EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
2000

Affirmative Action Based On Race is the Best Possible System for Achieving Equality, Fairness, and Diversity at Universities

(PRO)
WINNER!
7 points
(CON)
0 points
Cross-Examination
admin: OK, I'll start this off...
admin: So you bring up, just as an example, the fact that affirmative action often works against certain Asian groups despite grave historical injustices. Do you believe that these groups have not recovered from those injustices and as such are unable to get into universities without affirmative action?
Vegito: Certain individuals can get into universities without affirmative action while others cannot. The same applies to any race. If our goal is to compensate for the injustices that groups faced previously, then we would need to provide some level of affirmative actions to all groups that have been oppressed in the past.
admin: Is it not true that affirmative action seeks not to account for any arbitrary historical injustice, but to account for systematic injustice that is happening right now in the present?
admin: (ps - you can ask me questions too :) )
Vegito: Unless I misunderstood your argument, you were saying that if a group has been doing poorly, it is likely due to an entrenched system of oppression. If you're making the case that we need to compensate for past oppression, then affirmative action can't function off of race because such a system ignores other groups that have been oppressed. If you're arguing that we need to compensate for modern day discrimination, then you are thereby asserting that all people of one race are equally advantaged and face the same adversities. Certain people within certain races face larger struggles than pt1
Vegito: other groups do. Take my example from the video. The residents of Ferguson, as they are impoverished and constantly oppressed, face far more adversity than the daughters of President Obama. His daughters are rich, live in the white house, and aren't oppressed. If a resident of Ferguson and Obama's daughters applied to the same school, they'd be treated as equals in regard to the adversities they've faced.
Vegito: This, along with many other cases, demonstrates that while race plays a part in one's adversities, their socioeconomic status plays a much bigger role. One who is poor, no matter their race, will face much larger challenges in their academic careers than their wealthy counterparts.
Vegito: In addition, multiple states have changed their laws or have outright banned affirmative action, two of which are California and New York. Both of which, mind you, are two of the most liberal states in the union. Upon using these procedures, their state schools saw little change in the number of hispanic and black students accepted, the amount of white students they accepted fell, and the amount of asian students they accepted skyrocketed. So, even if affirmative action based on race is to be applied for those reasons, it doesn't actually work.
Vegito: Do you not think that, based on the fact that race isn't the entire picture of one's adversities and the fact that affirmative action based on race doesn't seem to work, and the fact that it discriminates against some groups (such as Asians), that affirmative action would be better suited as a socioeconomic system?
admin: I don't accept your premise. Affirmative action need not be solely based on race, it does seem to work, and it does not unfairly discriminate. I agree it would be a great socioeconomic system, but that does not mean it is also great at university.
admin: If my argument exclusively deals with what's happening right now in the present, and how that perpetuates into the future, then isn't everything you just said wrong?
Vegito: As I stated earlier, if affirmative action used to compensate for a societal descrimination, it is still a horribly flawed and insufficient system. It functions under the idea that all people of a certain race face the same adversities, which is clearly incorrect. It also ignores any other form of adversity that people must overcome (gender sexuality minority discrimination, socioeconomic adversities, etc).
Vegito: Do you assert that all people of one race/ethnicity inherently have the same adversities to overcome? And do you deny the fact that affirmative action has failed to accomplish its goals, as has been seen in California and New York?
admin: First question - it's a shared factor, not the be all and end all. With other types of affirmative action in place also the system becomes more accurate. Still race is a step in the right direction.
admin: I do deny that affirmative action failed in those places, and see it more as an American-specific legal issue that prevented it from continuing. Please provide more detail in your round as to how exactly you think it failed.
admin: When people are being oppressed in general by society, do you agree that access to education is one of the biggest things that helps them overcome that oppression?
Vegito: I'm not entirely sure we're on the same page here. Maybe I didn't make the pro's position clear enough, but it was meant to be arguing in favor of the current AA system that strictly works around race.
Vegito: In regard to your first answer though, how could affirmative action based on race account for the different amounts of discrimination different people (even within a single race) face? Clearly not everyone in a single race is effected by racism to the same extent.
Vegito: How could you account for these differences with affirmative action? You can't. As such, it isn't a fair system even within individual races.
Vegito: And in regard to your second answer, I suggest taking a look at this. http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/prop209.pdf
admin: You're answering my answers here, not my questions. As I understand cross-examination, this is not a place for new arguments or material.
admin: So I guess phrasing that as a question - can you please respond to my previous questions.
Vegito: Yes, when people are being oppressed in a society education is certainly the way to help them. I reiterate though, not all people, even of an individual race are oppressed to the same extent. As such treating them as the same, as affirmative action does, is counter to its goals.
admin: Is it your argument that people from minority groups have such inferior education that they need largely segregated colleges to be able to graduate?
Vegito: No, where did you get that?
admin: From your PDF article you just linked, which stated the only problem they could see with affirmative action was matching minority groups to colleges they were actually capable of graduating from.
admin: Do you agree with the US supreme court that affirmative action is probably unconstitutional?
Vegito: To an extent I do but to an extent I don't. I think it could be argued that affirmative action, if it wasn't strictly focused on race, could pass the strict scrutiny test and could thereby be considered constitutional.

Return To Top
Cross-Examination
Vegito: Admin, do you have any proof that affirmative action is the direct cause of the increased number of minority students in universities? As far as I'm aware, affirmative action based on race was instated at the same time as social and legal discrimination were going away, meaning that there were many variables that could have accounted for the rise in minority students in universities.
admin: Yes. I cited direct, verifiable evidence on this in my round. Further, even if this were not the case, that would only mean that there's enough minority students getting in already, which I don't see a problem with.
admin: Do you believe your model in this debate is mutually exclusive with mine?
Vegito: Race could of course be incorporated into the model I presented, but I'd argue that would defeat the purpose that said system serves. It accounts strictly for diversity and adversities. Race, as explained, doesn't play a definable role in these things, so I'd say incorporating it would be a bad idea.
Vegito: And could you per chance provide me with a link to where I could read excerpts from that book? And also, how exactly does that assertion account for what happened in California? Or New York?
admin: I intend to present additional evidence in my next round, but basically the discrepancy comes about because you're only looking at public universities. Overall affirmative action was a huge success, only stifled by legal and political action. This presentation summarizes some key points with quotes/figures: http://www.humanismus.com/_/Publications_files/Shape%20of%20the%20River.pdf
admin: You say race has no role in diversity in your previous answer. Can you explain why having a diverse range of races would defeat the purpose of your model?
Vegito: Are we operating from the notion that, outside of prejudices, there aren't actually any differences between people of different races? If so, then the races of people at a school shouldn't matter. And as I addressed earlier, race doesn't present a uniform level of adversities that people have to overcome.
Vegito: No two people of one race will experience the same level of discrimination, nor will they experience the same level of adversities to overcome. Affirmative action, which applies in a uniform fashion, would give the same level of assistance to people who have experienced different levels of adversities. It would end up favoring certain individuals over others even within a single race to an unfair extent that goes against the entire idea of equality that affirmative action strives for.

