The Americans with Disabilities Act should be repealed

Overview The Resolution asks whether the ADA ought to be repealed. If I show that the benefits of the ADA as is outweigh the disadvantages or if I show that amending the ADA yields better net benefits than repealing the ADA, I have disproven the Resolution and should win this debate. Framework My moral framework holds that in addition to individual rights, the social contract and participation in society creates obligations and duties between individuals. These duties flow from the democratic consent of the people and are therefore ethical. This is the status quo framework in the U.S. I have provided several examples of laws which compel individuals to uphold obligations to society at large. Nowhere do I deny that individuals have rights, I only make the claim that when we balance upholding societal obligations against individual rights we ought to prioritize the welfare of society. Additionally, protecting every individual’s equal access to societal goods such as transportation is at the heart of recognizing the equal value of every individual. In order for Pro to gain moral leverage against the ADA, he must show that any shared sacrifice is prima facie immoral; Pro offers no such justification, he merely reiterates that he feels the ADA imposes too much of a burden on individuals without explaining why this is ethically problematic. Additionally, in order to win Framework Pro must in fact show that the ADA is an excessive burden; as I explain below, he has not done this. Excessive Litigation Pro has failed to demonstrate that the ADA creates lawsuits that are excessively burdensome. Seriously, just forget everything Pro has said about businesses going under because he has provided zero evidence that this even happens and zero evidence that the ADA has had ANY adverse effect on the economy in the past 20 years. Pro’s only evidence relates to one example in California that due to a State law which has already been corrected precisely for the reasons Pro complains about. Not only does this show that Pro’s complaints are no longer relevant, but it shows that the current system is self-correcting. Pro claims the ADA carries no consideration of cost/benefit, but the California case proves that legislation does react to flaws in implementation. Additionally, Pro concedes that the ADA does not allow for “professional plaintiffs” – these arise only under state law. It is very difficult for plaintiffs to win discrimination cases under the ADA, 97% of cases are lost in court. Pro claims this somehow proves that the ADA works by intimidation, but offers no evidence to back this up. Litigation is unfortunate but necessary. If businesses discriminate on the basis of disability they ought to be sued. My [7] demonstrates that these lawsuits help people were denied jobs and housing based solely on disability and [P9] showed that the ADA has had a massive impact on employers complying with accessibility standards. Society has an obligation to protect individual’s rights to equal accessibility, and litigation upholds this obligation. The Counterplan solves litigation issues by banning plaintiff compensation, in effect preventing states from allowing plaintiff compensation. This ensures there is no profit motive in ADA related lawsuits. Finally, the whole Delta House argument is a new argument in the final round, judges should ignore it. Hiring Pro has no case on unsafe hiring- he provided one example in which the courts ruled that Exxon’s hiring practices were ok. There is a clear legal precedent, but the counterplan solves by further clarifying hiring procedures. Employment Pro’s own source says that the ADA has had a positive impact on disabled employment in localized areas of the economy. Pro can call this “academic rationalization” but this is from a source he brought in to support his point- apparently academics are only good when they support his case. Sources should go to Con because Pro misrepresented [P9] to claim the ADA has hurt employment- I’m not complaining that I had to do research, I am complaining that Pro claimed [P9] said one thing when in fact it says the opposite. Pro has no response to my [5]- comparing pre and post ADA employment stats is difficult because people who were already unemployed were reclassified as disabled post-ADA. Even if the ADA has not helped disabled employment, this is not a reason to repeal it- repealing the ADA won’t help employment so an ADA which does nothing to employment is a wash for Pro and Con. Only the counterplan boosts disabled employment. Amending the ADA to include more robust tax incentives for the hiring of disabled individuals will offset any perceived cost to employers. Pro’s own source [P8] points out that the EITC proves that a tax credit will have a positive effect on employment. Pro argues that this is only effective for profitable companies- fine, I concede that the counterplan only increases employment of disabled individuals at profitable companies. This is still a huge net benefit to the counterplan and a reason why we should amend the ADA rather than repeal it. My Case Pro does not dispute the massive good the ADA has done. He doesn’t contradict any of my [7], which talks about how buses are now 100% accessible, quadrupled curb ramp accessibility, altered building codes to consider accessibility, created closed captioning for TV, improved telecommunications, made public events like the Olympics accessible, brought government accessibility compliance up to 95%, etc. etc. etc. The ADA has altered the way society thinks about disabled individuals- transportation and infrastructure projects must now consider how both abled and disabled individuals will use these services. The ADA has made jobs more accessible and has had limited success in boosting employment per [P9]. Pro drops that legislation also acts as a statement of social vision- this was one of the crucial aspects of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and it is also a crucial aspect of the ADA. The ADA is a statement that the U.S. government recognizes the challenges disabled individuals face and stands behind them on matters of equality. For thousands of Americans, repeal of the ADA would be a signal of disenfranchisement, a signal that they do not deserve the same access to employment and transportation as the rest of society. This is a hard to quantify, but very real impact on the quality of life of a sizeable portion of the population. Finally, repeal is an end to the conversation about accessibility. It signals that the ADA was a failed experiment and that disabled individuals can deal with societal inequality on their own. Even as an imperfect law, the ADA stands as a moral commitment to strive for an accessible society- a commitment that propels legislators like those who passed the 2010 ADA amendment and fixed the California law. The conversation on accessibility is alive in the U.S. – we should amend the ADA to fix those aspects which do not function well while upholding our moral promise. Counterplan The Counterplan solves all of Pro’s complaints while maintaining the positive aspects of the ADA and boosting disabled employment. The Counterplan bans states from creating laws that creates “professional plaintiffs,” clarifies employment guidelines, and provides tax incentives for employment. If the ADA were so amended, any economic disadvantages to the ADA would disappear while the substantial benefits would remain in place. Only the counterplan boosts employment of disabled individuals- this alone outweighs the (unproven) allegations of economic damage done by the ADA. Finally, the counterplan in compliant with Pro’s moral framework by ensuring the burden of the ADA is distributed throughout society rather than on any particular individual. The ADA would allow legal recourse in cases of serious discrimination, uphold accessibility related business codes, and preserve the U.S. commitment to create and accessible society.