There was a thread on this topic in the debate board but unfortunately that was deleted. At any rate, this is a formal debate. This means:

-No simply bandwagon comments. (Example: Yeah, what he said.)
-Do not post without making or commenting on points. (Example: Affirmative action is a great idea. Anyone else who says otherwise is dumb.)
-Read what other's have posted before you post.

Ok, now for the background of Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action was a policy created for the sole purpose of assisting and protecting any and all minority groups. Affirmative Action creates a certain set neccesity for most schools and job opportunities. Such as: Harvard must accept x amount of african americans per year, x amount of people of spanish heritage, x amount of women, etc. etc. This insures that all minority groups have great opportunities to acquire many great positions of power and are open to all opportunities.

One way to look at the policy:

-Affirmative Action is a great policy because it make certain that minority groups are given opportunities to better themselves. It's neccesary to protect the minority in any democratic society else the underdog will be pushed around.

The Opposition:

-Affirmative Action is reverse discrimination. By allowing minorities to get into certain colleges and job opportunities simply because of their race, less qualified individuals can acquire jobs they didn't neccesarily earn over hard-working members of households who belong to the majority. For instance: A white male with a 3.7 GPA could possibly be rejected from a University they worked hard to join because their spot was taken by a student with a 3.5 GPA who was a hispanic female.

Of course, everyone has different viewpoints. Many theories can be added, those were simply sample ideas. So, let's hear it.

Affirmative Action: Good? Bad? And why?

Squiziph: I like most of your points, but could you possibly formulate a solution?

Let me clarify: We are specifically talking about the United States. *Irrelevant: In South Africa the De Beers family pretty much dominate the diamond industry, artifically keeping prices high, and treat their miners poorly by taking ever step possible to make sure diamonds aren't stolen?*

But that's outside the scope of this discussion.

I think all civil rights need to be granted and I think harsher implications must be set in place to assure equality. I dislike that there are All-Girl or All-African American colleges. Is it okay that there are "All-male" and "All-female" hair places? Sure. If a girl went to Sports Clips, the only thing they can ask for is how they want their hair buzzed. If a guy went to a female hair place, they would pay $35 by asking "for a 2". These aren't robbing opportunities for citizens nor discriminating between sex or race.

If I had to construct a plan, implemented nationally, I think it would involve the following:

-Allow homosexuals to become domestic partners, acquiring all the same rights as married couples. No religious ties, simply done by an attorney. It's not only seperation between church and state, but allowing equality throughout sexual preferences as well.

-Eliminate Affirmative Action. MLK would be upset if he found out that people were still being judged by the color of their skin, not the content of their character. That's exactly what Affirmative Action does. It ranks importance with minorities of equal or less qualifications than majorities.

-Make staunch, national, laws considered as a felony concerning any type of discrimination. If it's found in any court case that someone purposefully rejected an application or customer simply because of that persons race, sex, or sexual preference, that individual deserves great compensation, and the offender deserves punishment.

I believe if we truly want to call the United States a "Melting Pot", preaching equality, freedom, and justice, then we must practice and force such. If consequences of any man or woman's choices impede or break the civil liberties and rights of others, then it should'nt be protected by the government. Those of you who are religious are don't believe homosexuals should get married: they aren't. They're acquiring domestic partnership. It's not your right to tell others who don't believe in your religion to abide by your rules. They aren't asking for religious ties, they're asking to be treated equal and have the same privledges heterosexuals do. Atheists are allowed to marry and they can break any and all rules that exist in the bible, yet I never see protests against them. Your own religious beliefs aren't the law of everyone. Business owners who can't stand a certain race: don't look at their skin, look at their qualifications. If a black salesman who is homosexual can sell 90 more cars a year than a white heterosexual male, promote the black homosexual. He's more profitable and more skillful and you receive more benefits in doing such.

Oyster: Let me make my directions clear, the setting for this thread should remain a formal setting. Which means: treat everyone with the upmost respect, make only educated and scholarly posts, and prove points through logic and reasoning which others can relate to. If any posts fails to meet such requirements, they should be removed.

If you would like to speak about educational status involving races, consider that many poor minority groups may not have the same opportunities to acquire a private school education as more wealthy majority groups. For instance, Florida's public school system is terrible; however, I am fortunate enough to belong to the middle-upper class so my family can spend $18,000 a year on my education. My junior class consists of only 3 African-Americans. I can certainly tell you there are many more white students then black.

My friend brought up a very interesting point about Affirmative Action. He said that affirmative action is a great idea if it weren't done by race or sex. Alternatively, he preposed Affirmative Action to be a method to grant equal opportunity based on economical factors rather than racial. For instance: The 3 African-Americans that are in my junior class are quite wealthy, yet they have even more opportunities than a wealthy majority member like myself has. His family hasn't been robbed of opportunities from their race. This is why economics would be a greater judgement for Affirmative Action. Thus, reverse discrimination doesn't acquire; however, people of all races who aren't granted the fiscal financing to actually become equally educated with other individuals would have equal chances at acquiring prosperity.

That whole suggestion promotes hard-working rather than racial gifts.

Sorry, the last paragraph was rushed as the bell just rang, indicating my class had ending.

"Thus, reverse discrimination doesn't occur" ~Fix 1

"Affirmative Action" ~I capitalized it simply because it's a policy and I want it to stick out.

"Fiscal Financing" ~I meant fiscal support. AKA Having the money to back them up through any educational endeavor.

"Acquiring prosperity" ~..I think that's right no? If not I think it's close enough.

And as for my private school argument...

What I was trying to say was both I and my African-American classmate are both economically sound. Money isn't an issue in acquiring an education. However, even though he has the same benefits of going to the private school that I do, he receives benefits from Affirmative Action which I don't. Even though he has been given equal opportunities (educationally) to acquire knowledge to succeed in academics.

Also, please try to keep your red pen away from the discussion. I know you are trying to keep it as proper as possible but I would prefer the "meat of the posts" be valued more than the grammar.

Oyster: You read it backwards. Those who aren't wealthy would receive benefits from Affirmative Action. And yes I am from Florida.

By having Affirmative Action only apply to less fortunate individuals rather than a specific race we allow the people who don't have the same opportunities the wealthy have to further educate themselves and put them into a position where they can eventually have a decent career at a job which doesn't have a dead-end.

Let's say there are more African-Americans which are poor (keeping in mind it's percentage of their own population group) then the majority. By allowing Affirmative Action to work for the economically weak, rich African-Americans don't get some super advantage because of their race and poor white student's won't lack the support they deserve because they are white.