The Instigator
debate11
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Tal
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Affirmative action to promote equal opportunity in the United States is justified.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
debate11
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,968 times Debate No: 11281
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

debate11

Con

Anyone can challenge.... Just tryiny to find some knowledge about the CON side
let the round begin
Tal

Pro

Thank you for this debate. I will start off by defining Affirmative Action:

"The term affirmative action refers to policy measures designed to reduce the marginalization of groups that have historically suffered from discrimination, exclusion, or worse, and that are underrepresented in a society's desirable positions. The measures may take the form of public laws, administrative regulations, and court orders, or of practices by private businesses and nonprofit institutions. The underrepresented groups are typically "identity groups" defined in terms of characteristics that are physical or cultural, such as race, caste, tribe, ethnicity, and gender."[1]

While I agree with you that Affirmative Action is unneeded as in a perfect word. However, that is not the debate. I intend to prove that Affirmative Action is still needed today because minorities and women are still disadvantaged in all the areas where Affirmative Action is applicable.

The Encyclopedia of Gender and Society states that "Although explicit measures indicate that sexism and racism are in decline, subtle forms of bias continue to persist. These subtle biases may take the form of unintended preferences for white males. Indeed, white males continue to earn more and are more often promoted compared with women and minorities. One way affirmative action reduces the impact of unintended bias is by implementing monitoring systems within organizations. Monitoring involves examining organizational data (i.e., hiring decisions) on the basis of race and gender as a way to identify inequality before problems arise."[2]

The findings of the last census state that full time female employees make 77� to every dollar men make.[3] This was in 2006. Has things changed so much from 2006 that this is no longer the case? I seriously doubt it.

Furthermore, statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Labor state that "women are underrepresented in higher-status occupations, making up only 9.7 percent of engineers, 32.6 percent of physicians, 31.8 percent of dentists, and 34.1 percent of partners in major law firms. However, women are overrepresented in traditionally female professions that have also historically been accorded less status. For example, women make up 98.4 percent of prekindergarten and kindergarten teachers, 91 percent of registered nurses, 83 percent of librarians, 81.5 percent of elementary school teachers, and 70.3 percent of social workers."[3]

Hopefully this is enough to get started. I await your rebuttal.

[1]nternational Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Ed. William A. Darity, Jr.. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2008. p30.
[2]Encyclopedia of Gender and Society. Ed. Jodi O'Brien. Vol. 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc., 2009. p18-19.
[3]Encyclopedia of Gender and Society. Ed. Jodi O'Brien. Vol. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc., 2009. p617
Debate Round No. 1
debate11

Con

Thanks for accepting this debate. We'll use this round as a consructive debate then starting round 3. I will post my rebuttal. As for the PRO side he can just repost the case as a second speech or nothing if he wants too. So basically I'll post my case and Round 3 will be used as a start of the rebuttals.
Thanks.

Here's my case...

Resolved: Affirmative action to promote equal opportunity in the United States is justified.

The reason why affirmative action is not justified is because affirmative action targets certain people to the fact that we priortize other people before helping others. Which leads me to my first point that... when looking at a level playing field affirmative action doesn't achieve justification.

Contention 1- AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DOES NOT BENEFIT THE VERY POOR

Armstrong Williams, columnist, "Should Black People Let Affirmative Action Die?; Yes." EBONY, January 2008,
p.108+.
There's an old adage: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." We are witnessing the tail end of that
saying with the proverbial pound of cure being our current legal system and penal institutions. If more focus and
dollars are placed in education, especially for those who consistently perform poorly, our society will reap great
monetary re-wards in the form of a significant reduction of necessary funds for the penal system. The current setup
of affirmative action fails to address this issue, however. Instead of redirecting the path of those who need guidance,
affirmative action helps the financially stable receive better opportunities. There's nothing wrong with better
opportunities for the Black middle class, but there's such a thing as prioritizing. We don't need to give hand-outs to
the middle class. But we do need a system that helps get everyone on a level playing field, from the bottom up. I'm
almost certain that once everyone has these opportunities, there will be no need for affirmative action.

As what the card is stating is that we must go from the bottom up to the lower class and equal the playing field for everyone. Not just target certain individuals.

Contention 2- TIME FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION HAS PASSED -- SHOULD ELIMINATE IT

ECONOMIST, "End It, Don't Mend It," April 5, 2003, npg.