Return To Top
Cross-Examination
admin: OK, so you start your round by saying there needs to be minimum scores achieved in standardized tests. How is this any different from an entrance exam?
Vegito: Not a minimum score, but the college or university is bound to be looking for the better scores out of the batch. If they had an applicant with straight D's and a 200 on his/her SATs, they're going to take the straight A student with the 2200.
admin: How is that any different from an entrance exam?
Vegito: An entrance exam would be an exam designed by the school. Looking at previously taken exams and score would be a cumulative view and they already do that. Or would you propose schools not look at grades whatsoever?
admin: No, my model is all else being equal, in addition to competence and merit, universities should provide a minimum number of places to the racially disadvantaged. Can you please explain how your model would create greater diversity at universities than mine?
Vegito: For one, as explained in my videos, AA hasn't worked to increase the #s of black and hispanic students (seen in california and NY)
admin: Do you deny my evidence that it has had a strong impact on the student numbers at private universities?
Vegito: Secondly, looking at location, class rank, and economic status allow a university to take into account many more details that shape a person's culture, points of view, and adversities that they have to face when compared to race.
admin: Are those not just other forms of affirmative action that could be just as easily tacked on to my model as yours? What makes them better than race?
Vegito: In regard to your previous question, I don't see any explanation as to how they came upon the numbers they put in the power point, so I cannot say I accept those numbers. It is quite possible that the methods by which the people got these numbers were faulty or did not account for certain variables.
Vegito: In regard to your second question: Yes, they are different forms of AA. However, these forms of affirmative action take into account the primary forces that divide people (diversity) and the primary forces that create adversity. Looking strictly at race and trying to use it as a direct method by which universities admit students doesn't work, doesn't tackle the actual issues at hand, and unfairly favors people (even within individual races) who do not necessarily need the benefits of affirmative action in its blanket nature.
Vegito: Do you have any other proof, aside from that powerpoint that doesn't site how it carried out its experiment, that AA based on race works?
Vegito: And would you honestly state that all people of an individual race face the same level of racism and therefore all deserve the same level of preference based on race in the college application process?
admin: Yes - in fact the powerpoint is only a brief summary of a much longer book, any details of which I'd be happy to provide if asked. I further provided the successful case study of Maori and Pasifika groups in New Zealand. I don't think racism faced is the same for all people but I do think all deserve the same level of preference, all else being equal.
admin: So what single form of AA do you feel is most effective, and why is that more effective than race?
Vegito: I've explained why it's more effective than race in my video arguments. And as to your "proof" no offence, but it's a bit hard to accept those claims as proof unless I can see some palpable evidence. A link to a free source that I could read from (say a study or an article) from a reputable source that details its findings, its conclusions, its methodology, and so forth would be nice.
admin: When you say "it", what exact form of affirmative action are you referring to? Because it changes subtly a few times. Based on school location?
Vegito: A system that accounts for location, class rank, and economic status.
admin: But that's 3 forms of affirmative action, not 1. What SINGLE form of AA is most effective was the question.
Vegito: It's absurd to request that I present you with a single variable to base affirmative action on. That's, in fact, one of the major flaws with the current racially based system.
admin: All I said was that race was the most effective SINGLE form of AA in terms of fairness, equality and diversity. What makes you think I'm defending only 1 form of affirmative action?
Vegito: And I'm arguing that affirmative action based on race doesn't itself fix the issues it's trying to fix. It's a flawed system by nature. It applies blanket bonuses to issues of prejudice and adversities generated by race that aren't actually uniform for everyone. It applies blanket bonuses based on creating "diversity" despite the face that not everyone of an individual race necessarily possesses a different culture, point of view, or thought process as those of other races.
Vegito: And lastly, I have yet to have seen any proof that meets the qualifications listed below that prove that it works. I have presented the cases of California and New York, both of which haven't been using affirmative action and have seen no change in the black and hispanic populations of their schools. This more or less debunks the claim the book you sourced, and shows us that there are other variables in play that may be affecting who is getting into schools (racially).
admin: Notwithstanding your source's conclusions of "black people can't cope", why do you think its data is incompatible with the facts I presented?
admin: (not to imply that those conclusions were actually even supported by the study data)
Vegito: Take a look at this data from the New York Times. After having banned affirmative action, the only university that suffered many losses was Berkeley. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/24/us/affirmative-action-bans.html?_r=0
admin: That's because it's the only university in that sample which is selective
admin: Do you think that if the blacks didn't get into Berkeley, it's likely they would try to get their degrees from non-selective universities instead?
Vegito: As to your question: Your sources haven't provided their testing methods or where they got their evidence, making it much harder for me to accept your supposed "facts". As can be seen in the data presented, a lack of AA based on race hasn't effected the numbers as your source claims.
admin: Given that the source was written by the people in charge of admissions at a major selective university, based on data compiled by those in charge of admissions at two more universities, do you consider claims it makes about admissions rates credible?
Vegito: When you say "selective" do you mean it's harder to get in to simply by acceptance rate?
Vegito: Not without seeing what I've requested multiple times now. I find it hard to trust data presented by much of anyone without first knowing where it came from and how they got it.
admin: When I say selective I mean that it doesn't ordinarily whittle down numbers beyond those who meet the basic entrance requirements.
admin: If you don't believe me as to who even wrote the book, would this quick search on Amazon satisfy you as to the authors and their credentials? http://www.amazon.com/Shape-River-William-G-Bowen/dp/0691050198/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1412736876&sr=8-1&keywords=the shape of the river
Vegito: In that case I'd strongly disagree. Berkeley has an acceptance rate of 17.71%. UCLA has one of 20.43%. The University of Michigan has one of 33.26%. They all have relatively low acceptance rates, yet Berkeley is the only one that experienced any major changes.
Vegito: The issue isn't me trusting you as to who wrote the book. The issue is me not trusting the authors about their data without knowing where they got the data from and how the experiment was conducted. Unfortunately, I don't quite have the time to read the book in full so it's a bit hard to just trust your or their words on the subject matter, their findings, and their procedure unless you can provide me with a source that covers all of those things.
Vegito: Oh, and another important point: When these states banned AA based on race, they didn't replace it with the system that I am proposing, so any drops we'd be seeing under my proposal would be much smaller, if existing at all.
admin: Would this general overview, which describes the database they used etc, be sufficient for you? Also I'm still very curious how, notwithstanding all this, you don't believe my figures are compatible with yours. Can't the admissions/graduation rate have been the same overall but strongly reduced at selective universities at the same time? http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jge/summary/v051/51.1ortiz.html
Vegito: Just read it. It doesn't state much of anything in regard to how AA or a lack thereof effects acceptance rates of universities. It just talks about how, given the chance, minority students fare just as well if equally qualified. The equally qualified part is what matters. This source doesn't support AA in regard to acceptance rates.
Vegito: And could the admissions rate have been the same overall but reduced in selective universities? Sure, but that's not what's reflected in the actual data.
admin: "Sure, but that's not what's reflected in the actual data." - isn't it reflected in your NY times data from just then, where a selective uni was the only one to see a change?
admin: Wasn't my source from just then only to provide detail as to the source of my data, not its findings which I have already provided?
Vegito: It provided little information as to how it got its findings, but that's besides the point. The source you just linked says outright the findings of the study, none of which have to do with acceptance rates.
Vegito: And in regard to the NY Times data, no, it isn't. The only university seemingly affected was Berkeley, which barely had a higher acceptance rate when compared to the other universities.
admin: Did you notice that the source I linked there is only the first page of more detail on the findings (which is behind a paywall sadly, but which can be freely viewed in the presentation I linked earlier)?
admin: "The only university seemingly affected was Berkeley, which barely had a higher acceptance rate when compared to the other universities." - then logically it must be your argument that Berkeley is not any more selective, right?
Vegito: It is hardly more selective.
admin: By your own figures (which I argue are colored by courses-discrepancy, but anyway) isn't it about twice as selective as the others in the sample?
Vegito: "Berkeley has an acceptance rate of 17.71%. UCLA has one of 20.43%. The University of Michigan has one of 33.26%. They all have relatively low acceptance rates, yet Berkeley is the only one that experienced any major changes."
admin: Isn't 17x2==34, which is roughly the same as Michigan?
admin: According to the NY times data, at UCLA, before the ban black people had an average 7% admissions rate. After the ban it went down to 4%. How does your model account for this discrepancy of almost half of all Black enrollments?
Vegito: One of them is close to 2x, but then again, you could easily say that Harvard is more than 2x more selective than Brown. That doesn't mean that there's actually that large of a difference in their acceptance rates. 17 and 33 are hardly apart.
admin: Have you provided your source for the data about how selective they all are, since you're going on a source crusade and everything?
Vegito: As for UCLA, a few percent drop could be accounted for by tons of different variables. Believe it or not, affirmative action wasn't the only thing changed in those years.
admin: Where on that page are the figures you cite?
admin: Are you seeing a correlation between selectiveness (UCLA, Berkeley) and effectiveness even within your data, or is it just me?
Vegito: As for the figures, there's a search bar the top top right of the page. Enter in any of the university's names and you can see its details. I figured you'd prefer do that yourself than have me link each individual university's page. I can do that if you'd prefer that though.
Vegito: First rule of statistics: Correlation is not equivalent to causation
admin: OK, but do you agree there's a correlation in your data?
admin: Where on that site can I find the historical data for the period 1990-2011?
admin: (since that's the relevant period here)
Vegito: I can't seem to find the rates myself for that period of time. Considering you're claiming it's been more selective though, the BOP would fall upon you to provide those.
admin: ... and the question about the correlation?
Vegito: There does appear to be some correlation, but that is only coming from the current level of selectivity. But as I said before, correlation=/=causation
admin: OK fine. So you gave the link to show only Berkeley suffered many losses after changing the law (not even true, because several others did too, but anyway). Can you tell me how this is relevant if correlation to the time of the law change =/= causation?
Vegito: Part of why I brought it up was to make the point about correlation and causation. The sources you've linked so far haven't eliminated all possible variables that have been affecting acceptance rates. I linked that to show, even if we ignore the fact that correlation=/=causation, it doesn't apply entirely. If we do take into account that correlation=/=causation, your source doesn't hold up as there are plenty of other variables that could be affecting why there was an increase of black and Hispanic students in universities, not just AA.
admin: Doesn't my source completely support what your source says "entirely"? If so, please explain how my source differs?
Vegito: Your source says that black and hispanic students would suffer without AA. This seems to only be true for a very select number of universities and not true for the majority or overall cases.
admin: Actually my source was based only on data from selective universities, so based on that, can you show the problem reconciling the sources?
Vegito: Does it define what a "selective" university is?
Vegito: If it did, I must have missed that part of it.
admin: A list of universities in the database is on slide 10. Most of the figures given are qualified in some way.
admin: Nowhere does my source say black/Hispanic students would "suffer" under AA without carefully defining the nature of that suffering / where it occurs
admin: Your data was a comparison of percentage of residents to percentage of freshmen. Are "residents" a good sample of the student body overall?
Vegito: It only takes from 11 liberal arts universities. That's hardly representative of all "selective" universities, especially considering that a liberal arts university is a specific kind of university. And, so far as I can tell, it still doesn't take into account a large variety of the variables that could be affecting those numbers.
Vegito: And yes, that should be a generally good representation. It takes into account the number of people that could be in college and compares them to those that are actually in college.
admin: Did you also notice the 17 research universities listed below that?
Vegito: Taking into account the % of black/latino/asian/white applicants who get in as well as their overall acceptance rates would make it better.
admin: How does you source take into account the number that could be in college?
Vegito: I had written that in regard to the NYT source.
admin: And how does that take it into account?
Vegito: I was saying had it taken those variables into account, it would have been a better source than it currently is. The same could be said of yours.
Vegito: And yes, I did notice those 17 research universities. Once again, that's a small number of colleges to represent selective universities and doesn't take into account plenty of other variables.
Vegito: Such as the % of black/latino/asian/white applicants who get in as well as their overall acceptance rates
admin: You said of your source "It takes into account the number of people that could be in college and compares them to those that are actually in college." Do you stand by this statement 100%?
Vegito: It takes into account the number of college aged residents that are black and hispanic and then compares that percentage to the percentage of enrolled freshman of those two races.
Vegito: Could it be better? Yes, it could take into account some of those variables listed below. But if we're ignoring correlation=/=causation, then it's decent. If we're taking into account that correlation=/=causation then neither your source nor the NYT provide enough information nor eliminate enough variables to state that AA was the reason why the # of black and Hispanic people at universities has increased or any changes where AA was banned.
admin: Right. Why do you believe the racial identity of residents and students overall would be the same?
Vegito: What do you mean?
admin: Just poking holes. I guess my overall point is, you seem to put a lot of stock in all these sources, but nothing you've provided supports the conclusion there's a better system than race-based AA out there. Even if race-based AA isn't that great doesn't mean it's not the best single system there is.
Vegito: Both in regard to economic status.
admin: Now you're bringing up new stuff in the CX again, but do you honestly believe I couldn't go to those links and find a several dozens flaws, contradictions, or whatever?
Vegito: I certainly agree that looking at race has its merits, but the way that affirmative action works doesn't really allow for the goals of diversity and equality to be met through race.
Vegito: In order to apply race, there would need to be an entirely different system. As in, not affirmative action.
Vegito: I had mentioned previously that there were multiple studies and lots of research that explained how economic status affects one's ability to succeed in school. Can't exactly link a source in a video.
Vegito: Just a side note... why is it displaying you as being offline?
admin: Do you feel like the sort of analysis you just made there is more what this debate should be about, rather than bickering about issues with sources? I mean, not really that debate related, but still this has been bugging me for some time. I've been happy to grant all your claims thus far since they're not incompatible with mine at all, and I really don't see why we're even arguing about that.
admin: For the side note - no idea, message me about it later, could be a bug, or maybe the site's just sick of seeing me
Vegito: Perhaps I misunderstood the meaning of EDB8's debates, but typically a debate is very different from a discussion. In a debate requesting sources and poking holes is a must. In a discussion more give and take is allowed (which is why I suggested a poll section).
admin: Doesn't that depend a little bit on the debate though? Like in a debate about whether God exists, surely it's irrelevant whether you can source the Bible or Dawkin's views on whether God exists to the actual philosophical question.
Vegito: In the case that we're discussing our actual opinions, I'd be willing to consider using race as a certain role in a university's acceptance, but it would have to be done via a process that is VERY different from affirmative action. No two people experience racism in the same way. In fact, asians and Jews would have to be positively impacted by such a system, not negatively impacted like they are right now.
Vegito: And perhaps it's just my experiences with debates, but debates tend to be much more of a "Each person take a side and argue it until the very end" whereas a discussion is usually more about one's own opinions.
admin: (I'm not really discussing my actual opinion btw, I just genuinely feel like this source battle isn't really helping either of us to argue our side to the very end, but never mind ... I'll move on then)
admin: So is economic status your model now? Since this would be about the millionth time you've changed it now?
Vegito: We can skip the source debate if you like. My main issue with your source is that it doesn't seem to account for a ton of variables that could be impacting those numbers.
Vegito: I haven't changed my model for the debate. Not once. I've said time and time again, it should be a combination of location, economic status, and class rank. When have I changed that?
admin: And I could say exactly the same thing about all of your sources lol. Confounding variables are a weakness of every observational study in history
Vegito: Burden of proof is on you though.
Vegito: And as a side note, if you'd like to re-do this as a discussion rather than a debate, I'd be down for that.
Vegito: Might be easier to do that on a skype sort of recording though, lol
admin: I have to come back to this: what you're proposing isn't one system, and can co-exist with my model, and you still haven't shown how it brings in more fairness, equality or diversity. It's an "all over the place" model.
Vegito: It is one system, it's just a system that has multiple parts. The university first looks at grades and scores to eliminate those that clearly don't qualify. Then they take into account class rank, location, and economic status similar to how they'd look at race.
Vegito: And you have yet to prove that your model actually works.
admin: The first part is the same as my model in every meaningful way, so you'd accept that part works I take it?
Vegito: What part are you referring to?
admin: The part where you eliminate those who clearly don't qualify
