The Instigator
MrHardRock
Pro (for)
Losing
45 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Con (against)
Winning
46 Points

We Should Ban Affirmative Action

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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: 1/14/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,378 times Debate No: 10804
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (14)

 

MrHardRock

Pro

Affirmative action: an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women; also : a similar effort to promote the rights or progress of other disadvantaged persons
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Affirmative action is an unfair prejudiced of races and gender. It puts white males at a disadvantage because of how they were born. Affirmative action can also be dangerous to people around them. If a white male is the most qualified for a job he might not get it because he is white. A black or Hispanic that is not as qualified for job might get it instead. If this is a dangerous job they could put their coworkers in danger.

In 1973 and 1974 The Medical School at the University of California at Davis reserved sixteen of its one hundred slots for "special case" students.
In 1974 a white applicant named Allan Bakke was denied admission even though his test scores and grades were better than most of the students accepted through the "special case"
http://plato.stanford.edu...

It does not make since, that because of how someone was born they can either gain an advantage on everyone else.
mongeese

Con

I would like to thank MrHardRock for instigating this debate.

My opponent claims that affirmative action should be banned. I have numerous contentions against this:

1. Banning affirmative action would be too much government.

Why should actions that my opponent deems unfair be made banned? Just because he disagrees with its fairness, doesn't mean that other people see it that way. If AA is banned, other people will complain that it is unfair to restrict their own freedoms. Such freedoms would include the freedom of speech (as any rallies for a specific minority of people would be viewed as an effort to promote their rights, especially given how corrupt a government can become through loose interpretation), and the freedom to do what one one wants with their own property.

Now, in leaving money in their wills for their children, parents discriminate based on how different people were born. Only their own children get money from them. By my opponent's logic of banning prejudice, this would be illegal. I definitely don't want to see the state taking control of how people leave their money when they die, as the money would likely go to government.

My opponent claims that it is unfair for a job to be given based on race. True. However, this is not a reason for the government to step in and ban such a practice.

Finally, not all affirmative action policies involve appropriating jobs based on race or gender. For example, a black man attempting to disprove a stereotype or prejudice in the eyes of his employer would be actively trying to improve the chances of other black people being hired by this employer. Hard work incentivized by the elimination of a stereotype should in no way be banned.

2. Such a ban would be impractical.

How does one prove an action to stem from affirmative action, rather than some other reason? Just because the employer is Hispanic, and the chosen employee is Hispanic, doesn't mean that the employee was chosen because he was Hispanic.

My opponent claims that danger is a justification for banning affirmative action. For one thing, danger is not present in all jobs; therefore, this contention can't even address the entire debate. Additionally, if a person hires a less-skilled person, that's his own problem, and he'll feel it in his wallet after the affirmative action employee falls behind due to lack of necessary skill.

In conclusion, affirmative action should not be banned, because it would lead to too much government over an issue that is very minor when government does not get itself involved, and people will naturally tend not to apply affirmative action, so the issue would eventually whittle itself away.
Debate Round No. 1
MrHardRock

Pro

"Banning affirmative action would be too much government."

Isn't it the governments job to protect it's citizens and promote equality. Affirmative action does the exact opposite. It does not promote equality as it makes it easier for minorities to get jobs, get into college ect. This is not equality at all as it discriminates against whites who do not get this buffer zone.

"Now, in leaving money in their wills for their children, parents discriminate based on how different people were born. Only their own children get money from them. By my opponent's logic of banning prejudice, this would be illegal. I definitely don't want to see the state taking control of how people leave their money when they die, as the money would likely go to government."

I fail to see what this has to do with affirmative action because what you do with your money is your business and you can give it to whoever you want in your will.

"Finally, not all affirmative action policies involve appropriating jobs based on race or gender. For example, a black man attempting to disprove a stereotype or prejudice in the eyes of his employer would be actively trying to improve the chances of other black people being hired by this employer. Hard work incentivized by the elimination of a stereotype should in no way be banned."

The employer can hire any one they want as long as they keep to the minority laws. These laws state that a certain amount of minorities have to be represented at your company based on the amount in your area. These laws take jobs away from more qualified non-minorities.

"How does one prove an action to stem from affirmative action, rather than some other reason? Just because the employer is Hispanic, and the chosen employee is Hispanic, doesn't mean that the employee was chosen because he was Hispanic."

You prove it by if someone of a different race of the employer was better qualified by someone of the same race but did not get the job.

"My opponent claims that danger is a justification for banning affirmative action. For one thing, danger is not present in all jobs; therefore, this contention can't even address the entire debate."

Well then lets at least ban it in workplaces that have dangerous an environment.

And I yet to hear any arguments you make to justify it. All you have done so far is a poor job at countering my arguments.
mongeese

Con

"Isn't it the governments job to protect it's citizens and promote equality."
False. Governments are supposed to secure the rights of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" [1]. Government's job is not to make sure that everybody distributes their money in a way that the majority sees fit.

"I fail to see what this has to do with affirmative action because what you do with your money is your business and you can give it to whoever you want in your will."
My opponent concedes that people have the right to do what they want with their own money. However, the act of hiring is what a person does with his own money. People should therefore be allowed to hire whoever they want with their own money. Government doesn't have the right to tell them who they can and can't hire.

"The employer can hire any one they want as long as they keep to the minority laws. These laws state that a certain amount of minorities have to be represented at your company based on the amount in your area. These laws take jobs away from more qualified non-minorities."
I am opposed to these minority laws. They go against the employer's right to hire whoever he wants for whatever reason he wants.
However, beyond government, the employers themselves should be allowed to practice whatever affirmative action policies they want.

