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

Affirmative Action

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
CunningPotato has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 813 times Debate No: 111275
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)





Resolved: Affirmative Action is a fair and just policy.


- The debate consists of four rounds; first round for acceptance

-The Pro should argue in favor of the resolution, while the Con should argue in opposition to the resolution.

- Affirmative Action arguments are not limited to the educational field. Pro and Con may feel free to argue affirmative actions in other areas of society.

-Considering that this is a political issue, the paradigm used is the legislative standard; the pro must illustrate that the positives of the argument outweigh the negatives. Vice versa for the con.

-All quotations and statistics must be cited with a link to the source and date accessed unless it is common knowledge. All evidence without citations should be disregarded by the audience during the vote.

-Every contention of each side must be fully addressed in the following round. If a contention is left unaddressed by the opponent, it is assumed true until it is addressed.


I accept. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting; I look forward to a exciting debate!

Understanding that this is a political debate, and the audience might have certain predisposed opinions on the matter, I ask the audience to disregard their beliefs on the matter and instead judge the candidates based on the content of their argument. In simple terms, vote for whoever argued best, not who you agree with. However, feel free to comment your beliefs in the comment section, with any additional content you would like to add. Just make sure you vote for the one who argued the best.

Now I shall begin.

It cannot be morally argued that a group of humans should be given an unjust advantage over another. Because the policy of affirmative action seeks to perform the aforementioned, I conclude that it is an unjust policy.

It would perhaps be proper for me to give my definition of affirmative action. It is as follows: An action/policy that favors a particular group, some of which have been discriminated against in the past or present.

Contention 1: Giving a particular person preferential treatment, or otherwise putting them at a disadvantage, for no other reason except for their race, is the DEFINITION of racism. Just as a city is unstable above a soft foundation, equality cannot be achieved by building it on top of the swamp of bigotry; this open act of racism should be the utmost worry to everyone in the audience. Like a house without strong pillars eventually collapse, the great house that is our society will inevitably fall to ruins if it is built with the weak pillars of racism supporting it. As the famous Martin Luther King Jr. said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Let us realize MLK’s dream of “not be[ing] judged by the color of their skin”; end affirmative action!

Contention 2: Two wrongs do not make a right. The history of past oppressions should NEVER be solved with more discrimination of the present. Just as we would never seek to amend the consequences of the Holocaust by killing Germans, we should never solve the inequalities that resulted from slavery, or other inequalities of the past, by punishing those who had nothing to do with it. As Justice Scalia writes, “The difficulty of overcoming the effects of past discrimination is as nothing compared with the difficulty of eradicating from our society the source of those effects, which is the tendency -- fatal to a nation such as ours -- to classify and judge men and women on the basis of their country of origin or the color of their skin.” Formatting policies based on race, and offering a particular group significant advantages over another, is visually indistinguishable from the days of racism in America's past. We should never seek to repeat the history of oppression -oppression that left so much chaos- with affirmative action.

( Accessed Mar. 23 2018)

It cannot be argued that a policy in which the negatives overweigh the positives should be implemented. Moreover, a policy with virtually no benefits should never be used as a public policy. Considering that affirmative action has no benefits what-so-ever, and the negatives have serious implications, I contend that it should be promptly dismantled.

Contention 1: Those who are talented, and those who put forth work towards their dreams, should be rewarded. Otherwise, hard work would be meaningless, as there would be no impetus for anyone to strive higher. For the most part, our society does just that. The notion of affirmative action then only serves to lower the standards of society. For example, if a fireman was hired as a result of lowering of standards, perhaps physical or mental, then such fireman will not be capable of performing his/her duties and hence resulting in fatalities. If teachers were hired due to lowering of standards, then our future engineers, scientists, and politicians would not be properly educated. Moreover, it could be argued that affirmative action weakens the minority community, as they now strive for a standard lower than that of other people; they do not have to strive for greatness because society holds them to a lower standard. As demonstrated, the drawbacks of affirmative action is enormous; yet what are the benefits? Absolutely none.

Contention 2: The next argument considers the question of why race matters when it comes to qualification for a certain task. Contending that minority groups desperately need the assistance from affirmative action because they simply cannot compete on the same grounds as those of the majority is insulting. Furthermore, it perpetuates the notion of white supremacy that was prominent in the early days of America; it repeats the argument that minorities are still somehow inferior to whites in many ways. Such stereotypes are not things we should perpetuate, which is why I contend that we should end affirmative action.