Vegito: Considering that's based entirely on objective numbers that are mostly determined by one's work ethic, abilities, and intelligence, I don't see why not.
admin: Great. Do you deny that minimum numbers of ethnic groups in the second part means more diversity of ethnicities at the university?
Vegito: I'd argue that you haven't provided any proof that such quotas, be them hard or soft, are the driving factor for the increased number of black and Hispanic students at universities in recent years.
admin: That doesn't answer the question though. Do you deny that minimum numbers of ethnic groups in the second part means more diversity of ethnicities at the university?
admin: Or at least, is one way of achieving more diversity?
Vegito: I refer you to my statement below. I haven't seen any proof that such quotas have been a driven force for increased numbers, so I cannot confirm such a claim.
Vegito: driving force*
admin: Presume a school had 100% all white students. Would a minimum number of 1% black students increase its diversity?
Vegito: Not an equal comparison to the real world.
admin: It happened once in South Africa. Now answer the question.
Vegito: The reason why black and Hispanic students weren't in universities was because they hadn't be provided with the same rights (segregation, slavery, apartide, etc). When such rights were given to said communities, they naturally began to be accepted to universities out of their new abilities to compete on an equal playing field with other races (in terms of rights).
admin: OK, but what I'm asking is whether it is POSSIBLE for affirmative action based on race to increase diversity, not whether it necessarily would in modern day USA, right?
Vegito: So far as I'm aware, diversity isn't the only reason why AA was implemented. It was actually implemented and is used to create an equal playing field for applicants.
admin: OK, but you're dodging the question. Can AA based on race increase the diversity of a university?
Vegito: Could it generate more diversity? Perhaps, but it would be utterly destroying its goal of creating an equal playing field.
Vegito: It would be like trying to make a utopia in which no one has to live below the poverty line, but doing so by gassing all the people below the poverty line so that only the rich still live.
Vegito: Sure, a certain goal while entirely ignoring and preventing the accomplishment of the other goal that the process was instated for in the first place.
Vegito: Sure, a certain goal is achieved while*
admin: OK, so let's talk about equality. Do you believe in substantive equality, or do you believe in equal treatment?
admin: And back on diversity, do you really stand by your claim that the only difference between races is prejudice?
Vegito: There are some minor differences between the races (mainly physical). Had they not been separated in the first place though, there would be no intellectual or cultural differences nowadays.
admin: And the question about equality?
Vegito: What generates a cultural/point of view difference nowadays is more so the fact that some black and hispanic people remain impoverished.
admin: Isn't that generally true of MOST black/hispanic people, rather than just some?
Vegito: As for equality... my views on that are complicated. All humans should have equality in terms of their rights (freedom of speech, etc). I don't believe all humans deserve to be equal in regard to what they possess though, so long as such differences do not interfere with the basic rights mentioned previously. I'm a bit of a Rawlsian, I guess.
Vegito: Is it true for a large portion of them? Yeah. But there's also a fairly large amount of white people in the same predicament. And a fair amount of black and hispanic people in the exact opposite position. The way to fix the issue, as stated before, is to focus on location and economic status so that we can address what actually generates the differences between people.
admin: Do you believe in diversity for its own sake?
Vegito: Unless it has some sort of substantive benefit, then no.
admin: About equality, what I was really asking is "do you accept the idea that sometimes to treat people fairly you have to treat them differently according to their background, and if not, then why?"
admin: Do you not believe that diversity itself has several inherent substantive benefits?
Vegito: Depends on the diversity. Diversity of race? No. Diversity of thought? Yes.
Vegito: And, as I've been arguing, diversity of race is not inherently diversity of though.
Vegito: thought*
admin: OK, look forward to hearing your rebuttal to my claims as to the global workplace and different races teaching each other different skills. All you';ve said so far is that I don't achieve that, though on and off you;'ve been hinting that you don't really like diversity at all.
admin: In the mean time, can you answer my question about equality?
Vegito: Let me put it like this. A university should strive to achieve diversity and equality, insofar that both of those aspects benefit the school, the students, and society. By accounting for the adversities someone has faced in their life and seeing how they overcame those adversities to get their grades lets the university see how a student would fare in an environment without as many adversities. It lets them see their potential. If someone managed to overcome a great amount of adversity that was generated by their economic status, but still got good grades, their potential in the right setting
Vegito: is very high.
Vegito: By looking for diversity of thought, they are ensuring that their student body hears from a variety of points of view, opinions, cultures, and belief systems.
Vegito: A college/university that has students with great potential and diversity of thought will be a great university for itself, for its students, and for society.
Vegito: Race, however, is not necessarily indicative of diversity of thought, culture, point of view, or adversities faced.
Vegito: So, looking specifically at race does not yield any substantive benefits.
Vegito: And I answered your question about equality. Equality of rights is a must. Equality of substance is only needed insofar as it benefits everyone and ensures the rights of everyone.
Vegito: If diversity of race is a byproduct of diversity of thought and equality, then that's cool. It should not be pursued on its own though.
admin: Does your model now also include cultural AA, thought AA, and point of view AA?
Vegito: Location and economic status account for cultural, PoV, and thought.
Vegito: Class rank is more or less just used to measure one against one's own community
admin: Doesn't race do so too, to exactly the same extent? Would you say that all New Zealanders share exactly the same culture, for example?
admin: Does your model at present take into account school location? Because it didn't before...
Vegito: I'm not as familiar with how New Zealand might work, but in the US one's location accounts for one's school location.
admin: Does everyone in New York have the same culture?
admin: Does all of Florida have the same point of view?
Vegito: Location=/=State
Vegito: Location=Neighborhood
Vegito: I explained this in my videos.
admin: So do I always agree with my neighbour's culture?
Vegito: It certainly plays a large role over here in the states. Especially in cities we tend to forcibly and self-segregate by race and economic status.
admin: But are there not exceptions? JUST AS THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS FOR RACE?
Vegito: So, while you and your neighbor might not be identical, you'll likely have shared a much greater amount of experiences with your neighbor than someone living in another neighborhood.
Vegito: Race is entirely uncontrollable. The same can't be said for location.
admin: So is this your argument now? That young kids choose to live in suburbs where they can't get as good access to education under the status quo?
Vegito: Their parents get to choose where they live. Where the parents decide to live will be determined by economics, race, culture, and other such variables. Naturally the parents will end up living around people of similar economic statuses and often of similar cultures. When the child is born, they will be born into a family that lives in a community with a similar culture and economic status as their own. They decide where they live. They don't decide their race.
admin: OK. So for your model to work, every adult must be satisfied with where they work, and every child must agree with their family? You seriously believe that all of Indonesia prefer it to Australia, or all of Africa prefer it to Europe, or all of Mexico prefer it to the USA?
Vegito: Culture and economic status don't deal with satisfaction. They're inherent parts of who people are that's shaped by one's experiences.
admin: So are you saying that if people could choose to live anywhere, they would choose to live where they are dissatisfied?
Vegito: Last time I checked, most people don't have complete control over where they live. They choose to live in areas that they can afford to live in, which is going to be with other people that can afford to live in the same area; they're of the same economic status.
admin: How is it a free choice if they have no control?
admin: I mean, some have control, but for those that don't, how is it a choice?
Vegito: They don't have the money to afford a house in a rich neighborhood. They have the money to afford a house in a poor neighborhood. They buy a hour in a poor neighborhood.
admin: That doesn't answer my question. How is it a free CHOICE if they have no control?
admin: I guess my point overall is this. As a parent I have some limited control over the race of my child by choosing whom to breed with. Still race is not generally a choice. For the most part, neighborhoods get along, but there are many exceptions, often exactly because people can't move out. Just like there are exceptions to race. Can't you see that there are inherent limitations that apply to both race and location?
Vegito: There are limitations, but the difference is that one's race isn't determined by any real dividing factors. It's just your race. The color of your skin. Where people live is decided by a variety of factors such as economic status, culture, race, heritage, and so forth. This means that where someone lives (specifically the neighborhood) is representative of much of who someone is.
admin: And you feel that every single person on this planet earth has their economic status, culture, race, heritage and so forth defined by their physical location?
admin: Or do you agree with me that these are impacted by location, but that there is no exact determination of these factors by location? If so, is it not exactly the same for race, which affects economic status and so on, but is not always an exact determination?
Vegito: Location plays a large role in all of those factors and is representative of them. There are of course other factors, such as the direct economic status which is yet another feature my proposed plan for AA uses.
admin: OK, so location is only a large role, and you agree there are exceptions. Is it not exactly the same for race? There are exceptions, but by and large races have the same issues?
Vegito: I more or less agree with you about location. With race there are many more differences and there's the factor that people have absolutely no control over their race.
admin: So what differences do races have that neighbors never have?
Vegito: Vastly different cultures, economic statuses, schooling, jobs, resources, laws, locations, opportunities, etc.
admin: So just to clarify.. you think all neighbors have the same kind of culture, wealth, education, job, resources, law and opportunities?
Vegito: All of those variables heavily influence where someone lives and are heavily influenced by where someone lives.
Vegito: No offence intended, but I feel like I've answered this 10 different ways by now. Can we move on?
admin: What do you see as being the most important issue of the debate?
Vegito: Whether or not race can fairly be used to achieve equality in the application process.
admin: Haven't you already said that outside of equal rights you don't recognize any equality? If so, do you believe higher education is a right?
Vegito: Do you believe that affirmative action based on race can actually be used to generate equality? Does it not disproportionately disadvantage Asians who have suffered at the hands of racism and prejudices too? Is it not unfair for schools to give preference to people without knowing how much they've actually suffered due to their race?
admin: Do you ever feel like answering my questions with unrelated questions isn't really answering the question?
admin: To give some responses, 1) yes, 2) no, because they've recovered from that and my case isn't based on the past, 3) no, for several reasons you are yet to answer, for example that education can be a great way to connect with one's racial identity and help others of the same race even if you haven't suffered yourself. Now answer my questions please.
Vegito: Was typing that question before I had seen yours. In any case, I've already addressed my opinion in regard to equality. Feel to read my responses from earlier. And yes, I do believe higher education should be a thing if that's what you're asking.
Vegito: 2) And you think that it's impossible for Asians, Jews, or other such races and ethnicity to be affected by prejudices and racism? 3) That doesn't answer the question.
admin: 2) no. I'm saying in general it's less likely. There are always exceptions in race as with anything. 3) why?
admin: If higher education is a right all should be entitled to, then is it "equal" the distribution of races in university are not the same as the general population? Wouldn't it only be equal of universities to take steps to ensure that they are the same as the general population?
Vegito: 2) Oh, so now you're using exceptions? I thought that you supported using blanket bonuses based on disadvantages that some face. 3) My question had to do with equality. You responded with diversity.
Vegito: I never said higher education should be a right. Personally I support socializing upper education to ensure everyone gets into universities (like France), but that's a different discussion entirely.
Vegito: However, even if it was a right, it wouldn't be a right of someone to get a higher education at a selective school (like Harvard).
admin: 2) nope. Back in r1 I said my model isn't mutually exclusive. You've made valid points too, you've just not said anything incompatible with my model. 3) no. When people go back and help their cultures, they bring those cultures back on a level playing field by teaching them skills and bringing money.
admin: So you think it's fair that Harvard has an unequal racial distribution of students even though their chances of graduating from Harvard are all about the same?
admin: Even if you don't accept that premise, you do think it's fair that Harvard has an unequal racial distribution of students, I take it?
Vegito: Assuming they aren't purposefully discriminating against certain races and are accepting people based on the merits of their work, then yes, I do think it's fair.
admin: So then in general, you believe in absolute meritocracy, as opposed to racial equality, correct?
Vegito: 2) But affirmative action based on race specifically targets certain races simply because of the color of their skin without taking into account the actual adversities that the people have faced. 3) So you're assuming that those that are successful have to give back to their communities? And how would it be fair to give certain people advantages over others regardless of the actual adversities they've faced? Such a system works against its own goals of equality.
Vegito: I believe in a meritocracy, but I also believe that looking at the adversities that people have faced to determine what someone's full potential would be had they been capable of working at their maximum potential.
Vegito: You have yet to prove that applying a blanket system of "positive" discrimination for entire races fairly evaluates the adversities that those people have faced, meaning that there is no functional way under your system of actually determining the potential of the applicants.
Vegito: You have repeatedly claimed that your system of racial based affirmative action would work with my system that functions on the basis of economic status, location, class rank, grades, and scores. It's true that they could work together, but you have yet to prove, as explained below, how your racial system would actually fairly achieve the goals (primarily equality) it claims to pursue.
admin: So then you believe that certain races have less maximum potential, since you also believe they shouldn't be allowed into Harvard as much as other races by right? 2) skin color =/= race, but of course race is only a single system for whittling down candidates which I agree can be made more accurate with more systems, 3) not necessarily, it's merely one way of improving the overall condition of a discriminated people. (I'll get to your other issues in a subsequent message, you're dumping quite a lot right now, maybe leave it at a few points at a time
admin: I proved that positive discrimination creates equality by spreading education to more races that would otherwise have not received it, and we both agreed education is an important tool for getting out of tough circumstances. I answered your arguments about admittance and graduation rates which flowed on from this set of argumentation. Claiming I'm yet to prove something I explained, or at least clearly signposted, in round 1 doesn't take the debate anywhere.
Vegito: No, as I stated before, no race has less potential than any other race. What creates the lesser amount of black and hispanic people at universities is the fact that they tend to be poorer. Their economic status is what generates the issue, not their race. I also never said they shouldn't be allowed into Harvard or similar schools. They can get in, if they have the qualifications. 3) That doesn't fix the issue that I brought up. One person getting rich at the sake of another person's success simply because they can give back to their community later on doesn't excuse the faults of the process.
Vegito: And no, you didn't prove that whatsoever. You showed that putting more people in schools puts more people in schools. You ignored any other variables that have resulted in more black and Hispanic students at universities other than affirmative action. I could easily say that killing all of the poor would eliminate any issues of poverty, but that doesn't make it a fair system that achieves its goals. You have yet to prove that, on top of the aforementioned issues, that affirmative action achieves its goals fairly.
admin: So you're saying you're not racist, but poor/unqualified people have less potential? That all races would be the same if only they were rich and score well on SATs, but since they generally don't it's ok to discriminate? 3) the process is about helping disadvantaged races. Of course there will be some who do not make the most of that opportunity - as is the case with ALL AA - but this can not be predicted on background alone as you've been asserting. 4) You've yet to prove what these variables are, since you're the one bringing the claim of their existence. (to be cont'd...)
admin: I've presented evidence that despite test scores not changing, entrance to selective universities has been strongly impacted. This correlation can also be observed in all of your evidence. This is a rehash of material we focused on earlier in the very same CX. Ultimately this point isn't really about evidence, but about where we believe races should have the right to graduate from, and how selective those institutions ought to be about race and other factors.
Vegito: No, I am not saying that poor or unqualified people have less potential.I have said time and time against that poverty is what generates adversity, meaning that those that are poor naturally fare worse in schools. However, when aren't intelligent, don't work hard, have little talent or ability, and are poor, the likelihood of them achieving anything great is quite small. And yes, all of the races would more or less be the same if they all started with the same economic status. There would of course be some differences between individuals as individuals naturally differ, but there would be no
Vegito: larger differences between the races as wholes.
Vegito: 3) So, you're saying that it's fair to give blanket compensation based on race where any disadvantages brought upon by race clearly aren't uniform. That defeats the entire purpose of attempting to achieve equality of opportunity.
Vegito: 4) As stated in the resolution, the burden of proof remains on you. You can point to correlation all that you want, but until you link correlation directly to causation you haven't fulfilled the burden of proof. It isn't my job to debunk a causal relationship that you haven't actually proven yet.
Vegito: I once again refer you to the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. Those that came from Rosetto Italy and formed a community of their own ended up having much better health than almost the entirety of the United States. Yet, when research was done, the reason for their better health was not where they were from or their race (as other people in the US from Rosetto, Italy didn't reap the same benefits), but because of the community th
Return To Top


Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
adminadmin
Cheers, and well done to you too. Really enjoyed it.
Posted 2014-10-17 03:08:11
VegitoVegito
Congratulations, admin. Was a fun debate and I look forward to debating with you again in the future.
Posted 2014-10-17 03:06:33
VegitoVegito
Lol, thanks. We'll have to debate eachother at some point ;p
Posted 2014-10-11 03:53:13
BlackflagBlackflag
@Vegito - You would probably beat me in a live debate ;)
Posted 2014-10-10 23:01:26
BlackflagBlackflag
Feedback is coming eventually.
Posted 2014-10-10 22:51:36
BlackflagBlackflag
It's pretty much the same as whiteflame's system, but with a smaller ladder, and it accounts for refutations the opponent made.
Whiteflame's gives each debater a score, and mine does as well. Except I'm pretty much subtracting the BOP holders score with his oppositions, and if it remains positive, the debater fullfilled the BOP.
Posted 2014-10-10 22:51:11
whiteflamewhiteflame
I'll get to judging this as soon as I'm done with the Queen debate.
Posted 2014-10-10 16:02:57
VegitoVegito
Thanks for voting, Csareo. I'll keep some of those critiques in mind. Some of the hand flailing though mostly comes from my background in acting where using those sorts of physical actions usually work, lol.
Posted 2014-10-10 04:34:52
adminadmin
Even after seeing that vote I still have almost no idea how the LJS works.
Posted 2014-10-10 04:28:02
BlackflagBlackflag
I'm 100% sure the system is accurate, but am open to any feedback if you think there is a flaw. The only part that relies on interpretation is deciding if an argument was affirmed, and its subsequent impact.
Posted 2014-10-10 04:19:40
whiteflamewhiteflame
I'll get to judging this as soon as I'm done with the Queen debate.
Posted 2014-10-10 02:12:52
BlackflagBlackflag
And you get to go first
Posted 2014-10-09 02:46:20
BlackflagBlackflag
You should only have 2:30
Posted 2014-10-09 02:45:58
VegitoVegito
So this round is reply speeches, correct?
Posted 2014-10-09 01:57:00
adminadmin
I think the reply speeches are going to be the best part of this debate.
Posted 2014-10-08 02:03:50
adminadmin
Yip, it's not. #RMbeingadelayedadmin
Posted 2014-10-08 00:59:48
BlackflagBlackflag
swearing isn't allowed
Posted 2014-10-08 00:54:34
adminadmin
For anyone else randomly browsing: don't refresh the page after commenting or posting on the forums. I was too lazy to set up a redirect so this will cause your post to post again. As a basic protection you can't post the same message twice in a row, but as the below shows its a bit useless really.

