Affirmative Action

I have very much enjoyed this debate. Pro did a good job, and was one of the most challenging opponents I have ever faced. Below is my last argument for this debate, mainly comprised of a rebuttal to all of Pro's points that were argued in the last round. Half Truths I'm afraid that Pro is again confusing the issue of the legality of affirmative action programs versus whether or not they are beneficial to society at large. She is attempting to pin upon me the accusation that I start by arguing about one thing and then dance over and argue about another. The manner by which she does this is by taking two different quotes out of context, and comparing them to one another in ways that are not appropriate or relevant to their intended meaning, thus giving an entirely different impression of the truth. Please allow me to reprint the full paragraphs from whenceforth these two quotes came. I will then explain why they are not related in such a way as to consider them contradictory to one another. The first is as follows: "Secondly, the title of the debate is "Affirmative Action". But that isn't the "resolution" of the debate. If Pro did not understand that, I'm sorry. But the fact is, I as Con am attempting to prove, as best as possible, that affirmative action is not a beneficial program to be administered, whether by corporate programs or government programs, for the reasons which I present. Pro is, as I understand it, attempting to prove that affirmative action is a beneficial program. That is the resolution. My hypothetical example of affirmative action programs being administered was simply an example of what can be the case, assuming that such programs exist." Now the second paragraph is making reference to the paragraph that was printed previous to it. So, I will reprint both of them: "Pro is correct when she says the majority of my arguments are based on what-if scenarios. My reason for doing this is to show how affirmative action programs are detrimental to society at large, even though I provided no physical evidence of such. Part of the reason for this is because there are few, if any, government-mandated affirmative action programs in operation within the United States. But that does not mean that there are none at all. For example, in Wikipedia, it says: "Some countries, such as India, use a quota system, whereby a certain percentage of government jobs, political positions, and school vacancies must be reserved for members of a certain group. In some other regions where quotas are not used, minority group members are given preference or special consideration in selection processes." (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org......) While it is true that quota based systems are currently illegal in the United States, this is not the point. The point of the debate is, should affirmative action programs be legal? And if not, why not?" When viewed in the proper context, the quotes that Pro uses do not really help her argument. Quote #2 was not saying that the only point to the debate was whether or not affirmative action programs should be legal. It was meant to express the fact that I knew perfectly well that quota-based systems are not legal in the United States, and that wasn't the point because they could be established in the future, and they aren't unheard of in foreign countries. This came about as a result of Pro's argument that my hypothetical examples were not based on reality, which, in the context of our current laws, is true. As for Quote #1, I was arguing that the title of the debate is not the "resolution" of the debate, since the title simply reads "Affirmative Action". So, as far as the title is concerned, any argument related to AA can be considered legitimate. But there is indeed a particular angle from which I am coming at AA from. What is it? Well, consider my own "resolution" which I outlined in Round One: "In this debate, I will attempt to prove that the very nature of affirmative action is racist and sexist." This is and has been the chief element to affirmative action that I have been attempting to prove, and my earliest hypothetical examples were created with this point in mind. And if I prove this to be true, then I certainly have proved that AA "is not a beneficial program to be administered". Thus, Pro has once again attempted to twist my words (whether by direct intention or otherwise) and assign them a meaning which they were not intentionally created to have. Below is a paragraph copied from my opponent's argument: "The key word here is encourage, and the laws that the EEOC is required to uphold DO allow companies to market job openings to whomsoever they wish to. What they don"t allow is discrimination against anyone on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic"""", when hiring or promoting applicants or employees" The EEOC makes no mention of the illegality of a private enterprise or company that receives government contracts in so far as any law that prohibits to whom a company can advertise a job opening to." By rebuttal to this argument is as follows. My opponent would probably agree that discriminating in favor of any one particular class (race, sex, etc.) is equivalent to discriminating against the rest of the classes. For example, if I discriminate in favor of hiring white male workers over anyone else, regardless of their work ability, then I effectively discriminate against all the other social classes who don't fit into that category. This is fairly straightforward. Now, there is a bit of a contradiction in Pro's statement. She says: "the laws that the EEOC is required to uphold DO allow companies to market job openings to whomsoever they wish to." but then she goes on to say: "What they don"t allow is discrimination against anyone on the basis of 'race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic"""", when hiring or promoting applicants or employees'" The contradiction here is that to comply with the anti-discrimination laws, companies clearly would not be allowed to "market job openings to whomsoever they wish to." I mean, can you imagine seeing the following advertisement in the jobs classified section: "Help Wanted. Forklift driver. $12/hour FT, possible overtime. Will consider white, male applicants only. (555) 726-5489." This would certainly be an illegal job ad description because the employer would be discriminating against all the applicants who were not white males, regardless of the fact that white males are the only demographic that this employer wants to hire. Thus, companies really can't market job openings to whomever they wish. They can only market them to everyone, because if they narrow down the prospects in the ad based on discrimination factors, it is no longer a legal ad. This, I believe successfully, counters the point. Corporate Programs I shall again reprint one of my opponent's paragraphs, and then offer a counterargument to it: "Seeking qualified candidates from diverse groups is beneficial to private enterprise. That it is called "affirmative action" only means that qualified applicants from traditionally disadvantaged groups of workers will be sought to complete the application process, it doesn"t mean that under-qualified workers will be hired simply to fulfill diversity. A company would do harm to itself by hiring workers who could not fulfill the expectations of their job title. "The comparison of cons statement about the supply and demand system of free enterprise discouraging racism and sexism, and my findings about the reasons that private companies seek a diverse workforce, are complimentary, and show that both con"s and my line of thinking regarding the liberty of private enterprise to hire whomever is beneficial to them, is similar. Why wouldn't"t I conclude that he is in favor of affirmative action - when defined as the liberty of private enterprise to seek and hire those who would be qualified and profitable to the company? His own statement regarding the system of supply and demand brought me to my conclusion. " While I agree with my opponent that private enterprise certainly should be allowed to hire whomever they please, and that the dictations of supply and demand certainly work better than anti-discrimination laws, this does not mean that I favor AA programs. However, Pro asked a good question in the last paragraph that I definitely should answer. It is as follows: "Why wouldn't"t I conclude that he is in favor of affirmative action - when defined as the liberty of private enterprise to seek and hire those who would be qualified and profitable to the company?" Pro, allow me to say that, defined as thus, I certainly would be in favor of AA. But that's the problem. What you have described is not the definition used in this debate. As I have constantly repeated myself in pointing this out, the definition we are using for this debate is: "The encouragement of increased representation of women and minority-group members, especially in employment." This is strikingly different then what you printed as a definition. I otherwise would be in favor of AA if we used your definition, but as long as we stick to the definition we agreed upon at the beginning of the debate, I am opposed to such programs. Conclusion Unfortunately, I've run out of characters, so I can not continue. Allow me to close by once again saying that I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate, and would like to have similar debates again in the future. Thank you Pro for providing substantive arguments, and I look forward to reading your last argument. Thank you also DDO, for hosting this debate.