The Instigator
screenjack
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Relekka
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

affirmative action is immoral

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
screenjack
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 965 times Debate No: 119662
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)

 

screenjack

Pro

I am supporting that more states ban race-based affirmative action. Affirmative action is inherently racist and shouldn't be supported by the U. S. Every race experiences financial difficulties. Forcing out poor people of one race for poor people of another isn't equality. Equality would be not seeing race and accepting people people based on merit.
Relekka

Con

By the introduction, The opposition finds itself falling into the standard conservative muckraking against Affirmative Action and provides no evidence to back up their statements. As such I'll give a response to them by pointing out that Affirmative Action is not racist and doesn't exclude impoverished people from one group in favor of others; in fact, The whole system is designed to fight against discrimination, Which is still a major issue in hiring practices within America.

As well, The opposition fails to understand that the dynamics of ethnicity, Gender, Religion, And views play a major effect on how financial difficulties differ between peoples. A study by Yale, Provided at (https://isps. Yale. Edu/news/blog/2017/01/what-are-the-effects-of-affirmative-action-regulation-on-workers%E2%80%99-careers) showcases a vastly more different picture than presented.

They as well fall under the same 'merit-based' system, Which is fictional and has no meaning beyond platitudes towards those already prejudiced against the system (http://theconversation. Com/the-myth-of-merit-and-unconscious-bias-18876). People are routinely discriminated against for something as simple as their name (https://www. Politifact. Com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/), Especially for poor black people who have 'ghetto' names.

Due to the unconscious bias and societal-driven discrimination, It's impossible to have an objective merit-based hiring system. Prejudices and unconscious bias still play a major role in the hiring process, Making Affirmative Action all the more necessary to exist.
Debate Round No. 1
screenjack

Pro

By the first response of the con I can conclude that he thinks people should be given privilege by race. I would also speculate that the con is of the standard democratic camp by the way he feels the need to lump me into the "other. " People can in fact debate single topics and not align themselves with a party. Furthermore it was an opening statement and you have the burden of proof as the con. Not me.

"The opposition fails to understand that the dynamics of ethnicity, Gender, Religion, And views play a major effect on how financial difficulties differ between peoples. " This whole sentence insinuates that affirmative action and equal employment opportunity laws are the same. It also exemplifies the Idea that people should be viewed as their groups and not individuals. Affirmative action is the encouragement of increased representation of women and minority-group members, Especially in employment. That's the definition. It doesn't say anything about it being a merit based system. (https://www. Dictionary. Com/browse/affirmative-action) In practice there are plenty of cases where people who score higher on sat's aren't accepted because of affirmative action. (https://www. Newyorker. Com/news/news-desk/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-affirmative-action-and-asian-americans)

Setting race based standards on employment has no merit. Even if both people are qualified why shouldn't a person with more qualifications be hired? How does promoting certain people based on race equate to equality? White people can have "black names. " Not to mention the article you quote goes on to say this "So while I can't confirm the exact number, I believe the fundamental relationship to still be true. " That's some real fine evidence to support your claim.

unconscious bias and societal-driven discrimination can be easily taken out by having a computers running university acceptance and employment. That would be based truly on things you can quantify. Also, Unconscious bias? Because, People who don't act, Speak, Or write something racist they might still be racist. I hope you can sense the sarcasm in that last sentence through the screen.
Relekka

Con

The burden of proof is on the accuser, Not on the defender. You failed to provide no evidence and either any proof of your claims, And therefore I must work with simply anything that you give me with. Failures to as well respect the oppositions gender and their political stances show that the oppostion is clearly just here to troll with the debate and not provide any real and meaningful discussion to the topic at hand.

As established by the point; Affirmative Action was established, As said in sources, To provide anti-discrimination against minorities to as well boost their economic standing. This is another failing on the oppositions part to read the sources and respond to them in a meaningful way, And the citation of an opinion article from the New Yorker fails to provide any meaningful counterargument to either of what I've said. They simply, As it were, Talk past and try to avoid responding to my arguments in earnest and honesty.

The opposition, As well, Fails to understand the most basic principles of Affirmative Action and why it was designed to exist; to uplift minorities and to break down barriers of stereotyping and prejudices. Which, As my previously cited research paper provides, Shows an immense benefit towards all in this direction. And as well, They show a pugnacious anger which can presumably be attributed to his personal white rage against the system.