Also - remember that profanity is not allowed on edeb8.
Posted 2014-10-08 00:52:40
VegitoVegito
What the fuck, it keeps posting it...
Posted 2014-10-08 00:25:34
adminadmin
Is it doing it every time you load the page by any chance?
Posted 2014-10-08 00:24:12
VegitoVegito
What the fuck, it keeps posting it...
Posted 2014-10-08 00:23:12
VegitoVegito
Thanks for the criticism; however, from my understanding, it is his position (as the pro) to prove that affirmative action is the best possible system and mine to disprove this statement and any arguments admin brings up to support this his arguments.
Posted 2014-10-08 00:22:51
BlackflagBlackflag
The funny thing is that it's two days apart. Probably a bug
Posted 2014-10-08 00:13:53
BlackflagBlackflag
That double post ;)
Posted 2014-10-08 00:13:22
VegitoVegito
Thanks for the criticism; however, from my understanding, it is his position (as the pro) to prove that affirmative action is the best possible system and mine to disprove this statement and any arguments admin brings up to support this his arguments.
Posted 2014-10-08 00:12:28
adminadmin
Accidentally said "I oppose" at the end of my video. I totally meant "propose". Keep forgetting I'm supposed to be affirming the topic when I spent the entire round just attacking your late counter-model.
Posted 2014-10-07 22:11:18
VegitoVegito
Thanks for the criticism; however, from my understanding, it is his position (as the pro) to prove that affirmative action is the best possible system and mine to disprove this statement and any arguments admin brings up to support this his arguments.
Posted 2014-10-06 12:04:06
BlackflagBlackflag
Vegito your case isn't even remotely touching on the actual resolution. It's just derailing any point that Lars is making. This isn't even a close match for me so far.
Posted 2014-10-06 05:45:50
BlackflagBlackflag
Good CX. Just as a friendly trip, good cross examination isn't a place for making arguments. When I would watch debates, cross examination is a place where you question your opponent to find holes in his case, which you exploit when you make your following speech. Putting sources in Cx, or adding unnecessary arguments, while easily ignored, IMO should be frowned upon.

