The NAACP helps African Americans more than it hinders them
Round 1 is an Acceptance and Opinion Round.
Round 2 is for Arguments.
Round 3 is a Conclusion Round
May the best debater be the winner!
In history differences in people separated them, let it be how they talk, how they dress, the God(s) they preached to, or be it the color of their skin. We were separated because new was not always safe.
Fast forward to this day and age, and you can still pick up the remnants of that human trait. This trait that we still carry is not a good trait anymore, and in fact has lead to many problems like racial discrimination.
To fight this, those groups that were being segregated, joined forces and made race based organizations. While this has helped in countless ways in the civil rights movement, times have began changed for the better and these groups use to help, now hinder. Kids are still growing up learning that even now race can tell you what you get easy and what you do not get, companies are being forced to have their workforce composed of a certain make-up of races, even if that person was not the best at their respective job.
While the need to help people get a better education, get out of poverty, get out of crime, are still present, they are human problems and not problems that have fallen to just one race. The NAACP, or National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, was a group that was founded to give equal treatment to a certain race, African American. The NAACP was crucial in the civil rights movement, because of the outcome of that movement, people have come to realize that the color of your skin does not affect the person in that skin, therefore racial discrimination has started a rapid decline.
Needless to say, now has comes the time that the NAACP must understand that helping a group of people because of their skin color is not helping but in fact still being racially discriminate, and in order to move on to a better future we can not have anything that excess to help just one race. Until that day, people will still have to explain why certain people are getting certain treatment, less it be good or bad.
I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this topic, which I believe to be a source of great confusion for many conservatives. I would agree that great progress has been made towards racial equality in recent decades, but we have by no means arrived to the destination of equality yet. My opponent states, “while the need to help people get a better education, get out of poverty, get out of crime, are still present, they are human problems and not problems that have fallen to just one race.” That is true, but there are many problems which fall disproportionately on people of certain races, which easily answers Con’s question as to why certain people are getting certain treatment on the basis of race.
At any rate, for a private organization to attempt to correct disparity by lifting up the unfortunate rather than by dragging the fortunate down does not seem to me to be a problem at all, regardless of what basis they use to do so. The KKK in modern times used exactly that kind of idea to try to justify their existence; essentially claiming they don’t want to hurt anyone but simply want to help out whites. There are certainly millions of disadvantaged and impoverished whites who do need help. The need is great, and again, if a private organization wants to help, I don’t see what the problem would be with giving poor whites educational and financial support, even if they were selected for help on the basis of being white. But as it happens, few believe the KKK, due to a lack of credibility caused by their longstanding track record as a terrorist hate organization. By contrast, the NAACP has earned a far more positive reputation and credibility because of a long track record of helping the needy and not hurting anyone.
If I understand my opponent (if I’m mistaken, please correct me), he would like to argue that not only is the NAACP no longer needed, in fact by virtue of its own existence, on net it perpetuates discrimination and injustice more than it diminishes it. By all means, I look forward to hearing his case in full, and considering his evidence. As Pro, until I can present my full case, I will simply take the position that unless Con can present us with evidence that they are lying, we ought to take the default position that, as they claim to, the NAACP is concerned with fighting for social justice for all Americans .
We ought to take the default position that, as they claim to, the NAACP is concerned with fighting for social justice for all Americans" says my opposition. Yes the NAACP tells us that, however when looking at crimes that are black on white, like the beatings at Church and Brambleton (1). The attack which was a group of 30 black teenagers beat up 2 white individuals. The attackers have gotten away because the law, quote "told them the attackers were "probably juveniles anyway. What are we going to do? Find their parents and tell them?". Where is the NAACP on this crime if they stand for social justice for all? The NAACP will easily step in when they perceive that the law has not done its job on a white on black case, like Trayvon Martin case in which they state "The most fundamental of civil rights — the right to life — was violated the night George Zimmerman stalked and then took the life of Trayvon Martin." (2).
The previous paragraph might give the impression that I am a racist person, per contra, that can not be farther from the truth. I want to prove that, through this debate, I can, with others help start to close the race gap. Until race is not used at all as a factor, there can not be truly equal rights. "There are many problems which fall disproportionately on people of certain races" states the Pro, however. True as this may be there are also different factors that could be used to help them with there problems. For example, the use of the welfare system is a way to help one self get out of poverty and start a better life style. Use of food stamps, to get food for when your income is not enough. The use of race to try to better one's self only because there are more problems on that race is not going to help teach children, the future generation, on why race can get treated differently, for better or worse.
Another item that is not helping anyone is affirmative action using race, which using Merriam-Webster for anyone that does not know what it is or is confused, is an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women. Yes it could help the minorities, needless to say, it can hurt them. It can teach children that success is labeled as result of affirmative action rather than hard work and ability.
