The Instigator
Con (against)
14 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

The US should abolish affirmative action

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...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 10/22/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,059 times Debate No: 104563
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)




Hayd must start in Round 1, and waive the final round.

All rounds up until Hayd's Round 2 and my Round 3 should be copy/pasted from here (



This is the first debate I’ve done in over 6 months, and I’m excited to have it with a great opponent on a topic I’ve never done before.

The resolution states that the US should ‘abolish’ affirmative action (henceforth AA.) This would require a law to be passed making it illegal. I will be arguing that this should be done because the concept of AA is incompatible with capitalism. My thesis in one sentence would be:

Capitalism is essential to any just government, and because AA is incompatible with the principles of capitalism, the US should abolish it.


In this contention I will argue for the value I am upholding--capitalism.

Governments are created by people, for the people, in order to better secure their human rights. These being life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. These rights are maintained in exchange for a loss of liberty. For example, citizens would be forced to pay taxes to fund a police force to protect the right to life. Based on this social contract theory, it is clear that a successful government is one that maintains the citizen’s rights while minimizing the loss of freedom to the individual.

The government that takes a laissez-faire approach to economics and politics maximizes freedoms and is therefore a just government.

AA Violates the Principles of Capitalism

Freedom is the key characteristic of capitalism, and AA policies are incompatible with the concept of freedom. Freedom is the ability of an individual to act as he wants, to determine his own destiny. This necessitates the individual’s ownership of himself and the possession of free-will.

AA assigns political significance to an individual’s heritage. Because of this, an individual’s education and employment is not determined by his nature and actions but those of his ancestors. An individual only has ownership of his own nature and actions, not those of his ancestors.

In this way, AA violates the freedom of individuals. And because any just government would maximize the freedom of individuals, the United States should abolish AA.
Debate Round No. 1



Because I believe that it’s time to dispel with the illusion that racism doesn’t exist, and with the illusion that “colorblindness” is the way to fight racism, I negate. Justice Sonia Sotomayor writes, “We ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. It is this view that works harm, by perpetuating the facile notion that what makes race matter is acknowledging the simple truth that race does matter.” Race matters; vote Con if you want to make it matter less.


1. Individuals belonging to groups designated as marginalized groups, such as African-Americans, Hispanic individuals, women, low-income individuals, and multiple groups of Asian-Americans, among others, will benefit from affirmative action policies, carried out and sanctioned by the state. The policy will be multi-layered, in that more benefits will be given to individuals who’re a part of more than one of these groups (e.g. a low-income woman gets more benefits than an upper middle-class woman) – this is a change from the current system that I advocate.

2. Examples of affirmative action policies include (a) favoring people from these communities among competing applicants of equal qualification, (b) a reduction in qualification expectations in terms of academic success for members of these communities, and (c) specific educational programs and skill training programs targeted at these individuals. I don’t support quotas.


I’m going to prove that (1) governments have a moral obligation to implement affirmative action policies, and (2) affirmative action policies are beneficial to society. Both of those are independent ways for me to win the debate. For the sake of clarity, I don’t need to argue in favor of all the examples listed above – insofar as I prove that abolishing all affirmative action is a bad idea, vote Con.

My Case

1. Affirmative action uplifts marginalized individuals

Subpoint A: Affirmative action offsets discrimination in hiring/admissions processes

There’s little doubt that racism/sexism are reasonably substantial in hiring and admissions processes. According to a 2004 study by Marianne Bertrand and Senthil Mullainathan, “White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. Callbacks are also more responsive to resume quality for White names than for African-American ones.” [1] A 2012 study by Devah Pager and Bruce Western, which used enforcement-based field experiments, concludes, “Blacks are less than half as likely to receive consideration by employers relative to equally qualified Whites across a wide range of low-wage jobs . . . [and] the ultimate distribution of employment opportunities across equally qualified applicants reveals a process of decision-making very much shaped by race.” [2] Moreover, research has consistently shown bias in hiring against women who are mothers when compared to fathers. [3]

This direct inequality is offset by affirmative action, which gives qualified individuals a chance to prove their qualifications against injustice and discrimination.

Subpoint B: Affirmative action mitigates injustice within workplaces and educational institutions.