In short, This debate is nothing but a farce designed to troll.
Debate Round No. 2
screenjack

Pro

We are arguing the premise of which I stated in the first round. I am not accusing anything I'm promoting laws that already exist in 8 states. You are the con therefore you are opposing my stance (round 1. ) This leaves it to you to disprove my position for witch I sited 2 sources just as you did (round 2. ) I don't need to give a source for my second, Within round 2, Point because I'm responding to your article. The fact that you're simply dismissing me as a troll is because you've failed to contend with my points and premise.

I understand the basic principle of affirmative action and it is race motivated. You are promoting one race over the other because you think minorities deserve special treatment because of the past. I believe that anyone should have an equal opportunity. Now you can say things like they weren't given an opportunity because of where they were raised but I'm not arguing geographical difficulties. Anyone from a poor town that received sub-par education should have a shot at secondary education. I'm arguing, As I stated in the premise, That race based affirmative action as outlawed in 8 states is a good model for others.

The second link I posted, If you read it, Is about how affirmative action is actively discriminating against minorities in the U. S. Affirmative action was a presidential order made by Kennedy to combat segregation. Now it is actively combating diversity, As the article shows, And states are moving on.

I'm here to prove my Idea you on the other hand haven't even approached the Idea. You claim that you aren't being argued against in a meaningful way but I've literally gone point for point with you. Also I don't have to argue against an entire article you posted. You post sources to validate your point not to defer your argument to someone elses line of thought. If I wanted to argue Noriko Amano I would write a counter article myself. I'm debating you not him. As a matter of fact all of your arguments are based off of thinking as a group rather than guarding the rights of individuals. Individuals by the way are the smallest minority of all. If every individual has equal rights there is no color involved in the equation.

In conclusion you wasted you're first round setting a false premise. The second you whinnied and complained about how I didn't engage you when I almost go sentence fore sentence with you. (sorry I'm not about to argue someone elses article for you. ) All throughout attacking my character because I guess that's easier than debating points. So here is the last round. Lets see who's talking past who.
Relekka

Con

Relekka forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Juris 3 years ago
Juris
PRO wins for better conduct for the following reasons:

1. Con should use his own words in arguing then provide a source rather than referring us to the article. His round 2 arguments is not considered for this reason.
2. CON should stop saying, "This debate is nothing but a farce designed to troll. " This is irrelevant.
3. CON forfeited r3
Posted by Juris 3 years ago
Juris
REASON FOR DECISION ( part 1/2)

Main argument of PRO and Con rebuttal:

PRO: Affirmative action is immoral because it forces poor (white) people out in favor for poor (black) people.

CON R: Affirmative action doesn't exclude impoverished people from one group in favor of others; in fact, The whole system is designed to fight against discrimination.

Verdict: PRO wins this point. The argument of PRO does not need evidence. It is a fact. In an affirmative action, A person who belongs to a "discriminated" race will be accepted to a job over to an equally qualified person who belongs to a "privileged" race. In other words, PRO is saying that an injustice cannot be cured by another injustice.

CON"s rebuttal is unsupported by evidence. Hence, PRO"s contention stands. CON failed to rebut the idea of how fighting discrimination with another discrimination is immoral.

Main argument of CON and PRO rebuttal:

Con: Due to the unconscious bias and societal-driven discrimination, It's impossible to have an objective merit-based hiring system. Prejudices and unconscious bias still play a major role in the hiring process, Making Affirmative Action all the more necessary to exist.

PRO R: unconscious bias and societal-driven discrimination can be easily taken out by having a computers running university acceptance and employment. That would be based truly on things you can quantify. Also, Unconscious bias? Because, People who don't act, Speak, Or write something racist they might still be racist. I hope you can sense the sarcasm in that last sentence through the screen.

Verdict: CON wins this point. This is a strong point from CON. However, He failed to provide concrete examples to this. Anyway, I understand his point. On one hand, PRO"s rebuttal is one which offers an alternative to address CON"s point. The rebuttal was not elaborated though. How about job interview? How computers said thing is not explained.
Posted by Juris 3 years ago
Juris
REASON FOR DECISION ( part 1/2)

Main argument of PRO and Con rebuttal:

PRO: Affirmative action is immoral because it forces poor (white) people out in favor for poor (black) people.

CON R: Affirmative action doesn't exclude impoverished people from one group in favor of others; in fact, The whole system is designed to fight against discrimination.