Before people that argue race based affirmative action is extremely necessary, I will give an example on how one can ask for help and get it based on traits that are not including their race. The person is an male that is going to be the first person in his family to attend college, his grades were very high, however his family makes below the poverty line. Race type will not be brought up because this family is not specific to one race, and giving the same families different treatments based on race is still being racist anyway you look at it.
Best of luck to my opponent :)
1 - http://hamptonroads.com...
2 - https://naacp.org...
Thank you, Con. I'll take a moment to acknowledge what I consider to be your sincere desire to bridge the racial divide, and alleviate fear, suffering, and isolation for people of all races – a desire which both I and the NAACP share, irrespective of whether we all agree upon using exactly the same methods. But this debate is not about you, of course.
This debate is also is not about affirmative action or welfare, as it happens. At the moment we are only discussing the NAACP, and whether or not they have a net positive impact on African Americans. There is therefore very little from Con’s last round for me to refute. His core assertion seems to have been that “Until race is not used at all as a factor, there can not be truly equal rights”. This was merely a bare assertion. No attempt made to support or justify it.
I will thus continue to build on my own case with a brief history of the NAACP. It is no secret that America has grappled with problems of racism throughout its existence. Albert Einstein, a member of the NAACP during the 1940’s called racism “America's worst disease” . From its incorporation in 1911, the NAACP has been a diverse (the founders were mostly Jewish), fearless, tireless, and highly effective proponent of an egalitarian society in which hatred and discrimination are abolished. Through litigation, the organization spearheaded battles to end segregation, disenfranchisement, and bring once powerful hate groups to justice. The landmark case Brown vs. Board of education was fought by the NAACP, for example. In part because of their efforts, it is much easier for African Americans to vote than it once was. They are able to go to the same schools, use the same bathrooms, and drink from the same fountains as whites, which was not possible just a generation or two ago . Unfortunately, it still appears that a black male walking in a predominantly white neighborhood is suspicious enough that a citizen is entirely within his legal rights to stalk, confront, and kill such a black teen .
Consistent with an organization concerned with fighting for the social justice for all Americans, the NAACP have firmly thrown their support behind the LGBT community . Today, much of their effort is directed towards youth and education outreach programs in underprivileged neighborhoods, and children of any race are welcome to use these facilities and enroll in workshops. The concern of the NAACP is not only with respect to race, but even if it were, that doesn't do anything for Con's case unless he shows blacks would be better off without the NAACP.
Source 1 from Con’s last round seems to have no clear connection at all to the NAACP or to the resolution, and thus is irrelevant to this debate and should be ignored. Source 2 seems to be a dead link. Here are my sources:
I will make this round quick. I first want to again tell the Pro that I brought up that race must not be used as a factor in deciding items or choices because it will teach children that race does not change your life, for better or worse. That is why I brought up that point.
Another point I would like to defend is that almost all of what the Pro said was about the NAACP past, and not the present and future. While, yes the NAACP is helping LGBT groups which is great, there main focus is still the treatment of Colored People, for if it was not then you would suppose that they could change their name.
I have already used my round to debate so I will stop now with the debating.
I would like to thank Calculatedr1sk for his extreme well put together debate. I wish him peace and long and happy days. Thank you again.
Thank you for your kind words, Con. I wish you all the best, and hope we’ll have the opportunity to debate again soon.
As for this debate, I did meet my burden of proof by demonstrating that the NAACP has (even if it was in the past) played an important and helpful role for blacks in America, even if they did so on the basis of race. The burden then shifts to Con to demonstrate why they might have at one point been a great help, but that now something has changed to the point where they on net cause hurt to African Americans. He did not do this.
Even if you as the voter fully agree with my opponent, and indeed, even if you knew from your own research that beyond all reasonable doubt the facts proved his position and disprove mine, it still would not warrant a vote for my opponent because he never presented such evidence in this debate. In this debate, the points he brought up were only just that – brought up. Few or none of the issues he raised were ever actually developed into arguments which were relevant to the resolution.
For anyone confused about why I brought up the seeming non-sequitur of the NAACP’s support of LGBT, it was because I had anticipated a possible line of attack from Con. His contention might have been that because the sole focus of the NAACP is racial support for blacks, it loses credibly and is now impotent (net help to African Americans is thus = zero) or even that their support for racial reasons causes backlash against blacks by angry non-blacks (net help to African Americans thus < zero). To defeat this line of argument before it even appeared, I showed that race was not their sole focus. At any rate, the attack never came, and it may not have even occurred to him. But by supporting the position taken by the NAACP, which again is that the organization is concerned with social justice for all Americans, I had a defense ready to go against Con’s possible attack.
I attacked Con’s sources, but he did not protect them. I also provided sources of my own that I believe were sufficient to win in that category.
I thank readers for your interest, and for the reasons I have discussed, I ask for your vote in the categories of most convincing arguments and sources. Best wishes, Con.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|