The Instigator
fresnoinvasion
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Johnicle
Con (against)
Winning
31 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: 3/8/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,152 times Debate No: 7294
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

fresnoinvasion

Pro

It's freedom time, and about time we treated our fellow human beings with an ounce of respect.

Capitalism disproportionately denies rights to those living in poverty in America, every single day. Every second of every day of their lives is a little bit harder than that of a person living in a middle or high class. Life in the ghetto is just a fight to survive every day. Gangs are the norm, drugs are ok, and school is just for the best and smartest. Being the best and smartest takes 100 times more effort than any living in a middle or high class situation. Thus, an augmentation on the part of colleges is desperately needed.

Dictionary.com defines affirmative action as, "the encouragement of increased representation of women and minority-group member"

Thus I believe that ensuring minorities a spot in college is needed.

This does not ensure EQUAL representation, just representation. All i have to prove is that all colleges should have to do is ensure that minority groups are represented, no matter how small of representation.

This is obviously true. Minorities are seen in poverty more than whites, it is just the truth. For the reason that they are the most effected by poverty, and poverty makes life substantially harder, especially in the realm of college; it is just to ensure minorities representation in college.
Johnicle

Con

Thank you to my opponent for the challenge and good luck!

I stand against the resolution: Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.

CONTENTION 1: Affirmative Action creates unfair advantages that should not be practiced.
---http://www.progressiveu.org...
-"Allowing blacks entrance to a university to fill some quota or to enhance the "racial balance" of a campus is absurd… It shouldn't matter the racial, demographical, or ethnic heritage of the applicant. Good grades and extra-curricular activities should be the only criteria used for the limits tests used to consider admittance."
---There is ALWAYS something to break the tie. We need not allow interpretation of people to rely on ‘It's just a tie' and to admit the minority or woman of the two from simple association. This can not be called justice in any form.

CONTENTION 2: Affirmative Action furthers division.
---From: http://www.washingtonpost.com...
-"Affirmative action is the nation's most ambitious attempt to redress its long history of racial and sexual discrimination. But these days it seems to incite, rather than ease, the nation's internal divisions."
---This truly shows how we are creating a line in America. You are either on one side or the other. Group ‘A' gets one set of rights, while group ‘B' gets another set of rights. The article then goes on to say that there is an opposition that clearly shows "equal rights for all citizens has been fought and won – and that favoring members of one group over another simply goes against the American grain." All in all, WHY are we still doing this when people are treated equally?

CONTENTION 3: An eye for an eye makes the world go blind.
---Several people have argued in the past that Affirmative Action makes up for past wrongs. This is truly unfortunate since you are giving preferential treatment to people who weren't even the ones who were ‘taken advantage of'. Furthermore, by TRYING to make up for past mistakes, we CREATE more mistakes. When will the people taken advantage of, by affirmative action, be made up for?

CONTENTION 4: Affirmative Action is unnecessary.

A. Barak Obama is President.
---Does racism still exist? Yes, but just as much so for white people as it is for minorities. However, at the point where we finally have a minority as president, you will see that our objective problem with racism has conveniently moved to a subjective problem. Then why do we still have this objective legislation that affirmative action creates? It just isn't necessary anymore.

B. We have gone too far out of our way to help minorities.
---From hate crimes, to special scholarship programs, and of course affirmative action, we have gone above and beyond to try to not be racist. However, by legislating all of these unnecessary programs, we have actually created REVERSE-DISCRIMINATION! Not only should we NOT practice affirmative action, but we should not practice ANYTHING that treats people any different then what they are: AMERICANS!

C. Affirmative Action targets inappropriate disadvantages.
---We have literally legislated special admission rights to people with different skin pigmentation or even women. However, those things are not inherently disadvantageous. Perhaps we should look to things that do affect educational performance. Things such as poverty, single-parenting, or even mental diseases (as far as tie-breakers go). Those would actually target REAL logistical flaws in educational opportunities.

OPPONENTS CASE:

---What about my respect?


---This entire argument looks to jobs, not college. Furthermore, it announces that we should help people in poverty, however, that is not what affirmative action does. EVEN HE defines it as helping minorities and women. Finally, women can be rich, and Asians (and several other minorities) are richer than several rights, then why do they get benefits ON TOP OF this. Not to mention that some of the poorest kids I know are actually white. Would it be just to put a DOUBLE disadvantage on them? At this point flow through where he asks us to treat people with respect. Alright, too bad my opponent gives NONE!