Lowering of standards is not necessary for diversity. Why do we seek to lower standards for a group of people, and hence lessening their impetus to strive higher, when we can empower them to perform above the standards? As Paul Rosenzweig of the Heritage Foundation writes, ‘“The renowned legal scholar Alexander Bickel put it even more plainly: "Discrimination on the basis of race is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, inherently wrong, and destructive of democratic society."
More than 100 years ago, the Court in one of its most tragic decisions approved the concept of "separate but equal" public accommodations for different races. In dissent, Justice John Harlan made a point that's just as true today: "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens."’ By implementing affirmative action, we perpetuate the very things that many Americans fought for hundreds of years to solve. Because affirmative action does not have any clear benefits, and only works in effect to lower standards both in minority populations and the society as a whole, I contend that affirmative action has no place in American society.

( Accessed 3/23/2018)




"It cannot be morally argued that a group of humans should be given an unjust advantage over another."


It would perhaps be proper for me to give my definition of affirmative action. It is as follows: An action/policy that favors a particular group, some of which have been discriminated against in the past or present.





The illegal drug trade is feeding most of the violence that is happening on the streets of Baltimore and on the streets of other cities that face the same problem.

There are not a lot of positive outcomes once a person enters the drug game. Typically it means prison, which is another of the main things that drives poverty.

Since it is tough to get a job coming from poverty, coming out of prison, it is almost impossible, and so to survive the person returns to selling drugs. Rinse, wash and repeat.

I do not think a good response is to throw more police at the situation. We have tried that in the past.

In 1994, President Bill Clinton added 100,000 additional police officers to the streets of the U.S. as part of the "1994 Omnibus Crime Bill". What actually manifested was the destruction of the relationship between police and the communities.

From the perspective of some guy who can not get a job, who feels forced into drugs and crime, the police are just evil oppressors, and you are just someone with no hope or options trying to survive.

To the police, the guy is nothing more than a dangerous, drug induced, violent animal who is high, unpredictable and dangerous.

In this situation, the cops see the guy and many others like him as a target to prevent crime. To the guy and many others like him, crime is the only choice to survive. Thus, you have an unendable cycle. Crime vs cops and cops vs crime in an endless loop that never resolves or even can resolve. If you can not get a job, you die or you steal, or you sell drugs. If you are a cop and someone steals or does drugs, you hunt them down.

Sadly, this type of cycle can also lead to becoming a part of a gang to survive. There are an estimated 33,000 gangs with 1.4 million members in the United States.

What is really needed to stop the cycle? Well it's complicated, but here are some highlight points I put together.













Celia Neustadt, the Executive Director of Inner Harbor Project in Baltimore is quoted as saying:

"What I see in the Inner Harbor and what was being expressed is the feeling of being discriminated, excluded from mainstream society and retaliating in the only way they know how.”

"These kids don’t have anything to lose. They are not engaged academically; they are not engaged in traditional social structures,” she said. “They have created their own independent structures to support the things they care about, but they don’t have anything to lose in our current mainstream society because we haven’t created space for them."

Some reasonable forms of Affirmative Action can create this space for blacks who need a hand up to move into a productive position in society.



In 2013, the Supreme Court avoided a major ruling in an affirmative action case involving a white student who was denied admission to the University of Texas's Austin campus. The student, Abigail Fisher, argued that she was denied admission because of the school's affirmative action admissions policy. But the Supreme Court, in a 7-1 ruling, did not uphold or strike down the policy, and returned the case back to a lower court for a deeper review. The Supreme Court's official statement stated

schools could:

"include race as a factor for admissions after determining no other 'race-neutral alternatives' would achieve the benefits of diversity."

As controversy has risen in recent times to the Constitutionality and ethical position of very broad Affirmative Action use, the Supreme Court has pulled the action more into the realm of what is called "Poverty Preference Admissions", which is labeled by many as "The New Affirmative Action".

This allows for a non-race-based preference in admissions for a certain amount of poor students.


It is not like the average, every day student applying to college is going to be affected by this in a substantial way. At public institutions, if you look at what their student bodies actually look like, they are disproportionately populated with students from advantaged backgrounds. Certain forms of Affirmative Action simply gives some students a chance who might not otherwise get or have a chance.

In reality, blacks, with or without Affirmative Action, only make up a small percentage of college students at most universities. (14% in 2013 while being 13% of the overall population of the U.S.) If 23% of college students were black, that would show Affirmative Action working dispraportionately, but this is not the case, per those statistics.



Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Mingodalia 3 years ago
I agree, but I am arguing the other side to see if I can make a logical defense. :)
Posted by John_Eaton 3 years ago
Affirmative Action tells people they can make a sustainable living without an income. This is unacceptable and just like every form of welfare should be abolished!
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.