I'll make a thread on the subject, where others can put in their thoughts, as I know NZlockies style differs from my interpretation.
Posted 2014-10-04 23:39:46
VegitoVegito
Lol, awesome. It might take me a bit longer to upload mine. Someone stole my phone, so I lost my primary method of recording myself ;/. Luckily I do have my old iPhone 4, so I might be able to use that.
Posted 2014-10-04 23:32:08
adminadmin
Almost ran over 5mins! Uploading now. :)
Posted 2014-10-04 23:11:21
VegitoVegito
Kinda depends on the argument. Sometimes I write entire scripts, sometimes I write out bullet points, and sometimes I just go at it with just a mental outline. The first video I did was done with just a mental outline because I felt pretty comfortable with the topic.I'll likely use some bullet points for the next one.
Posted 2014-10-03 01:15:04
BlackflagBlackflag
I'll have some good feedback by the end of this debate. Vegito, do you write your arguments down before you speak them?
Posted 2014-10-03 01:12:33
adminadmin
Just put up the first question for cross-examination :)
Posted 2014-10-03 01:12:21
VegitoVegito
And by the way, please do excuse how I didn't go into great detail with my last point.I'll address it a bit more later.
Posted 2014-10-03 00:12:55
adminadmin
I think it's related to rounding. Youtube always rounds up, while most software rounds to the nearest second.
Posted 2014-10-03 00:07:28
VegitoVegito
Well, the video is made now. I just need to edit it down 1 second because Youtube decided it wanted to add an extra second (seriously, why does it do that?)
Posted 2014-10-03 00:06:02
VegitoVegito
Just finished watching your argument. I'll upload my response as soon as I can. Love your accent, by the way, lol.
Posted 2014-10-02 22:28:29
VegitoVegito
Lol. I'll watch your argument in two-ish hours when I get home. I'll respond ASAP.
Posted 2014-10-02 18:41:42
adminadmin
Vote pro for posting at 5AM! :)
Posted 2014-10-02 18:15:04
VegitoVegito
Alright, sounds good. I look forward to your post.
Posted 2014-10-01 19:52:21
VegitoVegito
Is that too short? I can lengthen it if you'd prefer. I generally like having debates run pretty smoothly, but quickly, but if EDB8 works better with a bit of extra time, I'd be down for having a longer debate.
Posted 2014-10-01 19:46:21
adminadmin
No no, this is fine. Will have my post up in a few hours.
Posted 2014-10-01 19:31:36
VegitoVegito
Is that too short? I can lengthen it if you'd prefer. I generally like having debates run pretty smoothly, but quickly, but if EDB8 works better with a bit of extra time, I'd be down for having a longer debate.
Posted 2014-10-01 19:30:35
adminadmin
Hey, he's the one who set the debate up with those parameters.
Posted 2014-10-01 19:05:28
BlackflagBlackflag
Only one day to post? Someone should make sure Vegito (Seido) is informed on DDO.
Posted 2014-10-01 18:53:54
BlackflagBlackflag
You have to take this today, or it will delete.
Posted 2014-10-01 10:36:35
adminadmin
Awesome. No need to update the rules since I'm pretty sure we both have a good understanding of the parameters of the debate. I'll accept this tomorrow. Just need to whizz through a bit of work first.
Posted 2014-09-30 13:41:34
VegitoVegito
Oh, lol. I had been told that regular voice recordings would work. Oh well, I'm sure I could record myself on my phone.