---Certainly… IF IT IS EARNED! If we just give out free spots, it's like giving out free money in communism. People just stop trying because they know they will get the exact same thing at the end of it all anyway.

---Not at all true. EVEN YOUR DEFINITION calls for an increase, not at least SOME representation. This means INCREASING representation that did not exist before the status quo. Which means you are intentionally choosing a minority/woman over a white man. I think that is good, if that admitted student IS ACTUALLY MORE QUALIFIED.


---Once again, this is not guaranteed. I urge my opponent to show what happens when this is not true. Also, what happens when the opposite is true? Do you have some sort of ‘negative' action?

Thank you to my opponent and I await your next speech!
Debate Round No. 1
fresnoinvasion

Pro

fresnoinvasion forfeited this round.
Johnicle

Con


---I guess I don't see how this proves that affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions. It addresses none of my points.

---Please flow through all of my points as they have gone dropped. Furthermore, I urge the judges, and my opponent, to consider that no new arguments are allowed in your final speech (if you want to be fair that is).

Thanks and good luck!
Debate Round No. 2
fresnoinvasion

Pro

"---I guess I don't see how this proves that affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions. It addresses none of my points.

---Please flow through all of my points as they have gone dropped. Furthermore, I urge the judges, and my opponent, to consider that no new arguments are allowed in your final speech (if you want to be fair that is)."

Oh man, I missed my scheduled online debate... Aw man.. I guess my life will just not be complete without answering this persons arguments. I guess I was just too busy doing meaningful things.

He says no new arguments in the last speech, now isnt that a horrible way to win a debate round? You get a rebuttal to my points, don't cry and complain, debate and shut up.

As a whole his arguments are merely a rant. Oh, and apparently its cool to write some words in all capital letters. But I guess he's cool because he uses the word "contention"

The entire argument is won with the dropped definition. Sure, he attempts to argue what my definition is saying. However, he does not provide a counter definition that is better for the debate, I hold the only definition, you must look at mine. And being that it is dropped, it answers the entirety of my opponents "case".

Dictionary.com defines affirmative action as, "the encouragement of increased representation of women and minority-group member"

On his 1- My definition answers back this argument, the resolution doesnt call for a quota, just encouraging an increase in representation of minorities and women. The resolution doesnt call for a "racial balance", none of these arguments apply so don't listen to them. Yes, good grades and extra-curriculars are what should be weighed most heavily, however with affirmative action it is insured that woman and minorities that have the same grades as the white man do will be accepted into college, something that is not done in the status quo. Because my opponent doesn't understand what affirmative action is, and provides no definition you have to look to the pro. The entire debate is muddled at this point because he makes all of his arguments in the mindset of not understanding the only definition that stands in the debate round. Some arguments may become difficult to follow, but this is merely because the negative team does not understand what affirmative action really is. Prior to making your decision reread the definition I provided, and because it is the only definition in the round you have to look to mine. Look at the definition and you can clearly see that encouraging minority groups admission into college is the right thing to do. This does not mean a quota, this means that we will hold our hands over colleges and look down upon them when they do not pick a minority when his credentials outweigh a whites.

On 2- Affirmative action, by my definition, merely ensures that minorities that have the same or better credentials than a member of the white majority are allowed into college. This stops racist admissions, but is not a quota like your evidence assumes.

On 3- Dropped definition answers the argument. This argument is against the quota, my definition says that minorities will not be unjustly denied because colleges will be encouraged to look to the well credentialed minorities.

On 4- Sure we use affirmative action now, so what? This just proves how effective affirmative action really is. Without pro-affirmative action people pushing their views into the school system we would still live in a racist world. There is racism out there and if you think otherwise you are horribly mistaken. By continuing to use affirmative action in universities we will ensure that racism will not take over once again. The chances may be slim, but when you see that there are no disadvantages to using affirmative action and there is the chance of an advantage of saving the world from racism once again you have to look to the pro.

Obama- Letting racism to take over again by not using affirmative action will stop all progress made in the realm of racism when we can live in a day once again that minorities are looked down upon, to a greater extent.

Reverse Discrimination- It is empirically proven throughout history that racism will exist unless the government does something to stop it. Reverse Discrimination is a ridiculous argument and makes it possible for whites to look down upon the minorities. We work within a capitalist system that disproportionately effects the poor, and excuses such as reverse discrimination used to stop any aid to the poor is what makes our social system so broken. So don't follow this same mindset that we can do nothing to help them without creating discrimination because it is not true.

