The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

US Universities Should be Required to Give Preference to Applicants of Underrepresented Minorities

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/13/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,799 times Debate No: 79592
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (0)




I made this debate so, "only a member who is ranked as good or better than me" can accept (to avoid forfeits mainly).

R1: This/Con Opening Arguments
R2: Pro Opening Arguments (no rebuttals)/Con Rebuttals
R3: Pro Rebuttals/Con Defense & Conclusion (no new arguments)
R4: Pro Defense & Conclusion (no new arguments)/Con posts "end of debate"

Underrepresented Minorities: A racial group that is represented at a lower rate at a university than it is at the population at large.

For example, if Harvard has a lower percentage of blacks than there are in the population, Harvard is required to give preference to accepting black students.


I accept, but the round format you posted is impossible to follow since you are con. Everything has to shift half a round forward and there will be no final post of "end of debate"

I am only arguing in terms of admission to medical universities since that admission process is the only one I have spent much time looking into. I definitely agree with rules mandating preference being given to URMs and will make my opening argument next round.
Debate Round No. 1


Yeah, I see what I did, I forgot to fix the formatting. Oh well, let's get started.

Racial Preference Doesn’t Account for Economic Status:
Asians and Whites tend to be overrepresented at top level universities in the US compared to Hispanics and Blacks who are underrepresented. This means that under the resolution Pro is arguing for, most universities should give preference to Hispanics and Blacks over Asian and White students. This is problematic because a Black or Hispanic person is not always worse off than an Asian or White person, so rich Blacks and Hispanics will have advantages over poor Whites and Asians.
In 2009 it was found that 11.7% of Asians and 11.4% of Whites in the US live in a household with under $15,000 a year in income. Meanwhile, 9.3% of Blacks and 11.7% of Hispanics live in households with incomes over $100,000 a year. (1) Even though it may not be a lot compared to their racial group as a whole, these poor Asians/Whites and rich Hispanics/Blacks still exist, and by giving preference to these rich folks you are hurting the poor people who did not have the same opportunities, just because their race does better on average.

In fact, this is happening right now in the US with its Affirmative Action. It’s been observed that many poor Whites and Asians have been disadvantaged due to AA. Even worse, the racial preferences have been found mainly to benefit minorities of middle and upper middle class backgrounds. (2) This is also happening at Harvard, (often considered the US’s top university) where they found about 2/3 of their Black student population were either African or West Indian immigrants (or their children) or only partly Black. (3) Studies have also shown similar results at elite American universities. (4) These Blacks didn’t have routes in slavery or have to deal with discrimination for generations and they usually don’t live in ghettos either. In fact, these immigrants are often seen as “model minorities”, much like Asians are. (4, 5) Overall, even though it is clear that Blacks and Hispanics recieve clear benefits in the application process to universities, poor students were found to receive very little if any benefits. (6)
It’s clear that giving preference to underrepresented to minorities is a mistake, because there are enough rich Blacks and Hispanics and enough poor Whites and Asians to fill their quota. All this does, is disadvantage poor and provide an extra boost to the rich.

Mismatch Effect:
A problem with giving preference to underrepresented minorities is that these students, who may otherwise have been rejected from an elite university, are unable to handle the harder work load.
Currently, Blacks and Hispanics with lower SAT scores or MCAT and GPAs (for those applying to med. school) are more likely to get in than most people are. This means that they were probably inferior students compared to those who may have got in if not for racial preference. In fact, this has been seen as Black dropout rates of universities are often much higher than White dropout rates. Plus, Blacks are 4 times more likely to fail the Bar Exam (for law school students) and half of Black college students rank in the bottom 20% of their classes. (7)
This clearly shows a problem with giving underrepresented minorities an advantage, since they usually cannot live up to the advantage given to them.

Reverse Discrimination:
By giving preferences to Blacks and Hispanics, you are discriminating against Asians and Whites. The evidence for this is pretty clear. Despite the fact that Asians and Whites scored substantially better on tests such as the SAT than did Blacks and Hispanics, they get rejected more often. (8) Also, Asians and Whites typically participate in more extra-curricular activities, and Asians especially are known for going above and beyond to make top schools. (9, 10)
This is a huge problem because these people who did nothing wrong, despite being born as an Asian or White person, have to face much harder times in getting into top universities. One of the main arguments for giving underrepresented minorities an advantage is that it is to help end discrimination, yet it requires discrimination, especially against Asians (a minority in the US).

