August Tournament - United States should ban Affirmative Action

Thanks, Salam! I will now defend my case. Observation Salam misunderstands what gish gallop is. It is presenting more arguments than are reasonable in order to make it impossible for an opponent to respond to them all. Firstly, six arguments is not gish gallop; you can look at some of the best debates in the HOF and find more than six arguments being made in a case (for example,). If amazing debates such as those can have numerous arguments, the few that I have can hardly be considered unfair. Secondly, Salam has the same number of characters to rebut what I said as I had to make my case. Finally, some of Salam’s arguments were repetitive (re: qualified minorities). He could’ve addressed all my points to his satisfaction. Framework Per the rules laid out by Salam, the burden of proof is shared. Here, Salam tries to shift all of the BOP to me, in violation of his own rules. The correct interpretation of the topic means we both have to offer positive arguments, meaning that I must prove A.A. (educational and employment) should be banned, and that he must prove A.A. (both educational and employment) should not be banned. If I fail to prove A.A. should be banned, but he also fails to prove that A.A. should not be banned, then the debate is a tie. Argument 1: An Outdated System 1. Salam says that I must show that A.A. has met its goal, or is no longer effective, in order to show that it is outdated. In my rebuttal to Salam’s case, I show that it’s often not effective, and in my outdated argument, I show that enough progress has been made that the harms of A.A. don’t outweigh the benefits. The question is not whether A.A. no longer effective at its goal or whether it has already reached its goal, but whether the potential benefits it could still bring outweigh the harms. 2. Salam says that A.A. has led to all the progress that I mentioned. But I never said that. If you look at the Economist article I cited in my rebuttal to his case, a lot of benefits to minorities can come from economic growth rather than A.A. So, just because minorities are better off in some respects, that doesn’t mean A.A. was the cause of that. Salam MUST show causality between the positive outcomes he cites and A.A. if he wants to make the claim that A.A. is working. Theoretical arguments are nice, but without non-correlational statistical data, Salam cannot prove that A.A. actually was the primary or even a major generator of these benefits. 3. Salam says I never show how A.A. is detrimental, but all of my subsequent contentions explain how it is a bad thing. 4. Again, Salam tries to unfairly shift the BOP to me. Even if you, as the judge, don’t buy into this argument, for Salam to show that A.A. ought not to be banned (which is his half of the BOP), he must show that the harms of it do not outweigh the benefits. Argument 2: Reverse Discrimination Salam says that the goal of A.A. is to eliminate unjust discrimination. But, isn’t reverse discrimination unjust. For instance, there was a case where 12 white firefighters had scored better on their exams than the black firefighters, but the government chose to promote the black firefighters instead. [1] This isn’t giving blacks and whites an equal chance, it’s actively biasing the process in favor of the black employees, who received the same training through the fire department program. Surely, if you and I engage in a race, and I win based on merit by coming in first, then should I not receive the prize? It was unfair for these firefighters to be denied their promotions. Additionally, note that most A.A. beneficiaries, as I said last round, are wealthy African Americans; they are not the truly needy. If this is the case, A.A. isn’t just getting the disadvantaged caught up, it’s giving the already well-positions an extra leg up. It’s not promoting “equal opportunity.” A. Employment Salam said: “AA seeks to ensure that African Americans or females would be preferred if they are equally qualified or have comparable skills.” But, the fire department example disproves this, and reinforced my point, which was: “One applicant who does not fit in with this category might have great qualifications and amazing potential, but he might lose it to a person that falls within one of these categories because they are simply needed to fill the spots on paper.” B. Education Salam says that my “proposal would increase unfairness.” This would only be true if African Americans (without A.A.) would be more discriminated against than Whites and Asians would with A.A. Since all Whites and Asians are subject to these unfair educational assessments, and since there are more Whites and Asians, eliminating A.A. would likely have the least net discrimination. But, more importantly, because African Americans are much better off now (as Salam and I have agreed), taking away A.A. won’t have the kind of negative backlash Salam describes, because