The Americans with Disabilities Act should be repealed

I will do a line-by-line rebuttal using Pro’s argument numbering, then add my own numbered argument after his. Framework Pro concedes that forced sacrifice is not prima facie immoral- it is justified in some circumstances but not all. I agree; ensuring equal access is one of the cases where it is justified. There is no moral difference between a federal and local building code- both represent the same relation between individual and government. Pro concedes building codes are moral and so concedes the ADA is moral. Democratic laws are sometimes undesirable, but undesirable laws can still be morally permissible. Pro asserts there is no way of complying with the ADA without any evidence- yet my [3] shows that even of the small percentage of people sued under the ADA, 97% were found to be in compliance. He also fails to interact with my argument- that societal well-being is a prerequisite to individual well-being and so we ought to prioritize our societal obligations. Pro misses my point: absolutist rights are problematic and regressive. Cross-apply that building codes and emergency medical care are “do something” policies where individuals bear the cost of social obligations. Pro concedes that participation in society creates obligations and that only an inclusive society affirms the value of all individuals. Our priority ought to lay in ensuring that individuals aren’t placed on the fringes of society without access to public transportation and social goods based on accidents of birth. Excessive litigation 1,2,3) Again, Pro’s source for the $4k is from a California law that has already been fixed: “in California… plaintiffs can piggyback claims in state court under the Unruh Civil Rights Act... It provides damages of at least $4,000 per violation.”[8] Also, [P2] that federal law does not allow professional plaintiffs: “The ADA allows private plaintiffs to receive only injunctive relief (…remedy violations…)and attorneys' fees, and does not provide monetary rewards to private plaintiffs who sue non-compliant businesses.” Vote sources for Con- I had to waste time pointing out Pro’s unsourced and misleading claim during two rounds of this debate.Is Pro really suggesting that as long as disabled people aren’t starving they don’t need access to grocery stores? 4,5) These are arguments you could make about any legal provision that allows people to be sued, e.g. business owners that get sued for building code violations. The legal system isn’t perfect, but the stats show that it overwhelmingly favors defendants in ADA cases. 6) Pro provides no evidence that hotels are shutting down because they can’t provide pool lifts. The fact is the ADA requires pool lifts only where “readily achievable” to avoid hurting small businesses. The real impact of the law is that the Marriott adds a small amount to their pool upkeep cost and then writes it off on their taxes so that handicapped children can enjoy a pool just as any other child can. [9] 7,8) Pro has offered no evidence that litigation has had any noticeable impact on the economy- he talks about suing people out of business with no sources to back this up. New evidence on this point would constitute a new argument in the final round. 9) Pro’s only complaint about litigation is that it hurts business. The Counterplan prohibits plaintiff damages- this allows litigating to bring business up to compliance while avoiding the abuses Pro complains about. This ensures there is no profit motive to litigation. Hiring 1,2) Pro is dealing in hypotheticals- the scenarios he describes are rare and the only example he can come up with shows that courts have already resolved the issue- the Exxon case set a clear legal precedent . 3) The EEOC publishes clear guidelines and even if the ADA was repealed companies would still have to comply with the EEOC on discrimination based on religion and race. 4) The counterplan clarifies hiring practices, resolving Pro’s complaints while retaining legal recourse for individuals with clear cases of discrimination. Employment PROS SOURCE- the “survey” he refers to- SAID THE RESULTS WERE “MIXED”- Pro’s source doesn’t make the claims Pro does! Vote Con on sources.That same source also says : “There is evidence that the law improved employment rates for the portion of the disabled population most clearly protected by Title I.” [P9] Again, this is Pro’s source saying the exact opposite of what he says- the ADA helped employment where it was able to be properly applied. Pro is unresponsive to my [5]; post and pre-ADA employment stats cover different portions of the population. It doesn’t matter how many studies he has if they all use the same data that compare apples to oranges. Con's Case 1,2,3) Pro concedes that reasonable accommodation is worthwhile, which is good since those thousands of lawsuits under the ADA resulted in: “federal government (95 percent) and private (82 percent) employers reported that they had made facilities more accessible.” [P9]. These lawsuits also involve cases of straight-up discrimination where people weren’t hired or were denied apartment leases because they were disabled- these cases SHOULD be litigated[7] If the ADA is repealed, individuals will have no legal recourse in these instances. 4,5,6) The flaws of the ADA aren’t ignored- that’s why the ADA was amended in 2010, why state laws are still evolving, and why there is a huge literature base evaluating its effectiveness and suggesting remedies. That’s the impact of retaining the ADA as a moral commitment to create an inclusive society where the disabled have the same accessibility to jobs and social goods as everyone else: it keeps alive the political will to pursue this end and keeps the topic open for discussion in public policy literature. Repeal ends the conversation, repeal says “we tried being inclusive but it was too hard- but hey it’s not like you’re starving.” Apparently Pro thinks handicapped parking spots are the same as North Korean forced labor camps? 8) Pro concedes the ADA is extremely good at empowering the disabled [P9]. This is a benefit which is hard to quantify economically but a key aspect of Civil Rights legislation is the legal acknowledgment that discrimination of individuals is not invisible to society. When talking about the 1964 Civil Rights Act people rarely go into the details of the legislation- it is most important as a legal symbol of inclusion and empowerment. Pro can brush this off, but for thousands of Americans this has a tangible impact on their lives. 9) My [7] has extensive citations. The ADA creates accessible public transportation, opens up buildings to allow seeing eye dogs, and ensures SAT/college exams are properly administered. Con's Counter Plan My task is not to prove the ADA is perfect- it is to refute the resolution and demonstrate it should not be repealed. The counterplan is incompatible with the resolution- repealing the ADA costs us the opportunity to amend it. If I show that amending the ADA is better than repeal, I have shown that we ought not repeal the ADA. Amendment is not repeal and replacement. Replacement requires all the political compromise and horse trading that goes with new legislation; there is no knowing what the final bill would look like. Additionally, this is a waste of time- amending is more efficient. Pro is not advocating for repeal and replacement; the resolution only says we ought to repeal the ADA and Pro explicitly says we ought not replace it. Pro doesn’t dispute that the counterplan would solve the disabled unemployment gap. Tax benefits would offset any real or perceived costs of ADA compliance, Pro’s own sources say it would work. Repeal does nothing to solve unemployment, only amendment solves. The counterplan solves all of Pro’s complaints and retains all the benefits of the ADA- amendment represents the best of both worlds. [8] http://www.sfweekly.com... [9] http://www.ada.gov...