Asians Faced Discrimination Too:

Since Asians are overrepresented at top universities than Whites in the US, Whites are given preference over Asians at universities. One of the main reasons people think Blacks and Hispanics should be given preference is due to discrimination they’ve faced and continue to face. However, it is undeniable that historically and today Asians have been discriminated against and face stereotyping more than Whites have/do.














Your first argument is correct, but not particularly relevant. Medical school admissions committees give special consideration to the socio-economically disadvantaged. There is a part of the application dedicated to that part of your history. Additionally, socio-economically disadvantaged prospective medical students are eligible for assistance programs in preparation for the MCAT and receive discounts on their examination fees.

The point of racial preference is not to provide a benefit to URM students, it is for the benefit of the patients. The benefit is multi-fold.
1) It ensures that doctors in training are not insulated in an environment of only white and ORM(over-represented minority) students. This leads to physicians with less likelihood of racial bias. This is currently a problem that we are working on. Part of the education at my medical school centers around ensuring that we treat all patients equally, but unconscious biases tend to color the decisions made by physicians. For example, an average physician is more likely to prescribe appropriate doses of pain medication to a white patient than to a black patient, and we think this is due to racial bias. It may be the case that many physicians subconsciously think of black people as drug abusers, so having a diverse environment, even if it is only superficially diverse, in the medical school may help prevent this problem from persevering.
2) Many minority patients feel more comfortable with a doctor that represents their particular minority. Black patients are often more comfortable with black physicians and Hispanic patients are often more comfortable with Hispanic physicians, especially if the physician speaks Spanish. Some patients will even refuse care based on the race of the providers, so having physicians of all races in a hospital saves lives.

3) URM physicians are far more likely to work in underserved areas than are white or ORM physicians.

4) Having representation from all ethnicities in this profession provides role models for minority youths.
(I have no source for this, but it seems prima facie true.)

Another problem with this argument is it seems like you think that having certain scores means that medical schools owe you admission. This is not the case. Medical schools admit the people who they think will provide the most benefit to their future patients. A GPA and MCAT score tell them about your odds of surviving medical school, but they do not tell the admissions committees about your odds of being the best care provider.

Your second argument is patently false when talking about medical schools.. You say that they usually cannot live up to the advantage they were given, but you fail to cite any data regarding medical school dropout rates. Here is the relevant data:
Rate of attrition by race:
Native American: 4.3%
Asian: .9%
Black: 6.7%
Hispanic: 3.4%
White: .7%

You can manipulate this data to say things like "black students are almost 10 times as likely as white students to drop out of medical school", but when we are talking about such a small dropout rate, relative rates are not relevant or helpful to demonstrating the reality of the situation. The reality is that 93.3% of the people in a group you asserted are usually unable to live up to the advantage given to them do in fact live up to it.

Your third argument is just more of your first argument and already rebutted.

Your fourth argument is just more of your first argument and already rebutted.

In conclusion, racial discrimination in admission to medical school is actually a good thing. It improves medical care for the patients and does not have any significant effect on the rate of attrition by students.
Debate Round No. 2


I know I messed up when I laid out the outline of the debate, but Pro said in the 1st round, “Everything has to shift half a round forward". Essentially, he accepted the format with everything shifted forward. That means the 2nd round for Pro was meant for: “Pro Opening Arguments (no rebuttals)”. The thing is, his whole response was basically rebuttals. If this doesn’t warrant automatic loss, it definitely warrants the conduct point being stripped from Pro.

Economic Status:

Pro’s argument here is useless. He chooses to focus just on medical schools, even though the resolution accounts for US universities as whole, including, but not exclusive to, medical schools. For this reason, I could leave everything here blank and most of my arguments would stand, but I’ll address his claims anyway.

Pro starts off saying that medical schools give preference to poorer people. However, according to the resolution they’ll still have to give preference to URMs, so it still means rich Blacks and Hispanics will have certain advantages.

Pro also asserts that giving preference to URMs is done to help patients (in medical school cases, still doesn’t come close to justifying it for other universities). However, Pro fails to explain why that is preferred. He provides no explanation why we should do that, when kids who may work a lot harder to try and get to med. school are rejected, for someone who perhaps didn’t work as hard.