Discrimination in the status quo is rampant. For one, there is a gap in wages between women and men in the United States, with women being paid about 78 to 80 cents to what every man earns. Adjusted for occupational choices, etc., the OECD estimates that 30% of this occupational wage gap is due to sexism. [4] Pro themselves pointed me to the example of the racial wage gap in the U.S., wherein black men earn 31% less than white men, on average. [5] Furthermore, workplace sexual harassment is rampant and under-addressed, with insufficient rules and reporting mechanisms in multiple workplaces. [6]

Affirmative action mitigates these problems because it fights the glass ceiling effect – more individuals have the opportunity to go up the corporate ladder and take on leadership rules, allowing them to control policy. People who benefit from affirmative action are likely to sympathize with issues facing the marginalized and pass useful policy, as a result of their own experiences. According to Alana Semuels of The Atlantic, studies find that “[t]he higher the share of women on corporate boards one year, the more likely the company was to hire women executives in the following year.” [7] Political scientist Michele Swers says, “Women in Congress are just more likely to prioritize issues that have a direct connection to women [such as] violence against women [and] family leave policy.” [8] The same logic should apply in the workplace as well: based on personal experiences, women and minorities are more likely to repeal and fight discriminatory policy.

Subpoint C: Affirmative action increases the quality of life of marginalized individuals.

Affirmative action combats poverty by providing employment/educational opportunities. Individuals who benefit from affirmative action are more likely to be of low-income backgrounds. For one, affirmative action exists for low-income individuals, according to my advocacy, which means more low-income individuals will have an access to education, for example. Moreover, individuals of ethnic minority backgrounds are likely to be low-income.

Affirmative action offers these individuals unique economic opportunities. According to a report by the U.S. Labor Department, affirmative action has helped 5 million minority members and 6 million women move up in the workforce. [9] In South Africa, affirmative action caused a “deep decrease in unemployment and poverty for each population group.” [10] There are at least six million women who wouldn’t have jobs today if not for affirmative action. [14] Affirmative action improves the quality of life of individuals by relieving situations of economic disadvantage.

Conclusion. Martin Luther King noted, “If a man is entering the starting line in a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some impossible feat in order to catch up with his fellow runner.” [12] Affirmative action offsets existing discrimination, advancing the lives of the marginalized.

2. Affirmative action creates diversity

Given the current homogeneity of workplaces, affirmative action creates diversity. According to Elizabeth Redden of Inside Higher Ed, “The percentage of African American, Hispanic and Native American students admitted to the University of Michigan Law School for next fall fell from 39.6 percent for those students whose applications were considered before enactment of a state law banning race-based preferences in December to 5.5 percent thereafter.” [13] Through affirmative action, the percentage of women increased by 16% of the total number of workers in architecture, 12% in medicine, 19% in law, and 20% in chemistry, among others. [15] Thus, it’s reasonably obvious that workplaces and educational environments gain more ethnic, cultural, and gender diversity.

This is beneficial for two reasons. First, diversity has massive economic benefits. When people come from diverse backgrounds, they tend to think of problems in different ways and bring fresh perspective. Professor Rodney Smolla argues that affirmative action “does the institution a favor, enriches the institution, [and] brings to it the positive asset of new perspectives.” [16] Second, diversity facilitates integration of marginalized groups in the long-term, preventing the suppression of their opinions and discrimination within these environments, enriching the institution as a whole.


1. Pro argues that affirmative action punishes people who aren’t culpable for oppression. However, affirmative action doesn’t “punish” anyone. It removes disadvantage. African-Americans don’t have the same access to resources that white people have; affirmative action offsets that.

2. Affirmative action upholds merit, because, as demonstrated in my first contention, there’s a large number of meritorious candidates who are denied opportunities because of racism and sexism. Affirmative action ensures that people aren’t denied opportunities arbitrarily. Thus, Pro’s own value of merit means you should negate.

3. Freedom is fundamentally suppressed in an environment of injustice. Without access to basic economic opportunities, vulnerable individuals lose basic aspects of their quality of life; thus, their freedom is hurt to a far greater extent than the freedom of individuals who already have certain institutional advantages. If Pro’s value is freedom, you should negate.

4. Pro concedes: “[C]itizens would be forced to pay taxes to fund a police force to protect the right to life.” This means people have their money forcibly taken away from them in order to protect the rights of other individuals. It’s the same reason welfare programs exists. This is in direct contradiction with Pro’s contention, because affirmative action asks people to give up a small amount of resources to protect the rights of other people and to level the playing field.

