Pro-Minority Affirmative Action

It's a straw man argument to say that I believe because blacks' ancestors had troubled lives, they are entitled to "correction". Firstly, it's a gross oversimplification to say blacks had troubled lives in America. Their lives were truly awful and they were oppressed for many years. The argument has been that oppression and discrimination has had deep, negative effects in countless African-American lives. The United States government took much longer than it should have to correct the problems of slavery and discriminatory laws, and that's where my hyperbolic reference to the 400-year head start comes in. My opponent's situation does not mean both kids have the same personal history. They just lived on the same street and went to the same school their entire lives. This situation doesn't take into account any socioeconomic status. It doesn't take into account their performance at those schools. It doesn't take into account any qualifications of theirs. As for my opponent's question, I did not address it because it's somewhat dishonest in its premise. If we use twenty-five years as an average time of generation, that is about 150 years ago. You can even use shorter generations. The fact is African-Americans still had to endure discrimination past that point. Con tells me that there is no unjustifiable imbalance between races. This is quite the interesting claim because he has failed to justify the imbalance. While my opponent has attempted to say that socioeconomic standing and the number of black felons are responsible for the large differences between race, he hasn't backed up this assertion with proof. The burden of proof lies on the side of the claimant, and my opponent has claimed these factors are responsible for the difference between races. He hasn't used statistics to show that a 6% difference in unemployment is a result of socioeconomic standing and the number of black felons. He hasn't used statistics to show that the number of blacks felons cause the wages of African-Americans to go down to $.76 to every dollar a white makes. It would be somewhat redundant to say that socioeconomic status is the reason for the difference in wages for blacks or Hispanics. My opponent didn't even respond when I wanted to know whether he was referring to their status before they got a job or after they got a job. Pushing for racial diversity is not valuing one race over another. Pushing for racial diversity is giving more people representation and more diverse environments have been shown to be more beneficial. There clearly is not enough of a representation of certain races in the workplace. Again, race should be irrelevant in regards to employment statistics. However, it is not. Statistics show stark differences between race. Diversity has shown to be beneficial, and pushing for it is not valuing one race over another. It's valuing one environment over another. My opponent's conclusion that pushing for diversity is racism is illogical. I don't see the purpose in bringing up "mulattos". It's basically just making a distinction in the African-American community. Their perspective of different cultures and races since they've likely had to deal with those differences more than most people can be valuable to many environments. My opponent's claim that many slaves were freed in 1777 was just not true. In order to back up his claim, he uses a link to Wikipedia which only says slaves in Vermont were freed. Vermont actually had few slaves. [1] The large majority of African-Americans did not live in the North. In 1910, about 90% of African-Americans lived in the South. [2] Jim Crow laws were well in place at this time in the South. I don't see anything to back up my opponent's assertion that a black family outside Chicago would be ahead of a rural family in Tennessee because it's a generalization and he uses no source. My opponent uses no source for his claim about rurality. Also, the fact that there are poor whites doesn't rebut my argument. The fact that one of my arguments for affirmative action doesn't play a role in the definition of the policy is irrelevant. This is a debate. In this debate, I am defending affirmative action. One part of my rationale for defending affirmative action is that it helps undo past wrongs. It doesn't need to have anything to do with the definition. The problem in my opponent's line of reasoning that affirmative action is racism is the definition of "discriminating". My opponent fails to note that there's a difference between "discriminating between" and "discriminating against". Also, my opponent changed the definition of "racism" from what Merriam-Webster states. [3] "Racism" implies discriminating against someone, since it is the view that one race is superior to another. [3] My opponent has failed to prove that affirmative action is racism. My opponent claims that I have accused a large number of Americans of racism when I haven't. My argument wasn't very hard to understand. I have to question if my opponent even read my argument, given his statement that it was just about unemployment rates in different states. There is vast inequality between races in the workplace, even for those with similar qualifications. There's no legitimate reason there should be such huge differences when race should be irrelevant. It's clear evidence that they are being discriminated against. My opponent attempts to explain away the differences with generalizations that socioeconomic status, the number of black felons, and now marriage affect their employment rates. My opponent failed to show that the differences are entirely a result of those factors, so the evidence of discrimination stands. The claim that college-educated black couples are better off is just not true. The average college-educated black couple stars off with about one-fifth of the net worth of an average young white couple. [4] So even though they make about the same, the advantages whites have had in the past show they are not the same. Continued affirmative action can help change this. There's no use in dignifying the argument about the name "Muhammad" because it doesn't refute the study, nor does it back up the claim about it being popular among blacks. Also, providing a policy to correct discrimination doesn't rebut my argument. There is discrimination in funding of schools. My opponent has tried to place the burden of proof on my side when I've used plenty of evidence to back my argument. He has asserted that several factors are responsible for the differences among races. He has failed to prove that assertion. It becomes even more humorous because my opponent has quoted an argument from Thomas Sowell. That argument makes a claim, and Con did not back up that claim. The burden of proof lies on the side of the claimant, as we all know. My opponent has simply appealed to Sowell's authority, another logical fallacy, to back up his argument. My opponent's argument about immigrants from another planet is not analogous to immigrants from Mexico. It is not true that Mexican immigrants don't know anything about capitalism or business. My opponent's argument was simply hyperbolic, hypothetical, and irrelevant. I have used much evidence to back my side. I have made four arguments to back affirmative action, all of which mongeese did not refute. In his attempts to refute my arguments, my opponent has employed several logical fallacies. Affirmative action not only helps undo past wrongs, but it also helps workplaces and colleges by increasing diversity. The policy needs to be continued because it addresses and helps reverse the problem of race-based discrimination. My opponent's proposal doesn't directly address that problem. [1] "Vindicating the Founders" by Thomas G. West, p. 11 [2] http://www.infoplease.com... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] http://www.lipmagazine.org...