Week 1 - The Game Rage vs. LgHiskas

[FromTheSouth]

This thread will be judged by TM and remain open until Sunday at 6 PM CST.

Game will affirm the topic that:

Resolved: Certain protected groups must give up their protected status to receive equal rights.

 

[The Roid Rage]

I'm taking the pro side correct? and the time frame is until this coming Sunday? Just making sure.

Am I allowed to ask questions regarding the topic and the parameters of the argument?

 

[FromTheSouth]

Yeah, you are in favor of the topic, and it is up to you and your opponent to define the parameters and the judge to accept them.

 

[The Roid Rage]

Word Fort Warning: The Following discussion requiring meticulous levels of detail and explanation may erupt into the dreaded word fort. This warning is for your own safety and is given in advance as a warning that you might be getting into more than you bargained for. After all this is The Game Rage we are talking about, and we all know how he can get rolling.



Topic: Certain protected groups must give up their protected status to receive equal rights.


Equal Rights, two words that are twisted and manipulated to mean virtually anything a certain group wishes in todays society. Indeed we all seek out fair treatment and we all wish to be treated equally, however the manner in which we go about that is what is in question today as we discuss this topic.


What are Equal Rights? Where do they come from? Who decides what rights make people equal? and Who is without rights that makes them less than equal? Let's take a look shall we?

When speaking about equal rights there are a couple things that must be mentioned. 1. The Civil Rights Act 2. Affirmative Action. These are the policies past by our government to protect certain people from discrimination and harassment based on their race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, veteran status, or genetic information. The Civil Rights Act was a work in progress from the 50's into the 70's as it was highly debated, amended several times, and numerous drafts were considered.

It was during the same period of time that Affirmative Action was put in place as well. Affirmative Action is kind of an extension of the Civil Rights Act attempting to create equal opportunity in workplaces and schools based on gender, race, or ethnicity. While at their times of conception they had their purpose, in todays society they have both become detriments to the people they seek to protect, and the people whom they do not.

Now how can I support that statement? All one needs to do is take a look at the world around us. Look at how the pendulum has swung, and you can see it going in the wrong direction. We have went from one extreme to another. At one time people protected under these laws needed that. Today however, if your not protected by some of these laws than you are out of luck. The laws that were made to protect certain people, are now hurting anyone not in their consideration.

How does it make you feel to know that unless you fall under the protection of these laws, you can be discriminated against, harassed, rejected for jobs, turned down for the opportunity to achieve a good education, and a put at a disadvantage in many other walks of life because these certain people get "special consideration" and you don't? On top of that there are no consequences for it ? Does that sound like a level playing field to you? Does it sound like we have reached the cusp of enlightenment when it comes to equality in this country when that is the case? Hardly.

Example: Your a white middle aged man and you apply for a job at McDonald's and at the same time a black middle aged woman applies. You have more experience, a better work record, and are all around better equipped to do the job. But, because of EEO(Equal Employment Opportunity) and Affirmative Action, you are passed up because they need to hire more "people of color or ethnicity". How is that fair, equal, or right for that matter?

Example 2: You are a white teenage male applying for admission to a major university. You are academically accomplished and well prepared for college, but your family is poor and you need financial aid to go to college. At the same time a black teenage male also from a poor family has applied, but he doesn't meet the academic standards to gain admission. However because of Affirmative Action, he gets in because he is black, and you are denied as a result.

Is that equal? Is that opportunity knocking or knocking some people down? What does the white kid do now? Is he just supposed to hope to God another University doesn't do the same? How is that right, and how is that playing on a level field? That is someone being rejected because of their race, which is exactly the problem that Affirmative Action and The Civil Rights Act were constructed to combat. Your punishing people for the same things in a different way, which in no way fixes the situation.


Example 3: You are a white 20something woman applying for a job at a clothes store, as the same time a white 20something gay man is applying for the job too. Your qualifications are the same but because of the ant discrimination laws towards homosexuals, the employer hires the gay man over you. Once again, how is this equality at work, and how has this legislation helped create an equal opportunity for both people? It doesn't. It gives preferential treatment to certain people while ignoring many others, putting them at a disadvantage. And why? In this case, because someone wasn't gay so they don't get a job?

If anything it appears that through these examples we see that the laws set in place to protect some, hurt all. No one gets a fair shake, not the protected or unprotected. It is a detriment to both parties. One, is put at a disadvantage because of who they aren't and another given an advantage because of who they are. What service are you doing people by giving them special treatment under the laws? That black kid from the ghetto who isn't prepared for college and gets in anyways is still not prepared, is still not educated enough, and still is getting in based on race, setting them up for a fall. At the same time your also disallowing another the education they worked for, and deserve. In any case there is no equality with the rules being manipulated as they are today.

