Validity of Racism and Affirmative Action

To begin... the debate shall be claimed as (A) Resolved: There is a Justification for Racism that is Valid ----((a) that social/political/spatial integration is detrimental, thereby, segregation is positive and (b) might even extend to that we should be actively against one another... (a) would be the only thing I'd be trying to prove, though we might end up at (b)) or (B) Resolved: Affirmative Action hinders society Progress from achieving Goal X ----(while I believe Goal X is interstellar travel and the continuation of our Species, you can argue for another one) ---- (Affirmative Action is defined as creating policy that actively makes up for the shortcomings of a person's race, assumed those shortcomings are real) or (C) Resolved: Integration of the Races is a Negative thing for our Genetic Code ----(thereby making our genetic code weaker in some way, or some other justification) I would like to debate (A), but choose whichever you would like, as they are all viewed as "Racist" nowadays. I think it makes it a much more concise debate than just "racism is valid" And I suppose we can focus on the US, but I think being able to talk about difference places in the world is important, since that's where we all came from and where our genetics split (assuming we have a genetic link). ALSO- We need to specify all the Races we're talking about here, so I will list them http://upload.wikimedia.org... (1) Caucasoid - Those normally considered of European/Middle Eastern Descent (2) Negroid or Congoid - Those normally considered Sub-African Descent (black - Nubian) (3) Capoid - Those considered Northern African Descent (though, as seen, they get pushed to southern Africa) (4) Mongoloid - Asians and Native Americans (5) Australoid - Aboriginal Austrians, (not the criminals put there by GB) However, we do have to expand on the Caucasian Race as well, since I think Caucasian diversity is the most relevant on both the US scene and the Global scene (obviously the divergences between the Hutu and the Tutsi are a big deal to them [Hotel Rwanda... watch it!], they don't really effect the global scene..... the fight between Anglos, Aryans and Slavs almost caused the end of the world) So, we can divide the Caucasian Race up as you wish, but I'd suggest (I) Anglo-Saxon - Those of descendants from Germanic Tribes who conquered Britain (II) Middle Eastern - Arabs, Persians, Egyptians - I'm wayyyyy oversimplifying this group (III) Hebrew - Jews (IV) Nordic - Northern Europeans, blond hair, blue eyes... Aryan? (V) French - Very close to Anglo, but many clear distinctions (VI) Slav - Eastern European, intermingled with Nordic as well (VII) Mediterranean - Southern European, Greek, greasy hair, possibly intermingled long ago with African (VIII) Spanish/Hispanic - Dark/Yellowish skin, black hair, possibly intermingled long ago with African, Hispanic intermingled with Mongoloid Another example of how we can classify the Races http://upload.wikimedia.org... (i) African (ii) New Guinean & Australian (iii) Pacific Islander (iv) Southeast Asian (v) Amerindian (vi) Arctic Northeast Asian (vii) Northeast Asian (viii) European Caucasoid (ix) Non-European Caucasoid We can even classify them like: http://upload.wikimedia.org... It should also be noted that anyone who is of "mixed" race between the races that we have specified is considered SEPERATE from their original race. However, these people are VERY important because they show the qualities that they inherited from each Race. For example, we can argue for the differences between Mulatto's and their ancestors on both sides. For example, on average, African-Americans are 20% European. (with figures as high was 50% in the northeast to as low as 10% in the south http://en.wikipedia.org...) This can be argued as both a good and a bad thing. (You would have to prove that the mixed raced is better than either of their racial ancestry, whereas, I'd be arguing that the mixture of races has diluted their original race and left them as something less than the sum of their parts) What we should seek to decipher: (Q1) Does each race possess unique qualities? (Q2) Are the qualities of each race equal in all categories? Are their qualities of equal value? (Q3) Are there benefits to integration? Of all races or only some? There's more questions to answer, for sure, but I think that's a good place to start. I think the B.O.P. is on BOTH of us here (you never stated)? You need to prove your resolution, and I the antithesis of it. So make sure you make a Positive statement that is in direct contrast to my proposed resolutions Here are some examples of your resolution that I will be refuting. (A) Resolved: There is a Justification for Racism that is Valid ----((a) that social/political/spatial integration is progressive, thereby, desegregation is positive in some way (define the way) or (B) Resolved: Affirmative Action helps society Progress towards Goal X ----(while I believe Goal X is interstellar travel and the continuation of our Species, you can argue for another one) ---- (Affirmative Action is defined as creating policy that actively makes up for the shortcomings of a person's race, assumed those shortcomings are real) or (C) Resolved: Integration of the Races is a Positive thing for our Genetic Code ----(thereby making our genetic code more robust in some way, or some other justification) So, this is kind of two arguments in one, each arguing for a Resolution that is juxtaposed to the others. I'm not sure why I want to do it this way, but I think it has to do with you being the initiator and being Con. I feel like I have to make a PRO statement, with the BOP entirely on me, even though you should really be the one making a PRO statement that I can refute. But, we do get 8,000 characters, so I don't think it'll be a problem for space.. I guess we'll find out! I will note that a debate very close to this (slavery as opposed to racism) is how my favorite style of debate came about (Lincoln/Douglas). That said, I think it's important to note that a lot of what they did was an experiment... they did not know what exactly would happen with the slaves being freed). They justified on grounds that at the time were not very well understood (On the Origin of the Species came out in 1859, the famous Lincoln Douglas debates were 1858). They were going on pseudo-scientific, pseudo-religious grounds (as religion can make the argument that blacks are descendants of Ham, who was and all his descendants cursed.... though this isn't across the board accepted). They did not even have a concept of Evolution, yet alone a full understanding of it. So, while I appreciate the experiment they conducted, and understand the grounds for which they argued.... it's been 150 years since those decisions were made, I think we can re-evaluate their opinions, supportive arguments, and their conclusions. Lastly, please do not say at any time "he didn't support anything with facts!" (I realize you haven't done it yet)... it's really disrespectful. If this is done, I'm out. If you want justification for something I've said, quote out the fact that is in dispute, ask for clarification and I will defend it (either with a source, or with logic). But blanket attacks will only make me walk away from this debate. I am also aware of the sensitive nature of this debate, but I won't hold my tongue, with that, please refrain from comparing me to historical figures or movements, everything should be credited on it's merit, not by who is saying it or who has said it. (PS, you said no introduction, but this basically had to be an introduction for me since you didn't define the topic at all)