5. Affirmative action is also reparation for historic injustice. Ta-Nehisi Coates explains that “the payment of reparations would represent America’s maturation out of the childhood myth of its innocence into a wisdom worthy of its founders.” [11] Historic injustice against marginalized individuals means the U.S. ought pay reparations, and affirmative action fulfills this duty.

Race matters. Only the Con side makes it matter less.

[14] Ellis Cose, “Color-Blind,” p. 171



In this round I will argue against Tej"s opening arguments and defend my own against his rebuttals.

Observation 1: Under "Advocacy" on #1 Tej argues that minorities will benefit from multi-tiered AA programs carried out by the state. This is a major departure from the status quo because right now only government contractors are required to practice AA. In all other circumstances AA is purely a private practice. Businesses are required to be Equal Opportunity Employers, meaning they can"t discriminate when hiring, but they aren"t required to specifically hire minorities. Tej"s advocacy here is that every college and business has to be examined by the state government to ensure they are practicing AA, however that"s supposed to be determined without quotas. Tej needs to outline the specifics of his plan here so that the judges and I can properly weigh it (the cost of time and money to local governments among other things.)

Observation 2: Under "Advocacy" on #2 Tej says that specific educational programs and skill training programs targeted at minorities is a policy that falls under AA. But per R1 definition only policies that benefit minorities in competitions is relevant.

AA uplifts minorities

Subpoint A:

I agree. I do not contest that minorities face discrimination. Tej and I disagree that AA is a good answer to the problem.

Subpoint B:

Here Tej argues that the result of minorities achieving higher positions in companies is a reduction in workplace discrimination. I concede this.

Subpoint C:

Tej argues here that AA increases the quality of life of minorities. I concede this.

AA creates Diversity

I concede that it creates diversity, I contest the impact of this though. This is a hard impact to measure. How does the cliche "fresh perspective" and "thinking of things in different ways" hold up against the violation of freedom? This argument is too vague to matter much.


I will now defend my opening argument against Tej"s rebuttal.

1) I never argued that AA punishes anyone. Ctrl+F shows this. I argued that AA values genetic lineage over ability, and that this runs counter to the concept of free-will.

2) Although there are cases where more qualified minorities are denied positions because of discrimination, Con cannot quantify it. He refers back to his first contention but the only statistics he uses related explicitly to discrimination--this being equal qualifications but different race/gender--are based on percentages. In order for this rebuttal to work, Tej has to prove that AA dispels more racism than it creates, which is impossible in the absence of quantity.

AA directly discriminates against those more qualified. African American students get to score 230 points lower on the SAT and still have an equal chance of acceptance as white students [1]. Therefore, AA still violates merit.

3) This argument mistreats how I was referring to freedom. I used freedom to argue that individuals ought to be judged based on their own merits. Even if minorities compete with the disadvantage of poorer former education, they are at least judged as individuals. Their intelligence and qualification is what they make it, and they are judged from that. With AA, their genetic lineage is what is judged rather than themselves, which violates the concept of freedom.

4) Tej points out that there is a contradiction in just taxation to protect rights and unjust AA to protect rights. The difference is that AA discriminates based on things that an individual cannot control--his genetic lineage--and therefore is unjust. Taxation is based on income, which an individual can control.

5) Reparations do not help in the least because those who would receive the reparations were never slaves. Reparations would assuage an injustice to those who never experienced the injustice.

Debate Round No. 2


I want to make two observations.

Observation One - In the status quo, affirmative action is carried out by the state in the public sector and in public universities. Those are carried out by the state, and those will continue. The difference from the status quo is that they will be multi-tiered. This is a clarification on Hayd’s observation.

Observation Two - The weighing mechanism for this round is based on the balance of rights, as Hayd notes in Round 1. Hayd concedes that the right to life, the right to economic opportunity, and so on are all facets of the right to freedom. So note that, given that Hayd has pretty much dropped the whole of contention 1, he has conceded a huge portion of the balance of rights.

My Case

Extend contention 1. Affirmative action reduces discrimination. I gave you three mechanisms through which it reduces discrimination. First, discrimination in hiring is extremely prevalent and affirmative action solves for it. Second, within workplaces and educational institutions, affirmative action changes practices by increasing overall representation, meaning better sexual harassment policies, dealing with wage gaps better, and so on. Third, and exceptionally importantly, affirmative action enables poor individuals to put food on the table for their families and to escape conditions of poverty.