In light of all this, it would be more beneficial to all if the protected classes were to give up their protected status. What makes them in need of more protection than the law already provides every man, woman, and child in this country? What puts them above anyone not in these protected classes, to where they receive legislated advantages? I am a white 25 yr old male, and I have yet to be given any advantage by the government? Since we're supposed to all be equal where is my Affirmative Action, why are my rights less valid when someone protected under The Civil Rights Act is apart of the equation? Where is my equal opportunity in employment?

I can tell you now I have personally been effected by this in my own life. I have been overlooked for jobs because of my age, my race, my size(which isn't protected in any of it), my gender, my sexual orientation, my religious beliefs, so on and so on. I have been discriminated against for those traits as well, yet no one is fighting to uphold my rights? So why the double standard in America? Did I do something to deserve less rights? No, so why am I paying for something that happened years ago, that I was never around for, had nothing to do with, and never had a say in ? And how are my rights less important than a gay persons, a womans, a minorities, a senior, any of them? The answer is they aren't less important, that is the only thing where we are equal. All of us are entitled to the same opportunities and protections under law. However as a result of this legislation, my rights take a back seat to all of those people protected in those laws.

At one time as I said, there was a need for the Civil Rights Act and Affirmative Action. Something needed to be put in place to change the way certain people were treated and the opportunities that were available to them personally and socially. It is now a different day and age, times have changed. The problems that we faced as a nation when those laws were past are far behind us now. As noted, there is not longer a problem where blacks are turned away from schools because they are black. Women are no longer told they can only work in these certain fields. Homosexuality is more accepted in todays society than ever and becoming a symbol of social status ever. Diversity has become so much apart of our culture that the American culture itself has changed. Take a look around you, this is not Alabama in the 1960's, there is no longer any need for that kind of legislation, especially considering the way they are abused, and how counter productive to creating equality those laws have become.

It would serve all better to let them be dissolved from our laws so that we are once and for all on a level playing field. No advantages for anyone, no one getting by based on race, religion, sex, sexuality, age, anything. If we would open our eyes to the truth and the protected classes would lay down these crutches, we would could much steadier be on our way to a free and equal society. Discrimination and Harassment of anyone for any reason is already illegal, our rights are already protected under our criminal laws. Unfortunately you can never stop any of them. As long as people exist there will be those things. However it is not up to our legislators to create a facade of equality for us, it is up to us as people to embrace and share with each other.

I could keep going and going, but I must allow my opponent a chance to rebut, so I will save some of it for my next response.


Your turn.

 

[lghikas]

Alright time for my rebuttal on why: Certain protected groups shouldn't need to give up their protected status to receive equal rights

Why are or why were protected groups protected in the first place? They were given protected status because they were being discriminated in the first place. Now that discrimination could have been because of either race, religion, sex, sexual preference or even sometimes more than one of those.

Now my opponent uses 3 examples to help support his claim, but I will show how they are flawed.

Example: Your a white middle aged man and you apply for a job at McDonald's and at the same time a black middle aged woman applies. You have more experience, a better work record, and are all around better equipped to do the job. But, because of EEO(Equal Employment Opportunity) and Affirmative Action, you are passed up because they need to hire more "people of color or ethnicity". How is that fair, equal, or right for that matter?

Example 2: You are a white teenage male applying for admission to a major university. You are academically accomplished and well prepared for college, but your family is poor and you need financial aid to go to college. At the same time a black teenage male also from a poor family has applied, but he doesn't meet the academic standards to gain admission. However because of Affirmative Action, he gets in because he is black, and you are denied as a result

Example 3: You are a white 20something woman applying for a job at a clothes store, as the same time a white 20something gay man is applying for the job too. Your qualifications are the same but because of the ant discrimination laws towards homosexuals, the employer hires the gay man over you. Once again, how is this equality at work, and how has this legislation helped create an equal opportunity for both people? It doesn't. It gives preferential treatment to certain people while ignoring many others, putting them at a disadvantage. And why? In this case, because someone wasn't gay so they don't get a job?

How can you be so sure that it is because of Affirmative Action or other Anti-Discrimination Laws are in place that, that is the reason someone would pick, someone else who fits under a Protected Group. There is just really no way to be able to factually prove that someone was pick because simply of their skin color or sexual orientation or gender or whatever someone might discriminate against. Job Application processes are really complicated and unless someone is on a committee that is hiring, one will never be so show why someone is picked over another. Maybe it is because of something not written on a piece of paper, I know people who have gotten hired once because they seemed "to be person who you would like to have a beer with". Personality plays a good role in who gets hired and who doesn't as well.

Also in Example 3 He says that both have the same qualifications but because an employer picks a gay man that he is only doing so because he is gay? If both a same qualified than whoever is picked, the other is going to make excuses.

