Should Affirmative Action be Repealed?
Debate Rounds (5)
1st round - acceptance
2nd round - Constructive speech -- do not refute arguments
3rd round - Refute arguments presented in 1st round
4th round - Summary (no new arguments)
5th round - Last statements (no new arguments)
Let's start off with some definitions:
Discrimination: to note or distinguish as different
Affirmative Action: Laws taken to "balance" the workforce, education, and quality of America. Anti-racism laws put in place to fix the discrimination that took place before, during, and briefly after the Civil Rights Movement.
It is time for Affirmative Action laws, requiring businesses, schools, and private institutions to hire A amount of people of B race, C gender, and D religion. Affirmative Action was put in to "solve" discrimination, however, we need to realize that discrimination can be positively influencing a body of people, negatively influencing another body of people.
Contention 1: AA Laws decrease the quality of our education systems
We need to look to American schools here, specifically those selectively admitting. Matt, I'm sure you remember 8th grade Social Studies, specifically when we were learning about affirmative action. I had asked about the county's selective high schools, and whether or not AA laws apply to them. After the teacher nodded, the girl across from me, Holly, (who is african-american) shouted "YES!! IM GETTING INTO BIOTECH!!." We started laughing, but sure enough, she got in. Granted, Holly works hard, studies hard, and deserved to get in, but we need to look to other school districts, specifically the Midwest. The midwest has a lower minority rates than here in the Northeast, and therefore, schools are selective such as Biotech, are forced to admit based on qualities. Affirmative Action laws were set in place to make everyone equal, as if there were no racial standards to begin with, but it is doing just the opposite. If you had a set of applicants who all scored 90 or above on the test, and one hispanic boy scored a 60, he would be admitted over a non-minority student who deserved it. Affirmative Action laws are decreasing the quality of our education by forcing schools to admit minority students who may not be as qualified as non-minority students because of their minority.
Contention 2: AA Laws decrease the quality of our workforce
We need to realize that European nations also have such laws. Specifically, France, who also is pursing a male version of a maternity leave for workers within the nation. This is rather ridiculous, but we need to realize that minorities now have equal benefits (such as a maternity leave) in order to keep them in an even playing field. We must realize that these benefits exist for a reason, but at the same time, there is another extreme. France felt the need to make a statement, saying that the genders are not equal any more -- instead, the minorities now have more benefits than the majorities, which in turn, ADDS discrimination.
Contention 3: AA Laws decrease the quality of our state of mind
I apologize for bringing in morals in a public-forum style debate, but we need to realize that the two previous contentions bring up a safety net for minorities. The minorities do not need to achieve a quality of work that the majorities do, and this leads to a lower quality of work. This lower quality is the safety net -- the minorities realize that they may not need to work as hard to be as successful. It is, perhaps, a booster to minorities, but this booster is too tall -- putting them above majorities.
Based on the previous three contentions we need to realize that Affirmative Action laws are outdated because minorities are now in better positions than majorities when it comes to job applications and schools.
-It's funny how you write as if it were for exempt. speaking.
-I agree with you on some points made on affirmative action.
-For example, your point on the Midwest in contention 1 is spot on.
Thanks, but this isn't quite the structure
-And, yes, it is true that a minority now has an unfair advantage over a non-minority.
This isn't the side you're supposed to be arguing, but whatever.
-Yes, I do agree that affirmative action laws have gotten out of hand.
This isn't the side you're supposed to be arguing, but whatever.
-However, would abolishing them completely benefit the country?
It doesn't matter. The question of today is "Should Affirmative Action be Repealed?". This is discussing the current affirmative action laws, and you have agreed with me that they are out of hand.
-The law signed by John F. Kennedy states that government employers,"not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of their race, creed, color, or national origin."
-This includes public schools and public universities. These laws, in some cases, protect victims of racism and, in some cases, are the cause of unnecessary racism. Let us not keep affirmative action the way it is because, more cases than not, it is the cause of harm and discrimination. However, abolishing them completely would destroy any and all protection from discrimination that minorities and woman already have.
I agree that Affirmative Action should not be kept the way it is and needs to be changed, based on the reasons that I argued in the first round. Since my opponent has not produced any new reasons, and instead has strayed from the format of the debate and (attacked?) discussed my points I strongly urge a pro ballot.
Affirmative Action laws should be repealed for three reasons:
1) They hurt our country's education
2) They hurt our country's workforce
3) They hurt our state of minds.
Our education system is something our country prides itself on, since we are only outclassed by foreign nations in one area: STEM. It is no coincidence that the universities that focus on STEM curriculum have the lowest minority admission. We need to realize that this issue is fixed and done with. For example, the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District in Matawan, NJ, had changed the district system about 9 years ago. Although this is not a true example of Affirmative Action, it shows that schools are making changes on their own and for their own good. Including minorities is great -- that district has grown since the change. However, it does not mean a minority should be given special circumstances because it discriminates against the majorities. In the 1950s, it was a way of evening the playing field, but the field is even. We need to realize that, now, the majorities are the ones being hurt.
My guidance counselor in 7th grade told me that if I wanted to pursue the medical field, I should do it. I am a white male, definitely not a minority. However, she said, if I were to pursue this field, I would be the minority. Even if I didn't have the grades for a school, I may get admitted because I am a minority for these schools.
We can see how minorities are getting unfair advantages over majorities in these cases. Schools are relatively even, now, and my opponent failed to prove otherwise. My opponent failed to reject my claims that affirmative action is outdated. Instead, my opponent pursued the idea that Affirmative Action keeps minorities in check -- however, he failed to recognize that it did keep minorities in check, but with acts and laws such as the No Child Left Behind and Right to Work laws, we need to realize that minorities are in check -- Affirmative Action is no longer necessary.
Majorities are becoming the minorities -- the tables are turning, because of these laws. These laws were set to avert discrimination, but instead, have reached the polar opposite -- encouraging discrimination, but this time, against the majorities. If race truly should not matter, as Martin Luther King, Jr. preached, why are minorities given unfair advantages?
My opponent failed to prove that minorities need additional support on top of laws such as RTW and NCLB. We need to realize that he could not prove it because it is not possible. Back in the 1950s, there were no NCLB laws. Now, the NCLB laws, RTW laws et. al prove that minorities have the support.
Affirmative Action is a crutch supporting a third leg that minorities don't need. As my opponent stated, Affirmative Action is due for change -- the first step is repealing to current, unneccessary, existing laws. My opponent had even supported my thesis, saying that Affirmative Action is not necessary.
Because my opponent failed to reject my thesis, failed to support his points with anecdotes or facts, and failed to reject my reasons,
I STRONGLY URGE A PRO BALLOT. VOTE PRO!
MattHarrison forfeited this round.
My opponent failed to come through with an argument, and therefore, forfeitted the round.
All my arguments stand.
1. A blasphemer
2. A heretic
3. A spawn of Satan
4. A robot sent by aliens to destroy the human race
5. A not very nice person
6. An unattractive person
7. A detestable homosapian
8. A Physically unfit example of solid matter
9. A spiritually/mentally unhealthy mammal guilty of witch-craft
10. Or an illiterate
I believe the choice is clear. Con is the way to go.
P.S. I also make far superior baked-goods than pro does.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.