Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
RFD - Affirmative Action
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2015 6:13:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'll start from pro's case then con's case and then impacts in the end.
C1. I'm given the idea of repatory justice - that we need to weigh and consider past wrongdoings into the future. Further, I am given that "failing to actively rectify past racial wrongs continues to put racial minorities at a competitive advantage [sic, meant disadvantage], so merely ending invidious discrimination isn"t enough."
Con's response is basically that racism exists from the pro's worldview (racism against whites, etc). But pro responds that saying that affirmative action is racist is to not see what it truly is, because it is the ultimate good. Even if I accept what con said as true, they fail to mention the second part of the pro's argument, that racial minorities are at a systemic disadvantage in the status quo without affirmative action, basically ignoring the impact of the point.
C2. Pro says diversity is good because achievement and unique viewpoint, and so on and so on. Good things, he claims. Con responds saying that we need to value competency over diversity, and that diversity is ultimately bad because it causes racial tensions and because it leads to a less healthy community. But why is tension a bad thing? I'm never given a reason as to why we need to absolve ourselves of tensions, so I can't really give that rebuttal much weight. As for competency, bringing a new worldview is a unique view on competency and ability (as pro mentions in his case, something never addressed specifically). Con's rebuttal is further hindered, seeing as how she cited someone that was actually in favor of affirmative action - if I accepted all that they said as true thus far, I'd have to vote pro on this point because they effectively conceded (through source attribution) that affirmative action is a good thing.
C3. Integration is good because it is shows that the government cares for individuals who are marginalised by the system, promoting governmental legitimacy. Con says that forced integration is a bad thing because it isn't equal opportunity and so on and so on. But, as pro points out, that doesn't uniquely address most of his points - in the end, governmental legitimacy and facilitated integration are still left intact.
C4. Affirmative action helps the systemic sexism and racism that exists within the law, I am told. Con responds that systemic racism doesn't exist because some races are smarter than others (bold, and this is just what I got from your IQ soapboxing), and sexism doesn't exist because the wage gap is a lie (other things are non sequiter and a waste of my time to address specifically). Pro is correct in pointing out that racism does exist within the status quo - though laws exist, that does not stop them, he claims. Further, through Rushton research, he shows that the con is racist by nature, all the same time claiming that racism doesn't exist. But, he drops the wage gap at least here, which I will consider in the end.
O1. Affirmative action costs money, she claims. Pro points out that the source is outdated, flat out false because it uses doesn't measure solely affirmative action, just the class that it is in, and so on and so on. Her only response is that I need to control-f her source and look for a quote that helps her case, and since it is old it must be true today! But, earlier in the debate, she was saying that we can't look to the past for today's injustices, so I am confused why she is saying that the past is indicitive of the future. I don't buy that 1991 and today are the same, and her inflation response is weak.
C1. She claims that affirmative action hurts minorities because it makes them unfit for the roles that they are going into, with examples and so on and so on. Pro responds that not having the highest of grades and being unfit is actually beneficial, saying that they can look up and so on; that con's evidence is actually false (the discrediting of Sanders) and a complete turn of her argument; affirmative action isn't even the cause of any impacts; that AA helps asian students.
She responds not even addressing the idea that students who are low performing have the ability to rise higher because of looking up, she just says and that someone else is deprived of their future. Con then cites some already rebutted evidence (or evidence that seemingly was rebutted, with the same tagline), and no real substance. That AA has self-doubting students. And it is a zero-sum game.
In the end, I buy con's argument that there is self-doubt in students. But, there's no impact associated, so honestly I can't consider it (more on this later). Her other points were either nullified or turned.
C2. AA hurts students & racial tension, she tells; less faith, division, violence, and so on. Pro responds with the Liu evidence that any tension isn't even worthy of being tension, because whites wouldn't have gotten the role anyways, and that tension isn't even caused by AA. He says that the feeling of mistreatment is wrong by whites empirically. Con says that racial tension exists because pro ultimately conceded it (I agree), so I think that this point is in con's favor.
C3. AA is against women & against men (biology, sexism, so on). Pro responds succinctly that AA opens the doors for free will - women are helped by AA because more doors are opened. As for the quotas cited by the con, since they are illegal, I honestly can't consider them within the scope of the debate, so I can't give you any access to discimination against men. Then she continues this idea that women are hurt because they don't like these jobs, yet I don't understand this, because free will is intact; you'd argue that free will is important if we restricted women to people-only professions, so this line of thought is hypocritical.
Impacts & decision
These are the impacts that I felt existed in the end of the debate by pro: we need repatory justice, if we don't have AA we have active discrimination, unique viewpoint, empirical proof that diversity is good for the workforce/education, governmental legitimacy, and racism in the SQ if we don't do anything. Con's impacts that I have a grasp of: racial tensions.
On balance, by sheer number and the real world implications of each of these impacts, pro clearly wins.
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2015 6:58:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Also, this when seen by your later "bull" response made me lol.
"With all due respect, my opponent"s preamble is poor use of your time. Referring to a quote has zero impact on the debate, and explaining the resolution in rudimentary detail implicates that my opponent perhaps thinks poorly of your capacity to comprehend debate implications. This should strike as offensive to you, the voter, who spends your valuable time adjudicating debates. Spoken lowly to in condescension is not worthy of your time. I, however, promise not to waste your valuable time with such inanity."