Hayd concedes all of this. The only thing he says is that he “disagrees” that affirmative action is a way to resolve the problem of discrimination in hiring – even though I proved that affirmative action solves this discrimination and Hayd doesn’t even mention an alternative. He even concedes that affirmative action changes policies within the workplace and increases the quality of life of individuals. He loses this debate already.

This is the single biggest impact in the round. Hayd’s value is the rights of citizens – rights that need to be held in a balance. Injustice is a fundamental violation on the freedom of individuals. If affirmative action counters that injustice, I already win. But beyond just that, basic access to economic opportunities and a life without poverty is a facilitative right: it guarantees a much larger number of freedoms, in terms of basic survival, in terms of educating your kids, putting food on the table, and in terms of being able to afford a lot more. Insofar as the third subpoint holds, I’m already preserving freedom much more than Hayd is – especially as the individuals whose freedom I’m protecting are marginalized people who have access to far less freedom than those Hayd is protecting, majority individuals who don’t face this systemic discrimination. You don’t even need to look at the rest of the debate to vote Con.

Note: This impact is also a “quantified” one. Hayd is going to through millions of people into unemployment and replace those jobs with far wealthier individuals, who need those jobs far less. Just look into sources [9], [10], and [14] for precise quantification.

Extend contention 2. Affirmative action ensures diversity. Hayd concedes this, but contests the impact of diversity as “unquantified,” and thus is outweighed by his impact of freedom. First, his impact of freedom isn’t quantified either. The impact of diversity is economic efficiency, which translates to better wages for workers and more employment, which is a huge impact in terms of Hayd’s framework of “freedom.” Which means, since both impacts are freedom-based, both impacts are unquantified.

Second, here’s some quantification, if that’s what Hayd wants. One study found that “increase in women’s overall share of labor in the United States—women went from holding 37 percent of all jobs to 47 percent over the past 40 years—has accounted for about a quarter of current GDP.” [17] A study by Vincenzo Bove and Leandro Elia found that diversity due to migration has a “distinct positive impact on real GDP per capita.” [18] The same logic must extend onto affirmative action. Diversity has clear benefits, which are much more quantified than Hayd’s abstract of “freedom.”

Third, Hayd drops that diversity also facilitates integration, by creating role models and by destroying stereotypes (given that more interaction with smart minority individuals will probably end up destroying stereotypes).

Conclusion: My case has huge impacts of economic growth, poverty reduction, and fighting injustice. There is clear racism and sexism in the status quo that deprives vulnerable individuals of educational and economic opportunities, that affirmative action provides.

Pro’s Case

a) Hayd first says “affirmative action values genetic lineage over ability, and that this runs counter to the concept of free will.” This is a bare assertion – there’s no reason to think that “merit” as a value is fundamental to the idea of freedom. Moreover, even if it’s a violation of freedom, he doesn’t quantify the violation, and it pales in comparison to the benefits of affirmative action on marginalized individuals.

b) Hayd says “Tej has to prove that AA dispels more racism than it creates, which is impossible in the absence of quantity.” But that’s not my BOP – it’s Hayd’s burden to prove that affirmative action creates more racism than it dispels if he wants to make this argument. I’m not making an argument here, Hayd is.

c) On the taxation analogy, Hayd says that you can control your income, but not your genetic lineage. This is a lie. The amount of control you have over your income is very, very limited in the vast majority of instances – individuals from wealthy backgrounds are more likely to get better opportunities because they get educated better, and so on. For all intents and purposes, income can’t really be controlled either.

d) It’s true that those who receive reparations aren’t slaves. However, they do face direct harm as a result of historic slavery. So I concede that the reparation doesn’t have to be “directly proportional” to the historic harm of slavery and Jim Crowe – merely to the extent that they are harmed by it and individuals in the present continue to perpetuate that harm or benefit off of the theft of property that led them to this condition.


Even if you buy Pro’s entire case, vote Con. I protect the rights of people substantially more than Hayd’s marginal, unquantified impacts.



I already conceded Tej’s first argument and he just extends it in R3. He then supplies research studies to quantify the impact of his diversity contention, which I concede.