1) Pro mentions that physicians may face racial bias. However, this study was done in a time when Affirmative Action was in action, so one could argue that it’s not even working. As shown last round, schools are much more generous to Blacks and Hispanics, so the med. schools are doing everything they can, yet the racial bias is still occurring. Perhaps these White Physicians went through med. school and simply thought the Black and Hispanic students wouldn’t have been accepted if not for racial AA.

2) Pro acts like without giving certain races preferences there’d be no Black doctors. If a minority patient wants a doctor of the same race, the same doctor likely would have just gone to a 2nd tier school (like a White person with similar grades would have) instead of a top tier school. If anything, there may be more Black doctors, since there’d be less Blacks dropping out from being mismatched (more on that in the 2nd argument).

3) Pro mentions that URMs work in worse areas generally. He doesn’t really explain why it’s relevant to the topic.

4) Pro also says having doctors of all races will create role models. This is a pretty minor issue, but again, it’s not like Black or Hispanic doctors will go away if race based AA is ended. Perhaps there’d be more, since the Black and Hispanic students would have a better chance at success in a university

Finally, Pro accuses me of “think[ing] that having certain scores means that medical schools owe you admission.” He says after that, “Medical schools admit the people who they think will provide the most benefit to their future patients.” I won’t disagree with that. In fact, if Pro truly believes that, then his logic is not consistent. Let’s say there’s 10 spots for a med. school, and there are 10 great candidates, who the med. school admissions board think will be great care providers, but they’re all White or Asian. Meanwhile, there are 5 mediocre candidates, who the med. school think will simply be okay for their patients, but they’re all Black or Hispanic. According to the resolution Pro argues for, they’d have to reject some of the great White/Asian candidates for the mediocre Black/Hispanic students. They’d literally owe these mediocre students admissions, due to the resolution Pro’s arguing for, yet he accuses me of thinking med. schools owe some people admission.

Mismatch Effect:

Pro is basically trying to hijack the debate with his med. school info. I agreed that med. schools can be considered universities for the debate, but he’s trying to close the debate entirely in on them. By ignoring the majority of my claims, it’s essentially concession to them.

Pro also doesn’t account for class rank at all, while I mentioned Blacks typically place towards the bottom in university classes last round and Pro provided no reason for us to assume it’d be different in med. school only showing that most Blacks don’t drop out. Not dropping out is not enough reason to assume that these Blacks are living up to the advantages given to them. Plus, 6.7% of Blacks dropping out compared to 0.7% of Whites is still concerning, and Black dropout rates would likely be a lot closer to White dropout rates if they weren’t being mismatched.

Overall, Pro did absolutely nothing worthwhile to defeat this argument. All he did was show the wide majority of Blacks don’t drop out of med. school. That doesn’t account for how well they’ll do in the classroom or in a career as a result. Yet I showed data last round, looking at a wider range of schools, showing Blacks often are towards the bottom of their class, because they are being mismatched due to their race.

Reverse Discrimination:

Once again though, the resolution accounts for US universities as a whole.


Let’s look back to one of Pro’s rebuttals to my 1st argument. “It ensures that doctors in training are not insulated in an environment of only white and ORM students”. How exactly is favouring Whites over Asians going to help that? There are barely any Asians in the US compared to Whites, so for an Asian to be over-represented, there’d need to be a lot less Asians than Whites. If more Asians became doctors over Whites, not much, if anything would change, all doctors wouldn’t all of a sudden be Asian. So why should a race who has and continue to face discrimination be favoured over the majority race?



Let's address Con's issues with my conduct and focus first:

Before I accepted the argument, I asked Con the following:
"Are you arguing that no university should be required to give preference to URM's? If so, are you including medical universities in this category?"

To which Con replied:

I worded this in this way for a reason. This wording means that if it can be shown that any type of university should be required to give preference to URMs then Con has lost the debate. Con agreed to the idea that his argument must encompass all universities.

As to my conduct in terms of giving rebuttals in the first rounds, yes I suppose I broke Con's rule there, but I would suggest that con calling for an automatic win and mischaracterizing my response as only rebuttals is also poor conduct. My response was a good mix of rebuttals and arguments, it just so happens that the arguments I make happen to fit as rebuttals to Con because Con made the same arguments most people who don't understand the benefit of URM preference make.

On to the rebuttals:

Con accuses me of not explaining why helping patients is preferred when choosing who to admit to a medical school. Should I also explain why food is preferred when hungry?

1: I argued that having classmates of various ethnicities can help reduce biases that students already had before entering medical school, not that physicians face bias.