And you're right, that part is a bit unbalanced. Would this be more fair?

"The burden of proof primarily rests on the pro side, who must prove that affirmative action based on race is justified and effective. The con side must provide arguments in favor of alternative systems and must explain why they are superior. When and if this is done, both sides must argue why their respective systems are superior to the system/s being presented by the opposing side." That sound a bit better?
Posted 2014-09-30 13:37:12
adminadmin
Just two minor clarifications on the rules.

"Both videos and simple voice recordings may be used" - unless the voice recording is presented in a video format, edeb8 won't support it unfortunately. It only works with YouTube and Vimeo at the moment. You may want to take this to the feature request thread.

"Burden of proof is on the pro side, who must prove that affirmative action based on race is justified, effective, and the best possible system" - just to clarify, I don't believe pro should have to disprove every single other possible system's superiority. That's an unreasonably high onus that isn't actually supported by the resolution as written. If this is the line that the negative intends to run (which of course they don't have to) then it's their burden of rejoinder to prove another system is superior to the one pro is claiming to be the "best".

I do consider the resolution to actually be completely fair as written, though.
Posted 2014-09-30 10:39:08
BlackflagBlackflag
NVM, I thought you were pro. Yeah, "Positive Discrimination" is not the best "possible" system for fairness and equality.
The wording of the resolution may make it a bit imbalanced to the con side.
Posted 2014-09-29 18:49:27
BlackflagBlackflag
We need more video debates. I would take this as I personally disagree with the resolution, but again, I have mic and camera issues.
Posted 2014-09-29 18:48:10
VegitoVegito
As someone who is currently preparing to enter the battlefield of applying to universities, this issue is a bit more relevant to me than the argument regarding Affirmative Action in the work place. Maybe after we handle the one about universities we can do one about the work place too.
Posted 2014-09-29 15:49:43
BlackflagBlackflag
If this was about workplaces as opposed to unis, I'd be much more inclined to take Pro.
Posted 2014-09-29 11:15:54
adminadmin
I love the topic! Will do a devil's advocate if this is untaken within a few days.
Posted 2014-09-29 06:07:50
BlackflagBlackflag
I'm sure Admin or NZlockie will accept this if you wait for them.
Posted 2014-09-29 01:09:07
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2014-10-10 04:16:16
BlackflagJudge: Blackflag    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: admin
Reasoning:
My Opening Thoughts on The Topic (No Relevance on Score)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affirmative Action is an interesting topic, one that has been subject to much debate. I am always happy to debate a topic, that I personally have switched stances on many times in my life. Affirmative Action is hardly just a system. It is a complex series of government reforms that bring hard and even taboo topics into mainstream conversation. Such as "Race", "Equality", and "Civil Rights".

My opinion at the start of this debate was against affirmative action. I must say, both sides have gave me new arguments and opinions on this topic, and kudo's to both debaters for sharing their opinions with me.

Legend Judging System
------------------------------
I'm using the Legend System for judging this debate. The equation for calculating who filled the BOP is as follows....................
(Arguments ---> Affirmed(solvency + PSP) - Arguments ----> Negatory(inherency + CSP)) - (CD - PD)

The system puts primary focus on Arguments, and their impact on the BOP, and is the first judging system I've created that actually gives a negative or positive score based on the winner. Feedback is appreciated, and if you feel there is something wrong with the system, I'll take your critique into consideration, and likely edit my vote based on the necessity.

Arguments Made Round One
----------------------
- Opening Statements (Admin)
- Systematic Oppression of other Minority Groups and Relation to Diversity, Equality, Fairness (Vegito)
- Ethnic Background in relation to Social Class Background (Vegito)
- Affirmative Action Doesn't Work (Vegito)

Cross Examination Analysis
-----------------------------------
Cx is a tool for debaters. It isn't a place to introduce new arguments or try to prove a point. It isn't unreasonable at all for a judge to completely skip cross examination, because it is there for you, not us. The purpose of asking questions in this space is to find where your opponent's argument is weak, and having a point of refrence to use against him or her in the following round, e.g, "You said in Cx that X = Y".

Arguing in Cross Examination, and as admin put it, "answering answers" is terrible conduct for a debate of this magnitude, and for that reason I am going through with the two point positive deduction from Vegito, which will have an impact on the final score.

Presentation of Both Debaters
-------------------------------------
Both debaters didn't show up looking like they were ready for a debate in any of the rounds. Casual clothes were wore, there were background sounds, and a lot of things drawing away focus from the debate, and affecting how I viewed what was being said. This was undesirable, and I want to encourage quality presentation, but unfortunately I was forced to deduct 2 points from both debaters.

Proper Speech
-------------------
Neither Debater did a terrible job speaking in front of the camera, but any viewer is aware of the clear experience gap found between Admin's video's and Vegito's video's. While Admin felt comfortable in front of the camera (although his posture was bad), Vegito appeared to be nervous, waving his hands around a lot, and making gestures that made me as a judge feel he was less situated than his opponent. For this reason I awarded 2 special points to Admin.

Opening Statements (Admin)
------------------------------------
While not completely unreasonable when starting a debate, there weren't a lot of arguments in admin's opening statements. This put his case in a vulnerable position to attacks from Vegito. What it did do, is set a good precedent for the debate, put affirmative action in a positive light, and set a basic "platform" for the case to stand on.

Nothing said was refuted by Vegito I noticed, and that might be because not a ton of content was to be found, so it was mostly arguments that admin might make in Vegito's rebuttals. For that reason, I affirmed Admin's opening statements, and rated them as having 3 solvency.

Systematic Oppresion of Other Minorities
--------------------------------------------------
As a Judge, I am not able to make arguments of my own, but when a debater says false information, such as referencing the oppression of "Japanese", "Asians", and other groups which aren't covered under affirmative action, I have a duty to explain that the debater needs to review his own topic.

Vegito was arguing for universities in America, not the world, and this debate isn't about America. But even if it was, just like the EU, Asians and Japanese are covered by affirmative action. This false information lessened the credibility of what Vegito was saying to me.

Sense Admin didn't make this refutation, I can't count it as a rebuttal, but it did make me less confident you know what you're talking about, which can lower my perception on any arguments you make on the future. The reason why I negated this argument, was do to Admin's contention in the following round, that while Affirmative Action doesn't encompass, or is it meant to encompass all areas, it is the best among its breed.

This move shifted some of the BOP to Vegito, now making him responsible for showing a program better than affirmative action. What Vegito didn't do, is one of the two things that could save the following two cases...
- Launch a counter program that is better than affirmative action.
- Refute Affirmative Action Strong and Hard, to the point where Affirmative Action sounds extremely unappealing to the point where a counter proposal isn't needed.

Vegito did try to argue "Affirmative Action" isn't perfect, but for the most part, he silently conceded that it wasn't bad. Since he wouldn't attack Affirmative Action as being bad, or provide a better system, his arguments following this one began to topple one by one. I rated this with a solvency of 3.

Ethnic Background in relation to Social Background (Vegito)
--------------------------------------------------------------
I was fair on this argument. Perhaps Vegito's strongest argument at that. He did explain that not all blacks were poor, or downtrodden, and this being mostly conceded by the opposition, landed him some inherency for this argument, which, while not fleshed out or perfect, was enough to gain him a three point multiplier.

Affirmative Action Doesn't Work (Vegito)
--------------------------------------
This case wasn't attacked that hard by Admin. Vegito quickly referenced that affirmative action, when removed from certain states, didn't cause much of a change in admission rates. I'll give credit where credit is due, and the fact that this case wasn't flashed out, or refuted, makes me wonder if both debaters missed a golden opportunity.