My opponent, who I am sure isn't the only person who thinks this way, seems to believe that just because this isn't the 1960s that discrimination doesn't exist in today's world. Well it does. Take Women's pay for an example:

In the 1980's there was a proposition for another Amendment to the constitution, this was or would have been called The Equal Rights Amendment or pretty much an Amendment so Women would have Equal Rights as men do. Now if discrimination wasn't still around how is it that this Amendment couldn't even get a full 38 votes to be passed? All it is asking is for Equal rights for Women that Men have. Also when looking at equal pay for men and women. In 2002 from the US Bureau of the Census they found out that men doing the same job as women make on average more than $200 more than women in some occupations.

Discrimination isn't gone from our society, it still is alive and well. We have come along way from the 60s yes but we still have a long way to go. And because discrimination of any kind is still around there will be the need for protected group and a need for groups of people to be protected. They are protected to get them closer to having Equal rights, getting rid of these protected groups would only hinder them of obtaining and keeping any equal rights they have.

 

[The Roid Rage]

Yet Another Word Fort Warning: Need I say more?




Rebuttal:


While my opponent makes a fine attempt at drawing your empathy for these protected classes we are discussing, he fails to address any of the questions raised in my opening argument. In his attempt at persuading you with sympathy he simply fails to show in any way why his point is at all valid.


We have already established that at one point in time these laws that have given certain groups of people preferential treatment(and that's from the documents themselves) were a necessity to combat a problem in our society. My opponent insists on drudging up the past as a reason for these laws to stand, but what we are talking about is a real issue that we face in the NOW, not the past.


In the following quoted text, my opponent attempts to challenge some of the rough examples I laid out to show you what happens as a result of this preferential treatment. But, seems to miss the whole point altogether. Let's take a look at what my opponent had to say in regards to those examples.

How can you be so sure that it is because of Affirmative Action or other Anti-Discrimination Laws are in place that, that is the reason someone would pick, someone else who fits under a Protected Group.

First of all this is not the aim of the examples. We aren't debating whether this is topical or not. We already know that situations like I described are a reoccurring problem in American society, which is the very reason this is a debate at all.

Secondly, how can you be so sure that the case is anything but that? As you go on to describe and I quote:

There is just really no way to be able to factually prove that someone was pick because simply of their skin color or sexual orientation or gender or whatever someone might discriminate against.

While my opponent makes a good point here, true we can not prove these allegations, he also makes a point for me. This is why it is a problem, unlike lynchings, bombings, segregation, and highly blatant acts of discrimination this is not something the victim can easily prove, thus putting the unprotected classes at an even greater disadvantage. It is much more subtle, an act that takes place behind closed doors and in the mind. There is no physical act to commit outside of the rejection, which can always be pawned off as something outside that nature. Just as my opponent says and I quote:

I know people who have gotten hired once because they seemed "to be person who you would like to have a beer with". Personality plays a good role in who gets hired and who doesn't as well.

So now, if you aren't a socialite, and a highly personable person you're out of luck too? After all, there is no legislation being passed to protect those who aren't charismatic now is there? So are we still pretending that this isn't an issue? Are we going to continue on acting as though injustice only touches certain sects of society? For the rights and freedom of our children I hope to God not. If we simply turn a blind eye to this, act as though the world never turned, time never past, and that we are still in the same place we started, how will we ever overcome the fallacy of the laws that are working against innocent people?


What more does my opponent have to say in this soirée to prove his case? Little to nothing. I am going to respond directly to a few quotes from his argument, and I will move on with my case from there.

when looking at equal pay for men and women. In 2002 from the US Bureau of the Census they found out that men doing the same job as women make on average more than $200 more than women in some occupations.

Same Job in SOME occupations huh? Well there are SOME occupations geared more towards women where men who enter the profession make less money than women too, so what is your point? Gaylord Focker was the last male nurse I've seen in years, but you don't hear too many guys screaming about sexual discrimination in that field now do you? The problem with this statement and this whole defense is that it is a whole other argument.

This is a subject called Comparable Worth that has been a hot topic for a while now. Lower wages for women in SOME occupations is no different than lower wages for men in SOME occupations. That pendulum swings both ways my friend. I wouldn't be fretting over $200 either. I have seen examples of men and women making thousands of dollars more and less than each other depending on the field. If you want to debate Comparable Worth I suggest saying something to a judge, and maybe they will arrange that in your next round. Until then let's stay on track.

My opponent, who I am sure isn't the only person who thinks this way, seems to believe that just because this isn't the 1960s that discrimination doesn't exist in today's world. Well it does.

Discrimination isn't gone from our society, it still is alive and well.

