August Tournament - United States should ban Affirmative Action

I want to apologize for the readers for the forfeit. I actually had prepared my case in time, but DDO stalled on me and I didn't get a chance to post it. I was pretty upset (see the comment), and I posted the argument in comments. Here is the link again [https://docs.google.com...]. But before I begin my rebuttal, I want to give special thanks to TheProphett for his understanding. He definitely has class. But despite how much I like Pro, I do disagree with him on this topic and I will represent my rebuttal of his arguments below. Observation Pro presents too many arguments, which make it a nightmare for me to respond to (as well as for the voter to read). This is considered Gish Gallop [http://rationalwiki.org...]. For some of these arguments, my response will be brief. Don't penalizing for this. Framework Pro argues against AA (Affirmative Action) in employment and in education. Let me make it very clear to the reader that the Burden of Proof for Pro is to negate both types of AA. If either type of AA ought not to be banned, then the resolution is firmly negated. I will defend AA policy for both employment and education. Rebuttal 1: An Outdated System? Pro argues that AA is an outdated system. I am willing to consider this possibility. But to do so, Pro must show that AA has either achieved its goal, or that it's no longer effective. Pro fails to uphold his burden of proof on these two areas as I will explain below. Pro states that AA "may have been needed at the time [i.e. in the early 1960's]", but "significant improvements have been made in eliminating discrimination from our society". I'm glad that Pro agrees that eliminating discrimination from our society is necessary. And I also agree with his assessment that there were many improvements, by Pro's own confession, were made possible because of AA (among other initiatives). Pro cites that "5x as many African Americans now hold managerial posts" and that "9/10s of African Americans hold high school diplomas". While all these results are great, and speak to the importance of AA, the goal that Pro seeks which is the "elimination of discrimination from our society" has not been achieved yet. I can prove this from the very data that Pro provides. "Black college completion rate as a percentage of the white rate has improved from 42% then to 62% now" [1]. But 62% is not 100%. There are also numerous studies that conclude that "African Americans’ continuing experiences with racism and discrimination" [2]. A new study has shown that "even when candidates who are black hold degrees from elite schools such as Stanford, Duke, and, yes, Harvard. [The researcher] found disparities in both the number of responses black and white job candidates received from employers and in the level of starting salaries offered" [3]. In other words, while we are closer to eliminating discrimination, we are not there yet. Pro then argues that AA is therefore no longer needed. His argument is non-sequitur. There is no link between his observations that discrimination has decreased to whether AA is no longer needed. Why is it not needed now? Pro's only explanation "it represents a colorized America, and racial inequities, which is detrimental to society". His argument is unclear. On one hand, he claims that AA has helped reduce discrimination; on the other hand he says that it's detrimental to society. How is it detrimental? No explanation, no examples… He then argues that "it is questionable how much more A.A. can still do in this area, and whether the harms outweigh the benefits". These are all bare assertions. It's Pro's burden of proof to show why AA cannot do much in this area. It's his burden to show that the harms outweigh the benefits. I conclude by saying that this argument tips to my favor. Pro has shown that AA has worked in the past. He also shows that the goal of eliminating discrimination has not been achieved. Also, he hasn't explained why AA is no longer effective or more harmful. Therefore we ought to keep AA policies. Rebuttal 2: Reverse Discrimination? What Pro doesn't understand is that the goal of AA is to eliminate unjust discrimination that already exists as I've shown in my case [4]. Without AA, as I've shown in studies before, the likelihood that someone would be selected because he's white is higher that if he was black. The goal of AA is to ensure that employers and educators offer minorities an equal chance. That's equality. That's fairness. This is not discrimination against whites and the privileged. It's like saying that we shouldn't pay taxes to fund programs that benefit the disadvantages and poor. Is it discriminatory to the millionaire or billionaire who pays more taxes than a homeless person? The same applies here – AA is a policy to correct the unfairness imposed by the society. AA reduces discrimination… it doesn't create it. A. Employment Pro states: "One applicant who does not fit in with this category might have great qualifications and amazing potential, but he might lose it to a person that falls within one of these categories because they are simply needed to fill the spots on paper." Unfortunately, many people don't understand AA enough that they make claims like the one Pro just made. AA doesn't mean that qualification or potential is not a requirement for hiring. AA seeks to ensure that African Americans or females would be preferred if they are equally qualified or have comparable skills. Evidence that skilled white people who have difficult landing a job is unfounded. AA basically states that employers can't take it too far! If more than 90% of employees are white, then something is really wrong and rigged in the hiring process that AA attempts to correct. B. Education Colleges without AA will favor White students because of their earlier educational advantages. If we remove AA, white students will dominate colleges. Unless these already existing conditions are corrected (with the help of AA), repealing AA would not only fail to correct racial injustice, it would actually reinforce it [5]. In other words, Pro's proposal would increase unfairness, increase prejudice and increase racial injustice. Rebuttal 3: Meritocracy? A. Harms the System/Unfair This argument is identical to Rebuttal 2.B. See my rebuttal above. B. Encourages Laziness This argument is ridiculous. Competition for colleges is very high. It will increase competition for minorities who believe that now that they have a chance to make it to college. It's much better than the despair that they would have otherwise! If minorities (African Americans) feel that their chances to make it to college are very limited due to the prejudice that exists, it's only conceivable that they might lose hope and not work hard to make it to college. In other words, AA promotes hard work, not laziness. To turn this argument to my favor, meritocracy means that people should be selected based on their abilities or merit [9]. But while this seems fair, the reality is that "success is when hard work meets opportunity" [10]. In other words, white people will be more successful because of the skin of their color, and not because of their abilities. White people have access to better opportunities. Education is one of those opportunities that becomes the building block for anyone's success. This is where AA is very powerful. Rebuttal 4: Perpetuating Stigma and Racial Thinking? This argument is interesting, but very untrue. As I said earlier, African American workers must be qualified to get the job. A Gallup study has shown that nearly 90% of respondents said "No" on the question "Did you feel others question your abilities because of affirmative action?" [6][7]. Actually, this argument goes in my favor as AA has helped raise the self-esteem of minority groups [8]. This argument as I said is interesting, but not factual. Rebuttal 5: Beneficiaries’ Success? First of all, Pro makes the mistake that minority groups would be selected with fewer qualifications are more ill equipped for the job. But that's not what AA is about. As I said, over and over again, AA is about hiring qualified employees that are from a minority group. So this argument doesn't pan out at all. Regarding education, I don't disagree that minority groups are more likely to struggle. That's because of the inequality that's existing. Just because it's not perfect, doesn't mean that it's not effective! When it started in the 60's, there's no doubt that more African Americans failed than white people. But AA has helped improve the situation. "In 2008, 19.6 percent of all African Americans over the age of 25 held a college degree. This figure has in-creased significantly from 13.8 percent in 1996 and 11.3 percent in 1990" [11]. This is much less that the 32.6 percent of white population. So what I argue is that I have no doubt that African Americans are still disadvantaged, but they are better off today than before. Thanks to AA. Rebuttal 6: Beast of Burden? This argument is just defensive. I didn't say that AA is necessary as a vengeance or retribution for the harms against African Americans in the past. AA is a policy that helps correct inequality that exists in our society today. Do Catholics and the Irish struggle to get a job because of who they are? I don't think so. I do see however a strong argument to protect LGBT members, especially the transgendered. That's not so complicated to administer. So I reject Pro's claim entirely. And I want to add a small point that irks me a bit. For Pro to reject and ban a working policy because it addresses the vast majority of the disadvantaged, but might miss a few, is quite ridiculous. No policy is that perfect. No policy addresses all issues. AA does an excellent job of addressing the vast majority of the disadvantaged, and that's reasonable to accept. Sources in Comments