Inappropriate disadvantages- Sure, we can give aid to those that are poor, single parenting, and mentally ill. But this doesn't argue the fact that affirmative action should not be used as well. Theres no reason why we can't just do both. Minorities are the ones that fill the areas of poverty thus allowing them to be admitted against the racist admitter's wishes is an appropriate thing to do.

My case

You have respect, stop making annoying arguments.

He makes three randomly places arguments in one paragraph
1- "The entire argument looks to jobs, not college"

College helps people get jobs, annoying argument.

2- "we should help people in poverty, however, that is not what affirmative action does. EVEN HE defines it as helping minorities and women"

Your all caps writing is annoying

Minorities are the biggest group that lives in poverty. Because most immigrants came here poor, and society fights against minorities on an every day basis, they remain in poverty. By helping minorities, we help the poor. Sure there are poor white people, but our society makes it much easier for a white male to get a job, or get into college, than any other group.

3- "Finally, women can be rich, and Asians (and several other minorities) are richer than several rights, then why do they get benefits ON TOP OF this. Not to mention that some of the poorest kids I know are actually white. Would it be just to put a DOUBLE disadvantage on them? At this point flow through where he asks us to treat people with respect. Alright, too bad my opponent gives NONE!"

You are probably a really annoying debater in real life too, being that reading your all caps writing makes me mad behind a computer screen, I wouldnt be able to stand you in a real round.

Rich minorities have a better chance of having higher grades.. If we revert to a world that doesnt use the politically correct affirmative action we will risk having racism again, and making the rich women/minorities screwed over once again when it comes to college.

Now apparently I'm a communist? I never said it doesnt have to be earned, affirmative action as defined in this debate round is merely ensuring minorites representation. Unless you think all minorities are stupid and should not be allowed into college, it is clear that this is needed.

Your logic is flawed on the next argument. Stupid actually... Just read the definition, it just ensures there is representation. The increase is then increase from the racist world, not status quo.

His last argument is ignorant. Look to the bad areas in America, they are mostly minorities. In his argument he provides no evidence proving me wrong, therefore you must err aff. Because I dont get a speech to respond it would be abusive to provide any such evidence in his next speech.

Overall, you mostly just have to look to the dropped definition and evaluate the round based on this definition and this definition only, when you do that you can only vote for the aff.

Id say Im looking forward to your next round, but Im really not looking forward how annoying you make debate.
Johnicle

Con

I did have some fun video's to show my opponent why CAPS for emphasis on words is good for debate. However, I ran out of characters from showing how flawed my opponents position is.

My Case

CONTENTION 1:


---Can't this ‘encouragement' be fulfilled by a quota?


---Evidence? Anywhere? If you look to my poverty example however, you will see that obviously they do not have a job or a college admission, because, well they are in poverty. Furthermore, if you actually look to his definition, it just says encouragement of increased representation, but does not say that this increase is earned. He and the definition assume they are equal in qualifications, but in the end, there is no way to know this for sure.

---He makes no direct attacks on my actual arguments. At this point, flow through my arguments. Particularly the quota evidence where he claims that I don't know what affirmative action is. But at the point where one of the few evidence quotes in this debate says that affirmative action leads to quotas and that this is absurd, my arguments stand and affirmative action should not be practiced.

CONTENTION 2:

---You COMPLETELY miss the point of my 2nd contention. By having legislation like hate crimes, affirmative action, special scholarship programs, etc., we actually recognize that all of us are different. However, we are all Americans with similar goals. Why then do we treat each other with different standards?

CONTENTION 3:

---He does not answer my question. "When will the people taken advantage of, by affirmative action, be made up for?" Flow this through. This is unfortunately true. Minorities and women were taken advantage of in the past, but now all that we are doing is reversing this and now we are taking advantage of white males. (Cross-apply this to the Reverse-Discrimination line of arguing)

CONTENTION 4:

<'do both affirmative action and help the poor.' "Theres no reason why we can't just do both">
---There is no reason that we SHOULD do both. When you look to Obama, you will see that there is absolutely no built in disadvantage for minorities and women. However, there is a built in disadvantage for people in poverty. And if you accept this resolution, there is a built in disadvantage for white males as well. We should mitigate this and recognize affirmative action as bad for America.