My Case
Here I will respond to what Tej argued under the heading “Pro’s Case.”

a) I explained in R1 why merit is essential to freedom. Freedom is the ability of an individual to determine his own destiny. Therefore his actions and merit ought to be things that are judged when considering his future (e.g. college and employment applications.)

b) I made this statement in response to Tej arguing that “there’s a large number of meritorious candidates who are denied opportunities because of racism and sexism” and that therefore his case would better uphold the value of merit. But in order to do this he has to prove that *more* individuals are denied these opportunities than in my side, which is why I said that.

c) I concede this.

d) I extend my argument that individuals ought to be judged based on their merit rather than their genetic lineage. Minorities should not be awarded benefits because they are statistically disadvantaged by past injustice, but rather should earn rewards based on their merit.

That’s my last response of the debate, I will be extending next round. Thanks Tej for the debate!
Debate Round No. 3


Pro concedes my whole case, including impacts. He loses.

Even if merit is essential to freedom, I protect the freedom of more people. Just look to the weighing I present in Rd. 3:

"This is the single biggest impact in the round. Hayd's value is the rights of citizens – rights that need to be held in a balance. Injustice is a fundamental violation on the freedom of individuals. If affirmative action counters that injustice, I already win. But beyond just that, basic access to economic opportunities and a life without poverty is a facilitative right: it guarantees a much larger number of freedoms, in terms of basic survival, in terms of educating your kids, putting food on the table, and in terms of being able to afford a lot more. Insofar as the third subpoint holds, I'm already preserving freedom much more than Hayd is – especially as the individuals whose freedom I'm protecting are marginalized people who have access to far less freedom than those Hayd is protecting, majority individuals who don't face this systemic discrimination. You don't even need to look at the rest of the debate to vote Con." He also drops that economic growth due to diversity results in poverty reduction. That's another huge impact to freedom. Vote Con there as well.

Pro says his standard for weighing is "quantification," when he doesn't quantify any of his impacts. He loses on the impact calculus.


Just to be thorough, I'll deal with his case.

First, merit isn't a mechanism of obtaining "your own" destiny when your actions and choices don't define your merit as much as what you inherit and where and when you're born.

Second, I responded to the BOP analysis -- this is Hayd's argument. It's up to him to prove that more people are unjustly denied opportunities in my world than justly.

Third, this is just an assertion, that I've taken down through the debate.


Pro wants this debate to be about freedom. I uphold the freedom of far more people than he does. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 4 years ago
Thanks for voting, Whiteflame.
Posted by whiteflame 4 years ago
RFD (Pt. 1)

I"m going to evaluate this debate by looking at the two sides separately, which is not something I often do. However, both debaters appear to want to predispose judges to that mentality, as there"s very little in the way of responses placed on each sides" arguments. Maybe this was done purposely, but I don"t think doing so does either side any favors. Pro shows tunnel vision by emphasizing the importance of freedom, focusing most of his response on weighing mechanisms comparing his points with Con"s, though without returning much to the key pieces of his case. Con builds a case largely based on subsuming the value of freedom and focuses his attention on who lacks freedom, what freedoms they lack, and why restoring that freedom weighs heavier than anything gained by Pro. Both sides largely concede or drop the arguments of the other side, so this is mainly a weighing game: which side creates more freedom?

Let"s start with Pro.

His argument hinges on a framework that he doesn"t revisit throughout the debate. I don"t see the word "capitalism" after R1, and that"s a shame because I think this could have been stronger. Pro does offer a tepid response to one rebuttal from Con on this point (that if rights can be protected by paying taxes, why can"t they be protected via AA), but nothing ever really happens with this point. Both sides agree that freedom is the biggest, most important value and both sides weigh their arguments on this value. If Pro had decided to put the weight on social contract theory under capitalism, and brought the focus off just freedom in general, I think he could have created a stronger weighing mechanism for his side.
Posted by whiteflame 4 years ago
(Pt. 2)

And that"s where Pro"s argument is at its weakest: the weight. He provides a lens through which we can weigh, but provides no means to weigh his arguments more highly than Con"s. I buy that there is some unquantifiable loss of freedom that comes from removing some agency and merit-based selection, which both sides agree is important. There are two problems: a) we don"t know the size of the affected population, and b) we don"t know the weight of the effect. Pro is very quick to point out the lack of quantification in his opponent"s argument, but when his points don"t stand up to the same scrutiny, it makes it difficult to buy what he"s selling, particularly when he talks about comparing freedom harmed or lost.

That leaves me with Con.

