The Race Debate

==Pro== "1.Affirmative Action: I feel your argument on this subject is flawed and far to simplistic. […] fails to put forth any factually based argument. Your argument would be better served to advocate socio-economic disparities in opportunity." ==Rebuttal== I wish to understand how my opponent can say that my argument has no basis in this argument. While my example may be at an extremity, white people are much better off than minorities. Yes, I am advocating "socio-economic disparities in opportunity," but is that not the case of this section of the debate? Equal opportunity has everything to do with affirmative action. =Pro= "If the purpose of affirmative action were to level the playing field for those who are at a historical disadvantage, then why not place the Irish on that list. ==Rebuttal== While I concede that the Irish did receive some discrimination, African Americans had a much harder time. Irish Americans were allowed into jobs that African Americans could never step into, even at the lowest pay. (http://www.bukisa.com...) No colleges banned the Irish, and most Irish discrimination ended by the end of the Great Depression. On the other hand, African American discrimination went on past the 1960's and even still exists to a small extent in some communities. Irish people today are not even considered by any of the stereotypes that African Americans deal with today. =Pro= "Furthermore, in your final statement you claim that "affirmative action plans should still be in use until a significant time has passed to for them to put minorities at an advantage.", which is a huge problem. Since when should we be advocating for ANY group[ of people to have an advantage over anyone else? In fact they very document used to justify affirmative action, the Civil Rights Act of 1964). […] Clearly affirmative action would be making race a actor in hiring, promoting, and firing." ==Rebuttal== My opponent is putting words into my mouth. What I said is that affirmative action plans should be in use UNTIL a significant time has passed for the plan to give them an advantage. Meaning that after it comes to a point that the affirmative action plans look to give minorities an advantage they will naturally go away. =Pro= I feel affirmative action does minorities a disservice. Instead of receiving jobs, and receiving promotions based exclusively on merit often times minorities are given them to fulfill required racial quotas. This discourages society from moving beyond race. Resentments on both sides continue to exist and it further fuels racial tensions. I agree that something must be in place to address discriminating ring practices. ==Push== While I understand the logic of your argument, I now feel that affirmative action in the form of quotas should be gradually dropped now. I still feel that other forms of affirmative action are required for a decade or two, but I will concede to you the racial quota problem. =Pro= … you did mention college students in your argument and wanted to point something out. Using "black" Americans as an example I would like to point out the many hundreds of minority exclusive college loans and financial aid services which minorities receive. There are no exclusively white colleges, scholarships, or financial aid. ==Rebuttal== My opponent has failed to do his research before saying that there are no white scholarships. (http://www.foxnews.com...) Granted, this is only one counter evidence, but by the logistic standards of debate, there is only a need for one counter to change the claim. Also, there are historically black colleges that began before integration, but they will accept anyone of any race, not just blacks. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com...) =Pro= 2. Racial Profiling: As expected you clearly did not understand my stance. Lets look at the issue of crime. I think we can both admit that crime takes place (statistically speaking) amongst the lower-income brackets of society. I would love to see the statistics of inmates vs. economic standing. Anyways, throughout the history for this country that crime occurs in greater numbers when people do not have the ability (or who's path is perceived as impossible) to improve their situations. Now being that minorities make up a large portion of the above mentioned group (predominantly in urban areas) would it not be fair to assume that crime would be occurring […] more within the under-privileged. To play devils advocate race profiling is often done to identify serial killers, arsonists (previous mentioned link shows whites making up the better of arson cases), and in various other instances profiles are given which indicate race possibilities. These numbers are compiled statistically. Which as I referred to earlier will indicate blacks and other minorities (which make up a large part of the lower economic class) are committing certain crimes. The profiling that goes on is not based exclusively in racial resentment, but attributed to statistical trends. When Europeans were pouring into this country in the late 1800's and early 1900's they comprised the majority of the "poor" in this country, and go figure they were involved in crime to a larger degree than natural born Americans… ==Rebuttal== I trust the statistics of the issue and agree that minorities make a large percentage of inmates compared to the majority. However, to say that people of a certain race are more likely to commit crimes based on these statistics would be improper for an actual investigation. It is an accepted belief that all people are innocent until proven guilty. To place guilt of a crime on a minority before the official investigation would be breaking this conduct. =Pro= 3.Slavery Reparation Money: You correctly indicated only one thing in your argument, that "all those hours of work without payment has put a slave's decedents at a disadvantage" and not the whole statement, but that you identified who did the hours of unpaid labor, slaves. Which if you're up on your history ended a long time ago. My great-great grandparents suffered intolerable conditions in Ireland at the hands o the British. ==Rebuttal== The problem with this argument is that there is no way to fix the suffering that has occurred to the Irish. Yes, they may have had discrimination, loosing money in the process, but those that did have jobs were paid, unlike African Americans. =Pro= Yes people suffered under slavery. Europe, The US, Africa (Black and White), colonialism, capitalism, greed, all contributed to slavery. Vikings pillaged my families native land, perhaps I should instruct the Norwegian and Swedish governments I am entitled to reparations. ==Rebuttal== This is a ridiculous argument. Despite the fact that Viking were well known for their pillaging, it is virtually impossible to determine if your ancestors were affected. Perhaps your ancestors were lucky enough to be out of town during the pillaging. Also, it would be incredibly difficult to determine who exactly was responsible for the pillaging. =Pro= […] We should be addressing the issue of slavery with the moral integrity that it deserves. Analyze and research it, find out it's causes, effects, and consequences. Identify its impact on our society and deal with these issues head on through dialog and understanding. Not through chepening it with pay-offs and hand outs. ==Rebuttal== Although I agree that we should come to an understanding on the causes and effects of slavery, being paid for labor done by your ancestor is hardly considered a "hand out." The wealthy slave owners have decedents(who's own wealth was not argued by my opponent,) that have a debt to the slave's family members. =Note= I will remain quiet of my opponent's ideology, as I see it has no bearing on this case.