US Universities Should be Required to Give Preference to Applicants of Underrepresented Minorities

Con agreed to the very specific phrasing I used in the comments section. I asked if his argument was equivalent to stating that "no university should be required to give preference to URM's". I am sorry that his grasp of the english language has apparently failed him here because agreeing to that means he must demonstrate that there should be a universal ban on this type of requirement. Thus for him to fail, I only needed to show that there exists any university that should be required to give preference. I would not have accepted the debate had con told me that he did not accept that interpretation of his stance. That said, he accepted it, so he was then required to prove that no university should be required to give preference to URMs. Con completely failed to do this for medical schools and instead focused on arguments that did not matter and attempts to try to win on technicalities, not on the strength of his arguments. I have already refuted every rebuttal Con offered in the final round, so this will seem like a bit of copy and paste. That said, Con's last round seemed like a copy and paste of his previous rounds. "Alright Pro seems to have trouble comprehending a basic resolution and is basically changing it so he can win. He thinks all he needs to do is prove medical schools should accept URMs, because they"re universities. Plus, voters are not suppose to vote based on something in the comment section (only inside the debate), so exact wording is not important. Also, Pro holds a ridiculous double standard, stating "Con agreed to the idea that his argument must encompass all universities", yet apparently he doesn"t need to. He can just account for medical schools for whatever reason. Even though the resolution is clearly referring to universities as a whole, he doesn"t have to justify it for regular universities or law schools (which makeup a larger portion of universities than medical schools do). That"d be like if the resolution was: "The United States should Ban Abortions", but Pro only argued for banning late term abortions and then claimed to win. Since Pro can"t introduce new arguments in the next round, he basically conceded all my arguments that don"t apply to Med. School (namely economic status). For this reason I should win no matter what Pro does next round, but again I"ll defend my claims anyways. " This is just stupid. We agreed to the terms of the debate in the comments section and then you tried to change them in the debate and declared victory for doing so. This is very dishonest and quite frankly seems like cheating. Con is literally trying to debate as if he did not accept the specific wording I used in the comments to verify what we would be debating. I asked that so I would know if this was a debate worth engaging in and he agreed to my terms. He then pretended that never happened once the debate started. His conduct basically meant that I was debating the topic we agreed to and he was debating the topic he wished we agreed to. To Con's "Economic Status" rebuttal: His point does not stand. It was completely irrelevant. He kept arguing how unfair this system is to poor people. First of all, that is completely irrelevant to any of my points which were patient oriented, not student oriented. Second, he seems to have completely ignored the fact that special consideration is given to poor people which I already pointed out. "Pro automatically assumes there would be less Black doctors if race wasn"t involved in admission. Again though, the Black dropout rate (which Pro showed is relatively much, much higher than Whites) may be lower, so more Blacks would be graduating and those who don"t go to a top tier medical school may end up going to a lower end medical school. " Con never demonstrated that going to a different university would have made a difference in dropout rates. I pointed out that all physicians must pass the same exams to become doctors. Con needed to give evidence to back up both this claim that the URM students drop out because of the schools they are placed into and the dependent claim that not giving preference would have actually led to more doctors, and he failed to do so. I demonstrated that black graduates will work in underserved areas. This is not a weak argument, it is a demonstrated fact that Con's assumptions do nothing to disprove. Con would have needed actual data to disprove this as opposed to making silly assumptions like claiming that Idaho has no areas with lots of black people therefore their medical schools accepting black people won't help. Even if Con's premise here were true, the conclusion would not follow unless he could also demonstrate that black students at medical universities in Idaho did not follow the trend I showed using actual data. To Con's "Unnumbered" Rebuttal: Giving preference does not mean automatic acceptance. Again, I am sorry that Con is having trouble understanding the words he agreed to. Preference only improves the candidate's chances of acceptance, it does not mean that someone who had an abysmal resume must be accepted. To Con's "Mismatch Effect:" Rebuttal: First off, Con did not bring up the difference in their rates of dropout, I did. I brought it up because it is such a small number that the only way to make it seem significant is to look at the relative dropout rate as opposed to the absolute difference. Second, I don't care what is considered standard in the debate format Con is used to regarding concession. If Con feels like bringing up irrelevant things, I am not obligated to even mention them. Under the standard that not rebutting=accepting, Con could fill up the 10,000 character limit with arguments which would then make it impossible for me to address them all. Third, this is Con trying to cheat for the reasons I already discussed. Fourth, Con gives no justification for thinking that this "mismatch effect" is why black students are less likely to pass the step 1 on their first attempt. He makes an assumption then does not back it up with relevant data. All students at all MD medical schools take this test, so it would seem that Con is trying to argue that being at a more highly ranked university means you will receive less preparation than if you were at a lower ranked one. I already pointed out that a comparison based on the in house exams in undergraduate universities is irrelevant because those exams are often harder as you move up to harder schools, but the main exams in medical school are the same regardless of the school you go to. Fifth, the study Con referenced showed that 96.7% of students who initially failed Step 1 ended up graduating. Now, Con might not understand the significance of failing this test on the first attempt, and that is fair. I would not expect him to. Failing this test on the first attempt does not mean you will be a bad doctor, all it means is that you are unlikely to be accepted to high end specialties. If your aim is to become a generalist, then your path is not at all impacted, and these URM generalists are exactly what we need in the underserved areas. To Con's "Asians" Rebuttal: Once again Con tried to insert some sort of "I win on a technicality". He has been saying it throughout the debate, so it is not a surprise that he is trying to rely on that here too instead of the strength of any argument. On the actual point Con was trying to make here, I do not see one. His statements in this section do not form a cohesive or even coherent argument. I cannot see what he is even trying to say here. He makes some rambling points about taking white doctors over Asian doctors presumably calling white people URMs because of Asians being ORMs, but both are well represented groups. Con is not nit picking here, con is just rambling and probably trying to once again bring up his point about unfairness which I already explained many times is not relevant. Conclusion: I have refuted every single assertion con made, sometimes more than once because Con kept throwing the same arguments out over and over. Con tried to cheat by agreeing to terms of the debate in the comments, a practice I see often on this site, and then pretending that discussion never happened during the debate. Con has failed to demonstrate understanding of why it is important to increase the recruitment of URM physicians and instead of addressing that in any meaningful way, he kept trying to show how URM preference is unfair to students. By his standards, he has conceded the point that increasing URM admission will improve patient care, but even if he didn't, he did nothing to dismiss that assertion while I showed proof that it improves patient care. We agreed that Con would be arguing that no university should be required to give preference to URM students. I demonstrated that they should be required to give such preference since it fulfills the mission of medical training and that this preference only leads to a tiny increase in dropout rates compared to the massive benefits.