2: I never said that there would be no black doctors without race based admissions, but there would be fewer of a group that is already significantly underrepresented. This would be bad for the patients as I demonstrated in my opening.

3: I said underserved, not worse. An underserved area is an area where there are too few physicians, typically because physicians do not want to work there. Adding an Emergency Medicine doctor to a place that has too few physicians is going to make a big difference. The white kid who had that spot in medical school and chooses to work in a whitewashed area as a specialist will make almost no difference at all. Medical schools aim to improve patient outcomes, and enrolling people who will go where they are most effective is part of that.

4: I will address this later since it just speaks to the fallacious mismatch argument Con put forth.

Unnumbered: There are many problems with Con's thinking here. First, as I already addressed there is an intrinsic benefit to patients from black physicians. These doctors fill an unmet need while white physicians pretty much just fill a job. A great General Practitioner in Harlem makes a hell of a difference while a great Plastic Surgeon in Greenwich makes almost no difference. High tier students typically pursue roles like plastic surgery while mid-low tier students pursue more generalized roles. Both tiers typically end up in slots they are great at, so while the mid tier student might make a pousy plastic surgeon, the student can be a great GP. Second, American medical schools only admit people they think have the potential to be great physicians. Caribbean schools will admit anyone, but if you are accepted into an American medical school they think you can be great. Since these standards remain high, we still have a significant shortage of black physicians despite the bias in admissions. If they would recruit people who would be mediocre physicians, the gap would disappear. I am not sure if you know just how many people apply to medical schools each year, but it is more than twice as many applying as can be accepted. Of those rejected, a significant amount could have made it through medical school, but the bar is set so high that medical schools virtually guarantee that people entering will graduate.

Mismatch effect:
First off, ignoring a claim is not the same as conceding it. I started off by saying that I lack sufficient information to make any claims about universities other than medical ones. I therefore neither accept nor reject the claims you made about other universities. That said, they are irrelevant to you winning or losing the debate. Based on the terms you agreed to before the debate, if I can show that medical universities should be required to give preference to URMs, I win.

You claim that these students would be performing better at different universities if they were matched appropriately. I would like you to demonstrate that claim. Medical school is not like undergrad. In medical school, all students are being prepared for the same board exams. People at Harvard will take the same board exams as people at any state university. In undergrad, yes there are some schools that teach at a higher level than others, but in medical school you are already being taught things at the highest level. Additionally, in undergrad, if you fail out, they just let it happen. In medical school, the school will bust its butt trying to keep you from failing out. There is no reason to suspect a person dropping out of one school would have been successful at another.

Overall, Con did absolutely nothing worthwhile to defeat my arguments. All he did was complain about race based admissions, imply that patient outcomes don't matter, and made some unjustified assumptions about how medical school works.

Asians: I never suggested we should favor whites over Asians.

To recap thus far:
1) Tries to win on a technicality.
2) Does not want to argue on the terms we agreed to before the debate
3) Points out that race based admission is discriminatory(this is a tautology)
4) Since it was shown that black medical students are almost identically likely to graduate as any other race, Con wants to argue that the marginal difference is enough to discount the benefits of having black doctors.
5) Seems to change his mind about whether it is the outcome for the patient that matters most depending on which point he is trying to make.
6) Keeps coming back to the argument that it is unfair to the students, but I already conceded that and said it is irrelevant.

1) Demonstrated that there are clear advantages for black patients if we increase the number of black physicians both direct(the patients literally have a better outcome with a black doctor because they will trust the doctor more) and indirect (by helping to diminish biases that students bring with them to medical school)
2) Demonstrated that black physicians are of benefit to the community by demonstrating that they will go to the areas most in need of more physicians.
3) Demonstrated that the people admitted to medical school, in general, will be successful.