African Americans are better positioned to be competitive in a color blind society. Finally, saying that taking away A.A. will make the system less fair assumes that A.A. actually makes the system more fair. I have already questioned whether A.A. works. If A.A. doesn’t work, or if Salam can’t show that it does work, Salam’s points here are irrelevant. Argument 3: Meritocracy A. Harms the System/Unfair The arguments aren’t identical. Argument 2 is talking about the physical, measurable harms of reverse discrimination, and this argument is talking about the philosophical dangers of sidestepping meritocratic processes. Salam needed to respond to these two points separately, and by failing to do so, he DROPS this point. B. Encourages Laziness Salam never rebutted the following evidence: “Asian-Americans needed nearly perfect SAT scores of 1550 to have the same chance of being accepted at a top private university as whites who scored 1410 and African Americans who got 1100,” as well as other Argument 2 evidence. This data proves that African Americans do not need to do as well to succeed in college. This means that they don’t need to work as hard to do just as well as other groups. Salam says that a system without A.A. would make minorities desperate, and so they wouldn’t work as hard. This isn’t proof that a system with A.A. would make them work harder. And, I am the only one with hard data on this issue, so prefer my logic. Cross-apply my reverse discrimination arguments against Salam’s “turn”. Also cross-apply the fact that this “turn” also relies on the assumption that A.A. is effective, and that minorities are now better able to compete in a color-blind world. Argument 4: Perpetuating Stigma and Racial Thinking Affirmative action reinforces racial stereotyping and stigmatizes minority groups. This happens because outsiders look in on the benefits of affirmative action as discriminatory bias. What Salam says about the credibility of my argument is untrue. Yes affirmative action may raise self esteem, but it also creates reverse discrimination from people who do not gain benefits from the law, as stated in my second argument. Salam states that, “African American workers must be qualified to get the job.” There is no doubt in my mind that the recipients of these jobs are qualified, but the fact that they can be favored over more qualified and equipped applicants is what perpetuates the stigma and racial thinking. “Finally, preferential treatment will spur claims from all groups who feel they have been victims of injustice.” (2) Evidence from my past argument shows that not only will non-minority groups speak up, but also from minority groups who feel they have been victimized by the unfair benefits of A.A. If affirmative action is abolished, then we can be sure that all applicants are treated as equals in relation to ability and skill. Argument 5: Beneficiaries Success When hiring and acceptance into selective programs is based upon race, this represents colored thinking, which is not a good representation of a first world society. “Affirmative action, or positive discrimination, is the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination within a culture.” (3) This means that the companies, or schools, applying A.A. laws look more closely at disadvantaged minority groups. Reverse discrimination is created by the unfair favoring of a minority group, and A.A. is effectively producing it in all applicable areas. The fact that more skilled and qualified applicants can be overlooked for those of minority groups is an inequality that is ever-so-present. Argument 6: Beast of Burden There is a vast amount of litigation surrounding this issue. From non-minority groups to minority groups alike, they all have something to say about A.A. There are some discriminated in the past groups that do not gain benefits, and there are non-minorities that are filing lawsuits claiming that racial bias is a real, and unfair thing. A.A. is about righting previous wrongs, which is why it provides positive discrimination to disadvantaged groups. It creates more controversy than it does good, and should be abloshed. Conclusion Salam must show that A.A. produces benefits, and must show that these benefits are not outweighed by the harms. I must show the opposite. Salam cannot show the A.A. actually causes the benefits he talks about, so he’s already in trouble in terms of meeting his BOP. And, even if A.A. is the cause, Salam doesn’t quantify the benefits very well. I have shown clear harms to A.A., including reverse discrimination, harms to the meritocratic system, and the lack of success met by the so-called “beneficiaries” of A.A. Much of these latter two harms were dropped by Salam. Minorities are better off now than they were when A.A. started, and so are better able to cope with a colorblind society. For these reasons, Vote Pro! Source 1) http://usnews.nbcnews.com... 2) Argument, Round 1 3) Salam's Rebuttal