is not reasonable. Obama's daughters will not need 200 extra SAT points to get a fair shake.

Con did not do a particularly good job of arguing the case. He implicitly accepted Pro's errant tie-breaker argument. Still, Pro's prima facia case was too weak to withstand even modest challenge.
Posted by NOK_Domination 7 years ago
NOK_Domination
could you prove women won't be treated fairly? are you kidding me? what a loser. i bet you're fantacizing over a night out with obama right now. McCain wasn't the best candidate either, but Obama's logic was and is far more flawed the McCains. Good luck climbing out of a "recession" when the man helped caused it. just print tons of money and take over every failing business. Pretty soon the government can sustain every business and no more unemployment!!!!! That's also socialism. Oh well at least our tax money isn't being wasted. Well that is, unless you think spending money on abortions in other countries is a waste, but who would think that? After all baby killing is perfectly humane. In fact it's so humane let's allow partial birth abortions. Enter FOCA. Thanks for screwing the country, consider yourself a patriot.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
JohnicleoboemanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by younstownsoldier 7 years ago
younstownsoldier
JohnicleoboemanTied
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 
Vote Placed by NOK_Domination 7 years ago
NOK_Domination
JohnicleoboemanTied
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 oceanix 7 years ago
oceanix
JohnicleoboemanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
JohnicleoboemanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by zach12 7 years ago
zach12
JohnicleoboemanTied
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 Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
JohnicleoboemanTied
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