Since the most important role of a medical university is to provide physicians to meet the medical needs of the patients, they should be required to do their best to achieve this goal. Since it can be shown, via the evidence I posted in my opening, that having race based admissions is greatly beneficial to this end, they should be required at medical universities.
Debate Round No. 3


Alright Pro seems to have trouble comprehending a basic resolution and is basically changing it so he can win. He thinks all he needs to do is prove medical schools should accept URMs, because they’re universities. Plus, voters are not suppose to vote based on something in the comment section (only inside the debate), so exact wording is not important. Also, Pro holds a ridiculous double standard, stating “Con agreed to the idea that his argument must encompass all universities”, yet apparently he doesn’t need to. He can just account for medical schools for whatever reason. Even though the resolution is clearly referring to universities as a whole, he doesn’t have to justify it for regular universities or law schools (which makeup a larger portion of universities than medical schools do). That’d be like if the resolution was: “The United States should Ban Abortions”, but Pro only argued for banning late term abortions and then claimed to win. Since Pro can’t introduce new arguments in the next round, he basically conceded all my arguments that don’t apply to Med. School (namely economic status). For this reason I should win no matter what Pro does next round, but again I’ll defend my claims anyways.

Also, Pro’s justification for my conduct being bad is absolutely ridiculous. He admits he broke an accepted rule. That throws the whole debate off course and even if it doesn’t warrant automatic loss, should warrant a loss of conduct like I said. This is very common voting practice and really common sense. The rules I stated were required to be followed by anyone accepting, and Pro brushing it aside is simply a joke. By his standards, he could introduce a whole set of new arguments next round, I cannot possibly respond to, and they’d all stand.

Economic Status:

  1. Pro’s doesn’t even rebut my claims. I talked about how these physicians face produce against Blacks in a society where URMs are already given preference and provided a reason physicians maybe racist due to AA making them inherently view Blacks as inferior, since the ones they know were given unfair advantages. Pro’s only response was, “I argued that having classmates of various ethnicities can help reduce biases that students already had before entering medical school, not that physicians face bias.” So I guess he decided not to read my response, since it was quite clear it applies as a rebuttal to this. This rebuttal makes me think he basically wanted to sidestep it and will address it next round when I cannot respond to it. Regardless, my claim stands.

  2. Pro automatically assumes there would be less Black doctors if race wasn’t involved in admission. Again though, the Black dropout rate (which Pro showed is relatively much, much higher than Whites) may be lower, so more Blacks would be graduating and those who don’t go to a top tier medical school may end up going to a lower end medical school.

  3. Pro basically argues that because Blacks are going to work in a place where there are less doctors, more should be accepted. Again this is a weak argument and it automatically assumes again that there will be significantly less Black doctors and that by requiring universities to accept more Black students is the answer. Also, what about a state like Idaho that doesn’t have major Black areas? Since it’s reasonable to assume a medical school grad from a university in Idaho is going to work in Idaho, why do they need to accept more Blacks? Since the resolution is always referring to the US, it has to try and match the American rate of Blacks, which is much higher than some states.


Again, Pro seems to assume that all of a sudden there will be significantly less Black doctors and makes many unsupported claims. Also Pro says that Med. Schools will only admit students they think will be great. Again, that doesn’t rebut my claim that what if there aren’t enough great Black and Hispanic doctors to fill the quota, so they’re forced to accept students who aren’t great. Why should Harvard’s Medical School accept mediocre students when a relatively mediocre medical school is more likely to? Harvard Med. School is an elite private university and wants their school to have the best students they can have, which means they shouldn’t potentially be forced to accept more mediocre students.

Mismatch Effect:

More of Pro trying to cheat to victory by changing the resolution to start off here. Pro claims that since he only knows about medical schools all other information is relevant, even though I only accepted medical schools are a type of information. Pro also doesn’t know it’s standard in debate to consider silence concession. So once again, he concedes my point about non-medical schools.

I brought up the significance of a 6% difference in dropout rates last round between Blacks and Whites, but Pro doesn’t bother rebutting it. Also Pro wanted more proof of mismatch in medical schools so I’ll provide it. Minority students were more likely to fail the first step of their USMLE or United States Medical Licensing Exam. In fact, the difference between Whites and Blacks in passing the 1st part of the exam the 1st try was huge, with Whites passing 93.4% of the time and Blacks only passing 58.2% of the time a 35.2% difference. (1) This was likely due to mismatch. It’s harder to keep up when you are at a medical school less suited for you as I already demonstrated at regular and law universities as well.


Voters, even if all my other points are defeated I just won the debate on this point. Pro’s only response to my concern regarding this point was, “I never suggested we should favor whites over Asians.” Since new arguments cannot be presented this round, that is Pro’s only rebuttal to this. This is a huge problem for Pro, since Asians are ORMs, even over Whites at medical schools (and all other universities). (2) Since Pro’s arguments mainly come due to improving patient experience with more minorities, how is making more White doctors at the risk of Asians doing that? Pro will probably try to dismiss this is as nitpicking or insignificant, but it is significant for the Asians in the population. My point that AA is discrimination against Asians stands.


