CreateDebate


Debate Info

2
5
Support Oppose
Debate Score:7
Arguments:16
Total Votes:7
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Support (2)
 
 Oppose (5)

Debate Creator

Jace(5222) pic



Affirmative Action

Is affirmative action a just and ethical practice?

 

Support

Side Score: 2
VS.

Oppose

Side Score: 5
No arguments found. Add one!
1 point

We have equality now so it should be taken out of our legal system. Because of it, they are actually discriminating against the majorities, while being prejudice against minorities.

However, that being said, it implies that we don't have equality because the government is prejudice against everyone. And the government reflects what the people want - to an extent. So maybe we are prejudice and need affirmative action.

So if we have affirmative action then we have prejudice and without it we have prejudice. Both ways are bad, because America is filled with their prejudices hiding behind the flag of liberalism, which is now the foundation of the country. Who is that says, minorities without the government wouldn't be able to survive? Liberals. Who is it that says minorities can live on their own? Conservatives.

So the answer is not to get rid of affirmative action but to get rid of affirmative action and liberals.

Side: Oppose
Jace(5222) Clarified
1 point

Right, so I confess to confusion. This is what I am getting from you and it is not making much sense to me: we have equality but not really, therefore affirmative action is bad? What makes the "conservative" stance on affirmative action and minorities better?

[It puts me on the record as "support" but for the record I do not - no idea how to change that when just making a clarifying post.]

Side: Support
1 point

I don't believe it's an ethical practice. It's nothing more than discrimination against an ethnic majority and a way to meet secret racial quotas. It should have no place in the process of choosing candidates.

Side: Oppose
Jace(5222) Disputed
1 point

Devil's advocate here for the sake of debate. What about the social inequity that causes certain population demographics to be underrepresented in various institutions like colleges or businesses? If there is not equal opportunity and access does society have an obligation to attempt to level the playing field?

Side: Support
Revolt(201) Disputed
1 point

I don't believe people would be complaining about social inequity if whites were being underrepresented in a given industry. That is why I have a problem with the INSTITUTION of affirmative action, not the idea of providing social equity and equal opportunity (as long as it isn't achieved at the expense of a certain group).

Side: Oppose
xMathFanx(1722) Clarified
1 point

@Jace

Devil's advocate here for the sake of debate.

Understood. For the record, I'm opposed to Affirmative Action policies now that we have surpassed a social tipping point that one is no longer going to be discriminated against based on race, gender, ect. (although in the beginning or if extreme forms of discrimination could be proven, then I would agree)

What about the social inequity that causes certain population demographics to be underrepresented in various institutions like colleges or businesses? If there is not equal opportunity and access does society have an obligation to attempt to level the playing field?

Yes, I belive society does have an ethical obligation to create a more fair playing field (however it is virtually impossible under our current conditions to get anything near "level").

I will restrict my conversation about Affirmative Action to College acceptance for the purposes of this argument. Note, I have begun to discuss this topic elsewhere and will copy-paste a previous posts of mine with relevant alterations added:

Now, given our current system, everyone has enough opportunity to find a way to attend a College for an Engineering, Statistics, Computer Science, Business, ect. degree that would potentially set them up for at least decent to good paying jobs after graduation. Even a completely poor person has an opportunity for this since there are Government Stafford Loans that everyone qualifies for, regardless of credit history, no co-signer needed, and is enough to first attend a Community College plus apartment (if you work part-time also) and later to a State School program or even to a University of Florida type school (depending on the tuition of the big state school program in one's respective state). From there, PhD programs are free, in fact, they pay you a stipend to attend. This is enough to set someone up for life (if used wisely--and they can ultimately get into nearly any major University by Grad School regardless of what they are confined to/able to attend for Undergraduate degree). Here are important points to note about the University system in the US (in regards to this topic):

1. There is a clear hierarchy in Academia, and it is wise to understand the "Game" in order to best play it

2. No matter what your previous grades/schooling have been like, there are ways you can still get into virtually any level program for your Undergrad still (including the Elite level schools)

3. No matter what Undergrad program you go to, there are ways to go to virtually any Grad School Program

3. Even if your financial resources are limited, there are ways to get into good schools and be able to pay for it all the way up through PhD

4. The level of school you attend is going to greatly effect how difficult the courses are, and thus the GPA you will be able to get

a) Community College will be at a very reasonable level of difficulty as will a Public State School Program

b) A school around the 100-150 level (national rank) will definitely be noticeably more challenging than CC or State School (for the same program)

c) A school around the 50 level will be very challenging and completely different than CC or State School level

d) A school at the Elite level (roughly the top 20) would require one to be at an elite level for that stage in order to pass (top few% or so of people inclined for that technical subject at that level)

5. In the modern era, there are countless resources available that thoroughly teach any given technical subject area for free or a limited fee, and would prove to be an invaluable asset in learning said material (either for formal training/school or self-study)

Now, if a person's true interests lie in Art History however since they are coming from a poor economic background, one would have enough money (if used wisely) to first get a degree in a practical subject (e.g. Business, Engineering, ect.) that would set them up with a decent/good paying job which they could function as a stepping stone and safety net that allows them to go back to College for the subject matter they are truly interested in and pursue that career path henceforth.

This is to say, although the current system is far from optimal and certainly does not have "equality of opportunity" in a strict sense, there currently are ways to reach the highest level outcomes even from the bottom of US society for anyone. Now, Stafford Loans are flawed (in my view) since the amount of money you are eligible to receive is only compatible with a State-School of low college ranking (unless you happen to live in a state such as Florida where the major Public University were only about $7000 tuition per year). However, if Stafford Loans (Government Loans) were expanded to say the Graduate school level of $18,000-20,000 per year (rather than $12,000) than regardless of State one is in, family financial background, ect. ect., any person would be afforded "Equality of Opportunity" as it pertained to going to College as they would have the means to attend a Major University for their Undergrad which opens the door for the highest possibilities after that point (i.e. to follow ones intellectual interests as a career path and/or acquire the credentials needed to land a high paying job--depending on what the individual values more).

Here is a link to the Stafford Loan program in the US: https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/types/loans/subsidized-unsubsidized#how-much

Additionally, if a person's scores/grades are noticeably lower than would typically be accepted to a school, than this would suggest that they are not ready for the program. Furthermore, this appears to be supported by the higher drop-out rates associated with Affirmative Action beneficiaries.

Note: I know at points in my response I "skipped steps" and may not have fully established relevance or what I was driving at (since my response as already so long, I did not want to extend it any further than necessary), so by all means please point to areas you would like me to further elaborate on (if any)

Side: Support
1 point

I don't think giving people preferential treatment based on their race is ever acceptable. We have a term for such practices: racism.

Side: Oppose