Affirmative on resolved the actions of
Seemingly, my opponent is using a circular argument, extending that something is wrong only because it is illegal, yet citing not reason as to WHY it would be "illegal" in the first place.
Affirmative action leads to higher levels of diversity in colleges, more equal opportunity for people of minority-status and women, and ensures less discrimination in the college admissions arena.
We were unfair to them so they can be unfair to us? My opponent first point states that present affirmative action is more important than the past.
Affirmative action employer
At the same time, however, many women, racial and ethnic persons, and persons with disabilities, though fully competent, have confronted obstacles in these settings, stifling their advancement in education and in employment. It can always be amended. Tagged since May Affirmative action to promote equal opportunity simply is not justified because there is no return on the financial, moral, and time investment and loss. Anomaly of "poor white Appalachian" less important than broad racism Opponents of Affirmative Action argue that it is unfair to the "poor white male from Appalachia" to give the wealthy black neurosurgeon's son an advantage in school admittance. Good luck in the next debates in this tournament. He promotes a different definition of affirmative action that the one he put in his first post. As Charles R. Justification in stance is what is just and equal in todays society. Thus, regardless of what the statistics are, if and when the hypothetical scenario occurs, affirmative action ought to be used.
This relative disadvantage of blacks is what drives the need for affirmative action. Even if something causes controversy, that doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong or right. There is only this minority of colleges that even have the opportunity to consider race.
At the same time, however, many women, racial and ethnic persons, and persons with disabilities, though fully competent, have confronted obstacles in these settings, stifling their advancement in education and in employment. These colleges go generally only on the individual merits of an individual.
To supply supposed "blacks" an advantage is to turn "affirmative action" into action that holds African Americans in its preference. Thus, we cannot use every possible definition of affirmative action in this debate.
Affirmative action r=h:edu
The implementation of affirmative action has resulted in concrete gains for people of color and women in higher education and the corporate world. Report this Argument Pro Thanks for repelling your arguement. My opponent doesn't provide any points on his side of the arguement. Currently, in fact, the United States government owns a majority stake in that business. Well I would say that from the 's, during the Civil Rights Act, we used affirmative action too move the minority forward and to equal their oppourtunity. It can always be amended. They are seen as being given a handout, without earning it. Another example of this treacherous minority activity is religiously. Women workers continue to earn less than male workers in the same or similar positions, and they continue to confront limitations in promotion to a more prestigious and responsible level of jobs.
Furthermore, my opponent went on to point out that "everyone" should have the right to vote as amended in the constitution, however, everyone is supplied the right to vote definitively and affirmative action to justify this is unnecessary in this day and age.
Affirmative action addresses the wrong part of the problem.
Affirmative action does more harm than good to minorities.
based on 6 review