Since Pro never rebutted one of my contentions, ignored a bunch of my arguments because they weren’t related to med. schools, saw his arguments fail to stand under rebuttal, ignored the rules set out at the start, and tried to claim an unfair advantage I clearly won this debate’s argument points and conduct points.






Con agreed to the very specific phrasing I used in the comments section. I asked if his argument was equivalent to stating that "no university should be required to give preference to URM's". I am sorry that his grasp of the english language has apparently failed him here because agreeing to that means he must demonstrate that there should be a universal ban on this type of requirement. Thus for him to fail, I only needed to show that there exists any university that should be required to give preference. I would not have accepted the debate had con told me that he did not accept that interpretation of his stance. That said, he accepted it, so he was then required to prove that no university should be required to give preference to URMs. Con completely failed to do this for medical schools and instead focused on arguments that did not matter and attempts to try to win on technicalities, not on the strength of his arguments. I have already refuted every rebuttal Con offered in the final round, so this will seem like a bit of copy and paste. That said, Con's last round seemed like a copy and paste of his previous rounds.

"Alright Pro seems to have trouble comprehending a basic resolution and is basically changing it so he can win. He thinks all he needs to do is prove medical schools should accept URMs, because they"re universities. Plus, voters are not suppose to vote based on something in the comment section (only inside the debate), so exact wording is not important. Also, Pro holds a ridiculous double standard, stating "Con agreed to the idea that his argument must encompass all universities", yet apparently he doesn"t need to. He can just account for medical schools for whatever reason. Even though the resolution is clearly referring to universities as a whole, he doesn"t have to justify it for regular universities or law schools (which makeup a larger portion of universities than medical schools do). That"d be like if the resolution was: "The United States should Ban Abortions", but Pro only argued for banning late term abortions and then claimed to win. Since Pro can"t introduce new arguments in the next round, he basically conceded all my arguments that don"t apply to Med. School (namely economic status). For this reason I should win no matter what Pro does next round, but again I"ll defend my claims anyways."
This is just stupid. We agreed to the terms of the debate in the comments section and then you tried to change them in the debate and declared victory for doing so. This is very dishonest and quite frankly seems like cheating.

Con is literally trying to debate as if he did not accept the specific wording I used in the comments to verify what we would be debating. I asked that so I would know if this was a debate worth engaging in and he agreed to my terms. He then pretended that never happened once the debate started. His conduct basically meant that I was debating the topic we agreed to and he was debating the topic he wished we agreed to.

To Con's "Economic Status" rebuttal:
His point does not stand. It was completely irrelevant. He kept arguing how unfair this system is to poor people. First of all, that is completely irrelevant to any of my points which were patient oriented, not student oriented. Second, he seems to have completely ignored the fact that special consideration is given to poor people which I already pointed out.

"Pro automatically assumes there would be less Black doctors if race wasn"t involved in admission. Again though, the Black dropout rate (which Pro showed is relatively much, much higher than Whites) may be lower, so more Blacks would be graduating and those who don"t go to a top tier medical school may end up going to a lower end medical school."
Con never demonstrated that going to a different university would have made a difference in dropout rates. I pointed out that all physicians must pass the same exams to become doctors. Con needed to give evidence to back up both this claim that the URM students drop out because of the schools they are placed into and the dependent claim that not giving preference would have actually led to more doctors, and he failed to do so.

I demonstrated that black graduates will work in underserved areas. This is not a weak argument, it is a demonstrated fact that Con's assumptions do nothing to disprove. Con would have needed actual data to disprove this as opposed to making silly assumptions like claiming that Idaho has no areas with lots of black people therefore their medical schools accepting black people won't help. Even if Con's premise here were true, the conclusion would not follow unless he could also demonstrate that black students at medical universities in Idaho did not follow the trend I showed using actual data.

To Con's "Unnumbered" Rebuttal:
Giving preference does not mean automatic acceptance. Again, I am sorry that Con is having trouble understanding the words he agreed to. Preference only improves the candidate's chances of acceptance, it does not mean that someone who had an abysmal resume must be accepted.