The time for affirmative action has passed. A majority of Americans say they oppose using skin colour to allocate
university places and jobs. Across the world, in India, Malaysia, South Africa, and Brazil, racial preferences have
caused needless strife. America's Supreme Court should send a message to the world that it takes seriously the words
of its constitution, which affords "equal protection of the laws" to all its people. Racial preferences are an affront
to this principle, the foundation stone of any decent society.

Affirmative Action has done us a great deal of good and has solved multiple problems. But in todays society we must look to another system such as a merit system were everyone can have an equal opportunity to suceed in their life.

Contention 3- WE SHOULD BASE DECISIONS ON MERIT, NOT RACE
Jonathan Turley, Professor, Law, George Washington University, "It's Not Black and White," USA TODAY,
December 6, 2006, p.21A.
Most Americans are neither racist nor hostile to the ends sought by affirmative action. It remains a question of
means. We have a long way to go to bring down the continuing economic and social barriers for African-Americans.
There is considerable support for programs to assist minority students with extra funds for improving schools,
creating scholarships, and affording greater opportunities to excel on their own merit. There is also broad support
for continuing to offer low-interest loans to minority businesses to help get them into the competitive marketplace.
Nonetheless, there is a valid distinction between programs that "level the field" of competition and programs that
direct its outcome. When it finally comes down to the competition itself between students or businesses vying for
the same goals, the outcome should be based entirely on merit. In other words, we need to draw a clear line between
programs that assist minority students and businesses in reaching the field of competition and those that favor
competitors on the basis of race, gender or religion. That means that some anti-affirmative action measures go too
far. Yet, it is equally wrong when the government moves beyond facilitating and begins manipulating competition.

In conclusion, we cannot use the affirmative action because we have to level the playing field and affirmative action has served its purpose. It's time to move forward in today's society and help everyone achieve and suceed.
Tal

Pro

im going to go ahead and copy my previous statements for the most part as suggested by my opponent.

While I agree with you that Affirmative Action is unneeded as in a perfect word. However, that is not the debate. I intend to prove that Affirmative Action is still needed today because minorities and women are still disadvantaged in all the areas where Affirmative Action is applicable.

The Encyclopedia of Gender and Society states that "Although explicit measures indicate that sexism and racism are in decline, subtle forms of bias continue to persist. These subtle biases may take the form of unintended preferences for white males. Indeed, white males continue to earn more and are more often promoted compared with women and minorities. One way affirmative action reduces the impact of unintended bias is by implementing monitoring systems within organizations. Monitoring involves examining organizational data (i.e., hiring decisions) on the basis of race and gender as a way to identify inequality before problems arise."[2]

The findings of the last census state that full time female employees make 77� to every dollar men make.[3] This was in 2006. Has things changed so much from 2006 that this is no longer the case? I seriously doubt it.

Furthermore, statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Labor state that "women are underrepresented in higher-status occupations, making up only 9.7 percent of engineers, 32.6 percent of physicians, 31.8 percent of dentists, and 34.1 percent of partners in major law firms. However, women are overrepresented in traditionally female professions that have also historically been accorded less status. For example, women make up 98.4 percent of prekindergarten and kindergarten teachers, 91 percent of registered nurses, 83 percent of librarians, 81.5 percent of elementary school teachers, and 70.3 percent of social workers."[3]

[2]Encyclopedia of Gender and Society. Ed. Jodi O'Brien. Vol. 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc., 2009. p18-19.
[3]Encyclopedia of Gender and Society. Ed. Jodi O'Brien. Vol. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc., 2009. p617
Debate Round No. 2
debate11

Con

debate11 forfeited this round.
Tal

Pro

Tal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
debate11

Con

debate11 forfeited this round.
Tal

Pro

Tal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
debate11

Con

debate11 forfeited this round.
Tal

Pro

Tal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Tal 6 years ago
Tal
my citations are not broad btw. they are, if i am correctly informed, the appropriate way to cite
Posted by Tal 6 years ago
Tal
ok... ill try to find more links from the internet. its just i have access to a large amount of texts and i feel the are more reliable overall
Posted by debatergreat 6 years ago
debatergreat
U guyz should cite all your sources at the end...otherwise ur speech is just full of claims but no warrants...which means there are no impacts...
cite all sources exactly (with the exact url) so that your opponent can rebutt to that article...
dont cite it so broadly (eg. "Encyclopedia Brittania" is not helpful at all)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by debate11 6 years ago
debate11
debate11TalTied
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