Verdict: PRO wins this point. The argument of PRO does not need evidence. It is a fact. In an affirmative action, A person who belongs to a "discriminated" race will be accepted to a job over to an equally qualified person who belongs to a "privileged" race. In other words, PRO is saying that an injustice cannot be cured by another injustice.

CON"s rebuttal is unsupported by evidence. Hence, PRO"s contention stands. CON failed to rebut the idea of how fighting discrimination with another discrimination is immoral.

Main argument of CON and PRO rebuttal:

Con: Due to the unconscious bias and societal-driven discrimination, It's impossible to have an objective merit-based hiring system. Prejudices and unconscious bias still play a major role in the hiring process, Making Affirmative Action all the more necessary to exist.

PRO R: unconscious bias and societal-driven discrimination can be easily taken out by having a computers running university acceptance and employment. That would be based truly on things you can quantify. Also, Unconscious bias? Because, People who don't act, Speak, Or write something racist they might still be racist. I hope you can sense the sarcasm in that last sentence through the screen.

Verdict: CON wins this point. This is a strong point from CON. However, He failed to provide concrete examples to this. Anyway, I understand his point. On one hand, PRO"s rebuttal is one which offers an alternative to address CON"s point. The rebuttal was not elaborated though. How about job interview? How computers said thing is not explained.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
You said this "The article is supposed to show proof that what they're saying is true not be the argument itself. "

Meaning you stated Con's arguments was the proof. Con gave a claim and gave bad evidence if I am to believe you. If so Con used it to reinforce claim instead of giving it a base.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"Not addressing the morality is the con's problem not mine. She never even began to counter it. "
Not Con's fault when you didn't even include it in your debate. Type in Ctrl F and type in moral. You find no use of it in your debate. The fault lies on you.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Example of what?

You said that quote you quoted.
How Con using quotes as the claim?
I wanted example of Con using the quote as the claim.
Posted by screenjack 3 years ago
screenjack
Not addressing the morality is the con's problem not mine. She never even began to counter it.
Posted by screenjack 3 years ago
screenjack
Here's the example "Not to mention the article you quote goes on to say this "So while I can't confirm the exact number, I believe the fundamental relationship to still be true. "" Also, I'm counter arguing because I'm behind in material and it is all in support of my point. While we're on the subject of not arguing points we might as well point out that you're whole argument is based off the fact my round 1 was short and simple and therefore will obviously lose a nuanced debate. Just to make this crystal clear. I don't care that I lost round 1 because I'm confident I will win round 2 & 3. I also don't care that I counter argue because it all goes back to proving my original point. The necessity of proof comes when people ask for it. What I did was simply unwise and fool harty. Assuming that the con would be able to infer from my opening statements were just that is cheeky at best. Besides the con could still get on there's 8 hours left. For somebody as obsessed with rules as you I'd think you'd realize that.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"The con's support for an conscienceless bias was unsupported by her own article. "
If you made that claim in the debate and it is true then you are right.

You did not even morality, Moral or immoral in your entire debate apart from the title" I didn't even morality? Maybe that's why you deflect the actual debate I'm trying to have as much as the con.
Okay. It should have said you didn't speak about morality, What is moral or immoral in your entire debate.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"Just because I didn't explicitly say the first round was supposed to be an acceptance round is my fault. "
So it Con's fault for not assuming your intentions? It is more your blame than Con's. Most likely Con won't reply since Con has not been on since Con did post an argument.

"I clearly actually wanted to debate is because he's going for an easy win instead of having a thoughtful debate over a current event. "
Why not instead have better premises and clearly lay out how you want the debate to go?

"Even still I'm making a much better overall argument if you ask me. "
Your biased to your own view point. I was not biased from either until I read it. One clearly laid out points and the other did not which has led the arguments to be on premises not on the conclusions afterwards. Maybe do a better job next time.

"Also there are logic based arguments that don't require evidence. "
Depends on the logic. Logic is a form of explanation but evidence can be given to support your argument. Sometimes evidence is not needed but your burden of proof was not fulfilled. When I read your argument I am realising you are counter arguing Con instead of making new arguments. You are Pro, You created the debate and yet you still have not fulfilled your end of the burden of proof. I don't see why Con bothered to make an argument when you provided no evidence to your side instead are arguing why Con is wrong instead of making your side arguments.

"The article is supposed to show proof that what they're saying is true not be the argument itself. "
Can you point to an example? I am not seeing. Is Con doing it more than having a claim before evidence or something because I am not seeing it?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Juris 3 years ago
Juris
screenjackRelekkaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
screenjackRelekkaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 

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