His ‘case'… I think

DEFINITION OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
---In my opponent's last speech, he pulled through the definition of affirmative action. Note the contradictions however:

-Affirmative Action defined: "the encouragement of increased representation of women and minority-group member"

-(Round 1): "All i have to prove is that all colleges should have to do is ensure that minority groups are represented, no matter how small of representation."

-(Round 3): "Just read the definition, it just ensures there is representation"

---From this, I can assume that we can drop the idea that affirmative action is simply encouragement, but rather, it actually proactively increases their representation. And by doing so, decreases the representation of non-minorities and males.
---My opponent says time and again that we are racist if we don't use affirmative action. But once again, I have no problem admitting minorities, IF IT IS EARNED (flow this through). I have shown time and again that it is actually racist to be blindly increasing representation of minorities and women just to escape racism and sexism. If you look to the definition, it would fit if there was a (white) student with a 36 ACT score vs. a (minority) student with a 12 ACT score, and we accepted the 12 score above. The definition ONLY calls for an increase, nothing more. Is it fair to have such a blind view of racism? I think not.
---Finally, this does not have to be the final definition used in this debate. Cross apply my very first contention where I say through evidence, "Allowing blacks entrance to a university to fill some quota or to enhance the "racial balance" of a campus is absurd" … what this means is that he talks about increasing minorities and women in college, but fails to see that this could very well be meeting some sort of quota.


---Your definition gives no indication, so even according to your ideas from you last speech, it doesn't matter ‘what you said'.


---Again, what if it is not earned? You give nothing to counter this. Furthermore, I urge you to flow through my Barak Obama analysis that clearly shows that we as a society have overcome the racism barrier. Does it still exist? Yes, but currently, it is only legislated against whites and males. And the racism barrier vice versa from this is minor.

---Furthermore, if a minority or a woman thinks that they have not been accepted based on race or sex, they can still sue, but yet white males can not because of affirmative action (see why new arguments in your last speech is bad? But as you say, "debate and shut up")


---But even as you admit, they are not the only ones. Furthermore, several minorities are richer than white people. Not just people like Oprah, but even just the race of Asian. Certainly this has presumptuous ideals, but so does Affirmative Action. WHY do we have to give special legislative rights to people because the pigmentation of their skin is different than mine? It is just something that we should NOT practice.


---Um… no? First of all, there is absolutely no proof to back up this point. But more importantly, look to the special scholarship programs that can be targeted at minorities. But guess what? There are absolutely NO scholarship programs that only white people can obtain. My options for colleges were extremely few and far between because I could not afford to get into the places that I actually wanted to go to. Yet minorities obtain these special scholarships all the time. In a time where our president is black, we no longer need this special legislation.


---No… RICH people have a better chance of having higher grades. This is exactly why we should target people in poverty, not people with different colors of skin. If you are a minority in poverty, then you will get this special treatment. But it would be unjust to say that a white person with the exact same disadvantage gets no special treatment whatsoever.


---A) What if this increased is not earned? Cross-apply my ACT example.
---B) It is a pure assumption that we are still in a racist world that desires this special treatment. Does racism exist? Yes. Does it mean that we have to go out of our way to become REVERSE-discriminatory? No. Why is it, that we can elect a black president


---As you say, "debate and shut up"… Besides, you've provided absolutely NO evidence this entire debate. Except perhaps a definition.

In the end, we should either:

A) No one should get special treatment and we should strictly work off of an equal opportunity, or
B) If we are to give special treatment, it should be given to people in poverty. Either way, affirmative action should NOT be practiced in college admissions.

Even though I don't like how you constantly made fun of me for the stupidest reasons. And your grammar is terrible. I still enjoyed this deba
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by rofflewoffles 8 years ago
rofflewoffles
Due to the fact of you being a complete dick in your third speech, all my votes go to Johnicle. Keep it civil.
Posted by fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
fresnoinvasion
Dear Johnicle,

I appreciate your competence, it is so hard to find it on this website.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by falafel 8 years ago
falafel
fresnoinvasionJohnicleTied
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 Epicism 8 years ago
Epicism
fresnoinvasionJohnicleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 rofflewoffles 8 years ago
rofflewoffles
fresnoinvasionJohnicleTied
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 philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
fresnoinvasionJohnicleTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
fresnoinvasion
fresnoinvasionJohnicleTied
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 Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
fresnoinvasionJohnicleTied
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