Affirmative Action

Thank you for accepting; I look forward to a exciting debate! Understanding that this is a political debate, and the audience might have certain predisposed opinions on the matter, I ask the audience to disregard their beliefs on the matter and instead judge the candidates based on the content of their argument. In simple terms, vote for whoever argued best, not who you agree with. However, feel free to comment your beliefs in the comment section, with any additional content you would like to add. Just make sure you vote for the one who argued the best. Now I shall begin. It cannot be morally argued that a group of humans should be given an unjust advantage over another. Because the policy of affirmative action seeks to perform the aforementioned, I conclude that it is an unjust policy. It would perhaps be proper for me to give my definition of affirmative action. It is as follows: An action/policy that favors a particular group, some of which have been discriminated against in the past or present. Contention 1: Giving a particular person preferential treatment, or otherwise putting them at a disadvantage, for no other reason except for their race, is the DEFINITION of racism. Just as a city is unstable above a soft foundation, equality cannot be achieved by building it on top of the swamp of bigotry; this open act of racism should be the utmost worry to everyone in the audience. Like a house without strong pillars eventually collapse, the great house that is our society will inevitably fall to ruins if it is built with the weak pillars of racism supporting it. As the famous Martin Luther King Jr. said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Let us realize MLK’s dream of “not be[ing] judged by the color of their skin”; end affirmative action! Contention 2: Two wrongs do not make a right. The history of past oppressions should NEVER be solved with more discrimination of the present. Just as we would never seek to amend the consequences of the Holocaust by killing Germans, we should never solve the inequalities that resulted from slavery, or other inequalities of the past, by punishing those who had nothing to do with it. As Justice Scalia writes, “The difficulty of overcoming the effects of past discrimination is as nothing compared with the difficulty of eradicating from our society the source of those effects, which is the tendency -- fatal to a nation such as ours -- to classify and judge men and women on the basis of their country of origin or the color of their skin.” Formatting policies based on race, and offering a particular group significant advantages over another, is visually indistinguishable from the days of racism in America's past. We should never seek to repeat the history of oppression -oppression that left so much chaos- with affirmative action. (https://supreme.justia.com... Accessed Mar. 23 2018) It cannot be argued that a policy in which the negatives overweigh the positives should be implemented. Moreover, a policy with virtually no benefits should never be used as a public policy. Considering that affirmative action has no benefits what-so-ever, and the negatives have serious implications, I contend that it should be promptly dismantled. Contention 1: Those who are talented, and those who put forth work towards their dreams, should be rewarded. Otherwise, hard work would be meaningless, as there would be no impetus for anyone to strive higher. For the most part, our society does just that. The notion of affirmative action then only serves to lower the standards of society. For example, if a fireman was hired as a result of lowering of standards, perhaps physical or mental, then such fireman will not be capable of performing his/her duties and hence resulting in fatalities. If teachers were hired due to lowering of standards, then our future engineers, scientists, and politicians would not be properly educated. Moreover, it could be argued that affirmative action weakens the minority community, as they now strive for a standard lower than that of other people; they do not have to strive for greatness because society holds them to a lower standard. As demonstrated, the drawbacks of affirmative action is enormous; yet what are the benefits? Absolutely none. Contention 2: The next argument considers the question of why race matters when it comes to qualification for a certain task. Contending that minority groups desperately need the assistance from affirmative action because they simply cannot compete on the same grounds as those of the majority is insulting. Furthermore, it perpetuates the notion of white supremacy that was prominent in the early days of America; it repeats the argument that minorities are still somehow inferior to whites in many ways. Such stereotypes are not things we should perpetuate, which is why I contend that we should end affirmative action. Lowering of standards is not necessary for diversity. Why do we seek to lower standards for a group of people, and hence lessening their impetus to strive higher, when we can empower them to perform above the standards? As Paul Rosenzweig of the Heritage Foundation writes, ‘“The renowned legal scholar Alexander Bickel put it even more plainly: "Discrimination on the basis of race is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, inherently wrong, and destructive of democratic society."More than 100 years ago, the Court in one of its most tragic decisions approved the concept of "separate but equal" public accommodations for different races. In dissent, Justice John Harlan made a point that's just as true today: "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens."’ By implementing affirmative action, we perpetuate the very things that many Americans fought for hundreds of years to solve. Because affirmative action does not have any clear benefits, and only works in effect to lower standards both in minority populations and the society as a whole, I contend that affirmative action has no place in American society. (https://www.heritage.org... Accessed 3/23/2018)