My opponent has conceded my paragraph from Round 1:
"Finally, not all affirmative action policies involve appropriating jobs based on race or gender. For example, a black man attempting to disprove a stereotype or prejudice in the eyes of his employer would be actively trying to improve the chances of other black people being hired by this employer. Hard work incentivized by the elimination of a stereotype should in no way be banned."

"You prove it by if someone of a different race of the employer was better qualified by someone of the same race but did not get the job."
Qualification is in the eye of the beholder. There are many different skills necessary for different jobs. Different employers might rank the same employees differently. Government should not be used to provide an objective measure for determining qualifications.

"Well then lets at least ban it in workplaces that have dangerous an environment."
Ah, but the employers are already incentivized not to hire incapable minorities, because a mess-up could lead to death (bad for business) and cost lots of money.

"And I yet to hear any arguments you make to justify it. All you have done so far is a poor job at countering my arguments."
My job is not to justify affirmative action. My job is to counter any arguments made to justify banning affirmative action.

In conclusion, a ban on affirmative action would violate the rights of the employer to hire whoever he wants. He already has natural incentive not to follow affirmative action, so laws against it would be largely a waste of time, and such laws would be impractical to enforce.

1. http://www.ushistory.org...
Debate Round No. 2
MrHardRock

Pro

"Government's job is not to make sure that everybody distributes their money in a way that the majority sees fit."

This is socialism/communism dude so uhhhh you are not in the correct debate, or doe AA prevent everybody distributing their money in whatever they majority wants. If anything AA will help eliminate the ghettos. The reason because then a white employer cannot bar lets say a poor Mexican living in the ghetto just because of he is a Mexican. He would get a job get working and move out and stop causing trouble.

"People should therefore be allowed to hire whoever they want with their own money. Government doesn't have the right to tell them who they can and can't hire."

That is EXACTLY what I am trying to say.

"However, beyond government, the employers themselves should be allowed to practice whatever affirmative action policies they want."

I don't think you have been here the whole time.

"Qualification is in the eye of the beholder. There are many different skills necessary for different jobs. Different employers might rank the same employees differently. Government should not be used to provide an objective measure for determining qualifications."

How about they sue in a court of law in front of a jury. If they can convince the jury it was affirmative action in someway they would win the court case and whatever the outcome happened to be.

"Ah, but the employers are already incentivized not to hire incapable minorities, because a mess-up could lead to death (bad for business) and cost lots of money."

This whole time I have been saying the government should not force people to hire certain minorities. Nor should someone be barred from a job because of their race, gender, religion ect. So this means the most qualified would be hired and this would have to be prove in court as stated before.
mongeese

Con

"This is socialism/communism dude so uhhhh you are not in the correct debate..."
My opponent has provided no argument in favor of socialism or communism. Meanwhile, I have given evidence in American history to prove that we are based in a government protecting three unalienable rights.

"doe AA prevent everybody distributing their money in whatever they majority wants."
Irrelevant. Why should the majority of the people have a say in what one man does with his money? It's not like it's the majority's money or anything.

"If anything AA will help eliminate the ghettos. The reason because then a white employer cannot bar lets say a poor Mexican living in the ghetto just because of he is a Mexican. He would get a job get working and move out and stop causing trouble."
Now my opponent is arguing in favor of affirmative action. This just doesn't make sense.

"'People should therefore be allowed to hire whoever they want with their own money. Government doesn't have the right to tell them who they can and can't hire.'

That is EXACTLY what I am trying to say."

Wrong. My opponent is saying that affirmative action should be banned. Banning requires government. He apparently agrees that government intervention in hiring is bad. Therefore, we both agree that affirmative action should not be banned.

"How about they sue in a court of law in front of a jury. If they can convince the jury it was affirmative action in someway they would win the court case and whatever the outcome happened to be."
1. This still violates the right of the employer to do what he wants with his own money.
2. Such a lawsuit would waste the time of both the employer and the employee who he wishes to hire, ultimately hurting his business. That's bad.

"This whole time I have been saying the government should not force people to hire certain minorities."
I agree.
"Nor should someone be barred from a job because of their race, gender, religion ect."
If the employer says that he only wants to hire African-Americans, that's his business.
"So this means the most qualified would be hired and this would have to be prove in court as stated before."
An employer might think that being black makes one more qualified. Who's the court to say that that's false?

In conclusion, my opponent wishes to violate the employer's right to do what he wants with his own money by preventing him from using whatever factors he wants to determine employment. This right must not be violated. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
With four seven-point votes on each side, RFDs are kind of crucial.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
V Which is exactly why whenever I start an AA debate, I'm going to actually remember to specify "government-enforced."
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
He doesn't believe in a government policy for or against it. A law against affirmative action is just as bad as a law against discrimination or a law against property sovereignty.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Mongeese debating in favour of affirmative action? I am surprised.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Oh, whoops. Didn't notice that wjmelements had his eye on this debate.
Posted by MrHardRock 7 years ago
MrHardRock
that better?
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"The voting period will last indefinitely."

Fix and I will accept.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Should it be used? No. Should it be illegal? No.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by basketballakev 7 years ago
basketballakev
MrHardRockmongeeseTied
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 Grape 7 years ago
Grape
MrHardRockmongeeseTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
MrHardRockmongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 kingofslash5 7 years ago
kingofslash5
MrHardRockmongeeseTied
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 Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
MrHardRockmongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
MrHardRockmongeeseTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
MrHardRockmongeeseTied
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 Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
MrHardRockmongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 cwbaker2 7 years ago
cwbaker2
MrHardRockmongeeseTied
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 gamemonk0 7 years ago
gamemonk0
MrHardRockmongeeseTied
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