We get started in the wrong direction. While Con isn"t required to advocate for status quo affirmative action (particularly when Pro"s argument is that a law needs to be passed to make AA illegal " I don"t think he needed to take on that burden, but OK), it doesn"t service his arguments at all to shunt himself into the best possible world of AA. Pro has a very generalist attack against AA that hits basically every variant there is, and I don"t think Con"s attempt to sidle out of a few attacks against quotas does anything for him. Con"s own arguments make no attempt to capitalize on the differences either, so it does nothing of substance for him.
Posted by whiteflame 4 years ago
(Pt. 3)

Both of Con"s other points are either immediately or eventually conceded, which is Pro"s biggest mistake. Con"s points on discrimination make it clear that AA is a means for reducing inequities between people that have tremendous and lasting effects on their ability to exercise their freedoms and achieve an equivalent level of merit to those who started ahead. Their increased freedom ensures that they have access to the basics and can get out of the cycle of poverty that plagues them. I"m not getting a clear idea of the size of this population, but, unlike with Pro"s case, I am getting exactly how heavy that effect is. The diversity argument holds less weight, though it reinforces the weight the weight of that first contention by arguing that it"s not only granting a way out for individuals, but a way to stop systemic racism in each institution. The "fresh perspective" gain is somewhat quantified, but it never becomes more than a sideline.

So, when I"m weighing these points, there"s just not a lot to consider. Pro concedes all the logic on these points, and his responses are basically to just repeatedly state that merit is everything. While this does link back to his initial argument, it lacks any means of weighing against these points from Con, which are the only ones that have any weight. That leaves me with little choice but to vote Con.
Posted by tejretics 4 years ago
Thanks for voting, Varrack.
Posted by Varrack 4 years ago
RFD (1/2)

This debate was rather disappointing. Neither case was particularly strong, and every rebuttal that was made fell flat.

Pro's case is very simple: Individual freedom is violated when AA uses heritage to affect acceptance. In response, Con alleged that (1) AA upholds merit because it fights discrimination, (2) freedom is suppressed in an environment of injustice, and (3) AA is reparation for historic injustice. But none of these are relevant - Pro didn't even mention the word "merit" in Round 1. Nor did he claim that freedom wasn't suppressed in an environment of injustice. (3) is an entirely different argument altogether, and should have just remained attached to Con's case. Pro's *entire* case was that heritage-based admission infringes on individual freedom. That's all Con needed to respond to. But he didn't; instead, he set up straw men and knocked them down. All Con needed to do was point out that AA has nothing to do with heritage or ancestry, and Pro's only premise in the debate would have been countered.

Since the rest of the back-and-forths afterwards have nothing to do with Pro's single-premise case, I dismiss them all.

On to Con's case. Since both sides presented arguments, I'm assuming the burden of proof is shared. Con begins by laying out an advocacy for how AA should be. I reject this because it's irrelevant to the debate; Con's job is to negate the resolution, "The US should abolish affirmative action". He must argue for why AA shouldn't be abolished as it currently is. Con *must* argue for the status quo to negate, because Pro is trying to affirm it. By negating an affirmative resolution, Con is not allowed to affirm his own resolution, such as laying out a separate advocacy. Pro seemed to notice this but didn't explain why moving the goalposts was bad.
Posted by Varrack 4 years ago
RFD (2/2)

Con argues that AA offsets discrimination. I reject sub-point C as it is irrelevant to the resolution (AA as it currently stands). Con cites some studies to show that discrimination exists against certain groups, and explains that because AA helps these groups, it effectively fights marginalization. This is impact. Pro concedes this.

Con contends that AA creates diversity, which is good because (1) it provides "fresh perspective" and (2) it further offsets discrimination since the marginalized groups will become part of the institution that is discriminating. Seems logical. Pro responds to (1) by saying it is vague and drops (2). I'll say (2) was enough to have impact.

Con makes impact twice: in sub-points A and B of A1 and in the second point of A2. Pro makes impact once, in his only contention, albeit it is very small. Thus, I vote to negate.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
This is a really weird debate lol
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
Source 18 in round 3: Fractionalisation and polarisation lead to more economic growth.

Weird finding but okay XD
Posted by Mharman 4 years ago
"Examples of affirmative action policies include (a) favoring people from these communities among competing applicants of equal qualification"

That's racist.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 4 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Varrack 4 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Comments 4, 5

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