To Con's "Mismatch Effect:" Rebuttal:

First off, Con did not bring up the difference in their rates of dropout, I did. I brought it up because it is such a small number that the only way to make it seem significant is to look at the relative dropout rate as opposed to the absolute difference. Second, I don't care what is considered standard in the debate format Con is used to regarding concession. If Con feels like bringing up irrelevant things, I am not obligated to even mention them. Under the standard that not rebutting=accepting, Con could fill up the 10,000 character limit with arguments which would then make it impossible for me to address them all. Third, this is Con trying to cheat for the reasons I already discussed. Fourth, Con gives no justification for thinking that this "mismatch effect" is why black students are less likely to pass the step 1 on their first attempt. He makes an assumption then does not back it up with relevant data. All students at all MD medical schools take this test, so it would seem that Con is trying to argue that being at a more highly ranked university means you will receive less preparation than if you were at a lower ranked one. I already pointed out that a comparison based on the in house exams in undergraduate universities is irrelevant because those exams are often harder as you move up to harder schools, but the main exams in medical school are the same regardless of the school you go to. Fifth, the study Con referenced showed that 96.7% of students who initially failed Step 1 ended up graduating. Now, Con might not understand the significance of failing this test on the first attempt, and that is fair. I would not expect him to. Failing this test on the first attempt does not mean you will be a bad doctor, all it means is that you are unlikely to be accepted to high end specialties. If your aim is to become a generalist, then your path is not at all impacted, and these URM generalists are exactly what we need in the underserved areas.

To Con's "Asians" Rebuttal:
Once again Con tried to insert some sort of "I win on a technicality". He has been saying it throughout the debate, so it is not a surprise that he is trying to rely on that here too instead of the strength of any argument. On the actual point Con was trying to make here, I do not see one. His statements in this section do not form a cohesive or even coherent argument. I cannot see what he is even trying to say here. He makes some rambling points about taking white doctors over Asian doctors presumably calling white people URMs because of Asians being ORMs, but both are well represented groups. Con is not nit picking here, con is just rambling and probably trying to once again bring up his point about unfairness which I already explained many times is not relevant.

I have refuted every single assertion con made, sometimes more than once because Con kept throwing the same arguments out over and over. Con tried to cheat by agreeing to terms of the debate in the comments, a practice I see often on this site, and then pretending that discussion never happened during the debate.

Con has failed to demonstrate understanding of why it is important to increase the recruitment of URM physicians and instead of addressing that in any meaningful way, he kept trying to show how URM preference is unfair to students. By his standards, he has conceded the point that increasing URM admission will improve patient care, but even if he didn't, he did nothing to dismiss that assertion while I showed proof that it improves patient care.

We agreed that Con would be arguing that no university should be required to give preference to URM students. I demonstrated that they should be required to give such preference since it fulfills the mission of medical training and that this preference only leads to a tiny increase in dropout rates compared to the massive benefits.

Con might complain about this post in the comments and say I made new arguments, but a rebuttal is not a new argument and nothing I said here could not be understood from my previous posts with the exception of my rebuttal to one of the studies he added in his last post, but that is because he only bothered to post it at the end.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
You two should recreate this debate. Me and Hayd will vote on it on behalf of the Voter's Union.
Posted by Hayd 2 years ago
I will try to get a vote up on this in the next couple of days.
Posted by The_Commander 2 years ago
ffs. First of all, I wouldn't have 5 days, how the hell can I come up with a response to something that wouldn't have been posted yet? Also, had it occurred to you that I might be busy in the next couple days? Whatever this will be a fairly easy defense.
Posted by V5RED 2 years ago
I do not like pointlessly lengthy debates. I will be posting as soon as I have answers and it would seem to me that if you already believe what you are arguing for, you should not need 5 days(3+the 2 you asked me to wait) to come up with a reply unless your beliefs are unfounded.
Posted by The_Commander 2 years ago
Could you try to let at least 2 days on the clock run, please?
Posted by V5RED 2 years ago
Racism and racial discrimination are not the same thing. Racism is the belief that the value of a person is, at least partially, due to his or her race. This is always a bad thing.

Racial discrimination is making decisions based on race. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The choice to have a white cop go undercover to investigate a white power group as opposed to sending a black cop is a form of racial discrimination that is a good decision.
Posted by The_Commander 2 years ago
That's pretty much how it is now.
Posted by DATXDUDE 2 years ago
If you actually believe this, you are retarded. This is racism, and it is banned in 8 states.
Posted by The_Commander 2 years ago
No votes have been placed for this debate.