Affirmative Action

I haven't had many debates on DDO with the content or conduct that my opponent has demonstrated. In round 4, I wasn’t able to articulate on con’s inquiry about a few key points, because I ran out of characters so I will begin this round by addressing his inquiry from R4. The most important thing I’d like to elaborate on is the meaning of qualified persons in the application process. Con inquired in R4, " What do you mean, Pro when you use the term "qualified candidates" in this sentence? Do you mean people who are qualified for the job based on their skill as a worker, or based on the fact that they fit within the requirements of the affirmative action plan (and if both, which is more important)? ” Let’s look at the definition of qualified - “officially recognized as being trained to perform a particular job; certified. ” . https://www.google.com... this definition, many applicants could be qualified; it is at the discretion of private enterprise to determine whom it will hire or promote. We have already determined that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race or gender, so any applicant / employee would need to have the qualifications that the employer seeks. I will dedicate a little space to rebutt con’s round 5. Con brings up his position on the legality of affirmative action, “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. I think this debate could have been much better, had we established in R1 or R2, whether we were going to be arguing the concept of Affirmative Action within itself, or how and why affirmative action is practised in the United States and whether or not it is on balance a positive thing. As a result, I haven’t engaged in the type of dialog that would have allowed me to interject more emotion into the topic. The truth is, it is a very personal topic to me as I: [1] am a single mom of two young adult minority sons who works in a male dominated field (general laborer - lawn service and landscaping) I worked for the company for three winter seasons shoveling snow (at the most 3 times per week) but they wouldn’t hire me on for spring summer and fall because they didn’t think I could physically handle the exertion of the spring clean-up or mowing season. ( I’m 46 yrs old, 5’3”, 115 lbs. ) I think they only gave me a shot because they didn’t have enough applicants for spring clean up, and were maybe fearful that I’d report them to the EEOC for failing to hire me full time. The first few weeks were difficult to get the guys approval. They deliberately gave me tasks they thought I would fail at, like hauling 3, waterlogged, 7’ x 6” diameter wood branches from the shore of a river up a steep hill to the truck 100 yards from the shore. They weighed almost as much as I did but with determination I dragged them individually and also rolled a water logged 10” diameter x 12 “ stump to the truck. At first they criticised me for needing to stand on the wheel well of the trailer to get enough leverage to dump the 50 gallon buckets of leaves and / or grass clipping, into the trailer. The supervisor recommended that I ask one of the “young guys” to assist me. I refused to ask for assistance and continued to climb onto the wheel well and dump the buckets myself since I didn’t wanna put extra responsibility onto my co- workers. What does this have to do with affirmative action? Opportunity! I would have never had without it! I’m the best mower, who mows all the ditches - tight spots and hills. I have never ending endurance and they’ve finally accepted me as an asset to the team, but without affirmative action I would have never had the opportunity to work in a field that allows me to be outside all day and not have to listen to bytches gossip! [2] My oldest son (22) is on parole. He works in a restaurant 6 days per week that received a bonus for hiring him. He hasn’t missed a day of work in almost a year and is friendly and courteous to his co workers. Without affirmative action, he may not have had the opportunity to rebuild his reputation as an honest and hard worker who his co workers enjoy working with. [3] My youngest son (19) is tri-racial. He was hired by a janitorial company shortly after graduating from high school. He cleans the offices, bathrooms and break rooms of a huge shipyard (that recieve government contracts), with a work crew of 2 employees who are older and have been janitors for 20 years, who no one else will work with because the better you work, the more they slack. The workers at the shipyard notice my sons work ethic and tell him that he should apply at the shipyard, but he stays working as a janitor because he likes the hours, and because he knows the older workers depend on him. He is highly respected because of who he is, but he was given an opportunity immediately upon applying because of his complexion. Affirmative action has worked for me and my family. Conclusion In order to argue “Affirmative Action” and how it relates to employment situations, we must define the laws pertaining to its implementation. I have quoted and a provided a link to Executive Order 11246, and how it relates to the EEOC’s definition of discrimination. In no way do the guidelines for affirmative action in Ex. Order 11246, violate any of the laws set forth by the EEOC, as my opponent would lead you to believe. Affirmative Action is a set of Government Guidelines that was originally established to ensure that disadvantaged segments of the population would be given EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES to white males in companies that receive government contracts. The art of debate as I understand it, is making a strong case based on facts in favor of of one’s position on a decided topic. The more clear and concise the case is made, the more likely that audience is to believe the evidence of the case, and one’s opponent is able to refute it. Con’s case is worded in such a manner, that it is neither clear or concise, which may leave him plenty of room to define and redefine his case throughout the debate, but it offers no factual conclusion in regards to the topic we have been debating. I know this debate has been rather factual and "dry", but I ask the judges to consider the need to present the facts about what affirmative is and how it is applied. My personal testimony of why it is needed. , in R5 has hopefully added some personality to this debate! Thanks to Kescarte, and to anyone who reads and judges this debate.