The reason I only gave this two points, was because I wasn't getting the impression from Admin that Affirmative Action was supposed to be as much of an effective measure, as it should be a symbolic gesture for past wrongs. Which Vegito practically conceded to in his round one. I gave it an inherency of two

Round Three (Admin)
------------------
This argument was hard for me to judge. I felt like some things came off as ignorant or as huge misunderstandings, but there was reason in Admin's argument, and I did not let my personal views clot my opinions. Both sides did a fair degree of objectifying race, just Admin did it a little more. Which is why refutations from Vegito on the subject came out stronger.

What was convincing, was Admin's relation to background being a result of race. That it isn't the skin that makes them get lower test scores, but where the person with the skin came from. This is true enough, pushed very hard, and was affirmed in every sense. I'll follow up with Admin on this conversation later, but the point is affirmed.

I liked his refutation on Vegito's "Obama's Children" argument. Admin made a convincing statement that it wasn't an unjust discrimination that a rich man and poor man get equal privelege (which goes against Vegito's own concept of equality), but a moral obligation to offer the same opportunity for people to get where Obama's children currently are. Well done, I'm giving it an solvency of 4.

Class Rank (Vegito)
--------------
A counter argument was revealed as a necessity by round three. The delivery wasn't very convincing giving Vegito's fast speaking, and I had to replay the video several times to here the facts being said. The argument fell short to several fallacies, such as how class rank achieves equality, fairness, or diversity.

While I see an argument for fairness, I am not convinced by equality and diversity. I gave it a solvency of two, because the argument was contradictory, and not something that I could accept as affirmed. This is a good example of the "texas sharpshooter fallacy" in action, which I encourage both debaters to look up.

Leader Reply (Vegito)
---------------------------
I think what Vegito did do, is strike down a lot of what's wrong with Admin's case. Which there honestly was. What he didn't do, is reinforce his own case, and he took on some BOP when taking the class. I gave it an inherency of 2.

Leader Reply (Admin)
---------------------------
Powerful speaking indeed. I hadn't even watched the replies until getting to this point in the judging. Very impressed, a solid reinforcement of Admin's case, and he not only instilled passion in his own case, but he made me, as a reader, care about what he's saying. That's what powerful debaters do, and that's how powerful debaters made strong arguments. Solvency of 3.

AA: 5;15
NA: 3;7

5(15)-3(7) + 2 - (4-4) = 56
Calculating the Final Tally, Admin won the debate by a 5.6 point margin, fulfilling a positive BOP



Feedback:
Feedback will be added later
1 user rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2014-10-12 05:35:18
whiteflameJudge: whiteflame    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: admin
Reasoning:
This debate took some odd turns, but I think it becomes quite clear in the end what the discussion is about. Con, as far as I can tell, never provides a substantial harm that applies to affirmative action, simply stating that its benefits could be better applied. Some harms are implied, and there are the beginnings for such an argument that appear several times in the debate, but in each case, it ends up hitting his counterplan as hard as Pro's plan. In fact, his case explicitly shows that the methodology (providing preference for the admission of certain groups to college) is one he supports. As such, that really cuts out much of the resolution. Both sides are agreed that affirmative action is good. Both sides are agreed that it is the best possible system. The sole source of disagreement is in regards to what the means of affirmative action should be to accomplish its goals.

Pro gives the debate a broad focus, talking about the importance of racial diversity in schools for the broader public and, more specifically, the importance of ensuring that those who are disadvantaged by their racial profile receive an education. Con tells me that these goals can be better achieved through a system of affirmative action that uses different means to accomplish the same goals (location, class rank, economic status), claiming that affirmative action based on race has been ineffective.

Before I can go about comparing the two and determining which case is strongest, I'd just like to mention that there is at least some reasonable concern presented by Pro regarding

Part of the problem with this correlation vs. causation discussion is that it's insufficient by itself as a method of dismissing links. I think Con had to do more than simply say that the data is correlative – he had to show what other factors could be affecting those changes, and provide some reason why they're more likely to be the causes of those changes. I can accept that it weakens Pro's case to not be able to provide anything stating that AA is firmly causative, just as it weakens his case to point to a number of universities where, without AA, there was a maintained level of racial diversity. However, in both cases, these are solely mitigation, lacking any sort of real offense, so I'm left to evaluate Con's case with the knowledge that Pro is garnering some benefit, albeit less than he initially argues for.

As I go through Con's case, I think its complexity is actually more harm than benefit. Pro's right, the first part of this is inherent to the current system of affirmative action as well, and I think he made that clear. The second portion just seems like an attempt to increase diversity based on different set of criteria, one which gets less support than Pro's case. I buy that there's a diversity of experiences based on location, but the best I can do is use this as a counter to the increased diversity earned by Pro's case, as Con doesn't really spend enough time here to show me that there are locationally disadvantaged people, and therefore equality seems not to be the basis of this point. Con claims that his diversity is higher on the basis of a few factors, but I think Pro countered them effectively.

What really ends up mattering in Con's case is the economic aspect. Pro's case seems to be focused specifically on how equality is lost at the point that people of minority races don't have proportional access to colleges, but this entirely seems based in a history of minimal education, which all seems to come from reduced means. Con's counterplan garners this better than race-based affirmative action. Pro could have made arguments about how racial groups are often stuck in a cycle that goes beyond simple poverty, but I don't see much of that argument here. This would probably be a solidly winning point if Con had made it his sole advocacy, as it seems to improve diversity by similar amounts to race and do a better job at equality.

But there's the rub – Con didn't make this his sole advocacy, and that leaves me with some confusion. Pro is supporting a very clear, simple case. Con's case is, by comparison, significantly more complex, involving two features that would both be used to determine whether someone is worthy of receiving the effects of affirmative action. That's made all the more uncertain by a relative lack of explanation by Con in terms of how this piece would work. I get some detail, but not enough to get a clear view. That vagueness hampers Con's case, making it difficult to assess the likelihood of its outcomes. The lack of any evidence of such a system being used in other countries and being effective also harms his argument somewhat.

Still, the combo of the pieces of Con's counterplan amount to a slightly higher level of diversity than Pro's plan appears to allow for. I'd rate the equality garnered about equal, so that puts Con's argument as the better of the two. If that's where it stopped, that's where I'd be voting.

However, given cross-examination and the video aspect of these debates, I'm forced to consider other components than just the argumentation as it stands. While there's not a huge difference in terms of cross-x, I do see Con trying to introduce new arguments several times, which I count as a minor conduct violation. As Con spends R3 moving through his arguments about as fast as possible, his speaking style also takes a hit – better to be broadly understood and get fewer points out than to try and get everything out and have nothing understood. I can keep up with you, and so I factor in those arguments, but the speed is still a slight against you.

That leaves me torn. Pro has the better style, Con has the better case. If this was NPDA, I'd be able to vote Con and not think about the rest. But I consider this to be akin to British Parliamentary debate, and as such the aspect of style matter. I'd say that Pro's case is at least close to Con's in terms of impact and likelihood, and the conduct issue stands as at least a partial bridge between the two. Thus, it really comes down to the speeding in R3 that suffices as the reason for my vote. Con's speaking style was otherwise commendable, but I think he took some liberties there, and ended up damaging his position in the round irreparably in the process. Hence, I vote Pro.

Feedback:
While both debaters argued well, I don't think either of you made the endgame clear enough. I would have liked to have some decisive comparisons between the cases, especially after that huge block of cross-examination. I felt there was a lot of good argumentation on the table, just not much in the way of relating it back to the resolution and comparing cases directly. That kind of analysis, coming from either one of you, could easily have solidified my vote.
1 user rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement

Rules of the debate

  • Video debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 5 minutes per round
  • Reply speeches
  • Uses cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 1 day
  • Time to vote: 1 week
  • Time to prepare: None
Burden of proof is on the pro side, who must prove that affirmative action based on race is justified, effective, and the best possible system.

Civility must be maintained at all times.

Both videos and simple voice recordings may be used.