Not only do I agree, but I already made this point in my first post. Here it is:

Discrimination and Harassment of anyone for any reason is already illegal, our rights are already protected under our criminal laws. Unfortunately you can never stop any of them. As long as people exist there will be those things.

My point was:

However it is not up to our legislators to create a facade of equality for us, it is up to us as people to embrace and share with each other.

Is the above quoted not correct somehow? Or has this become a country where all roads lead to Capitol Hill? Is it not up to the people to embrace and share an ideal such as equality? If not, then what we are talking about is using legislation to force ideals onto people which is exactly the thing that people fled England and came to America to escape. It's not the governments job to tell me who I am supposed to like or not like, and what ideals I am supposed to share. I am at least entitled to my thoughts am I not?

I am not condoning discrimination by any means, but what you are talking about is forcing people to see things a certain way, whether it is right or wrong, which is taking away a persons right to their own free thinking. This is not acceptable for any reason, no matter what banner you place on it, or what cause you try to champion to justify it. You can not force people to think differently.

An argument you could make against this is that, that is exactly why legislation was passed to grant people rights they were denied. It was made law that these people have to be treated with preferential treatment, or suffer the consequences for not doing so. No one has to change their thinking, but you have to give these people "Special Privileges". That was all fine and well at the point of conception, but the crossroad we are at now has us looking in all directions for not just the truth but the right course of action.

We are at a point where people ARE saying "Change Your Thinking". You want proof? Go back to where I quoted my opponent. What does it say right off the bat?

"My opponent, who I am sure isn't the only person who thinks[/U] this way".

Inferring that it is some kind of "Wrong Thinking" that is the problem here, and that's what we need to change. No one should have a problem with the problems caused on both sides of the Equal Rights battle, you need to change your thinking!!!

Well, I don't have to, and it's my God given right to not have to. But, once again the rights of these people supersede those of us not protected, setting a double standard. If I am a hiring manager and I don't want to hire someone of a protected class because I don't feel their the right person for the job, I shouldn't face legal consequence for it if the person doesn't like it, or "feels discriminated against".

What if I a 25 yr old white male feel discriminated against for my age, sex, or color? Well I'm not in a protected class so I'm screwed. I'm the very demographic the country has decided not to give a shit about. So where is my "preferential treatment"? True, I could go to the Civil Rights Commission and plead my case, but where will that go? I am not one of the people those laws were drafted to protect, so the likelihood of justice being sought out in my defense is less than likely. It would be much harder to make a case for me since I'm not gay, a woman, or a minority, hence I get nothing but a "Sorry bout' your luck" and a "Wish you well".

Folks like my opponent want to talk all day about equality, but choose to be selective about who gets to be equal. I have been saying the whole time that we are all equal, that no one should have rights above another. As it is in this country however, that is not the case due to the manipulation of the laws made to protect "certain" people. I by no means think that any people should be given less opportunity or less rights for who they are or what they are. I do however think that when laws meant to end discrimination and harassment only cause discrimination and harassment in another way, that we need to go back to the drawing board and find a new way which is why I support that in order for these protected classes to truly attain equality, they need to give up their special protections under the law.

Now, neither of us has said it so far but this argument comes down to one real topic and we all know what it is. Reverse Discrimination. Yeah, I just went there. If you truly believe right now, that I am lying, that I am inflating the truth, or that I am purely wrong, please I beg you, go look up the ruling after ruling made by courts all across the country in favor of plaintiffs suing for reverse discrimination. I assure you, you will see that what I am talking about is a real problem in our society, that these laws have hurt not just the protected but more so the unprotected, and that anti-discrimination law has only spawned more discrimination.

In conjunction with putting the unprotected at an unfair disadvantage the unleveled playing field has also proven to be a detriment to the very people who those laws have sought to protect. There most certainly is a stigma attached to the minorities themselves as a result of these laws. It's not that these people can't get the best jobs, or get in the best schools, or be as successful as any white man has ever been. (HELLOOOO!!!! The President Is Black For God Sake!!! If that doesn't tell you where we've come and where we are at, I simply don't know what to tell you.) The problem comes to us when these people are viewed as inferior because of affirmative action or the civil rights act. It's the attitude of "You didn't do it on your own" which has a long lasting and even damaging effect on the protected classes. How can anybody feel truly accomplished when a lingering doubt about the legitimacy of their achievements exists?


This is not chicanery, this is not casuistry, or sophistry my friends. These are the truths of the actions that have been made. My opponent may have you believe that without granting special consideration to people our nation would degenerate back to the days of the past when these documents were actually of some relevance, and try to confer some aura of credibility to that statement. I however beseech you all to see past that. Is it not apparent enough in our society, that we have moved so far past that, and learned from the mistakes of the past? God knows we haven't stopped atoning for them. Don't you see? That is the problem right there. We can not erase our history, or reconcile the oppression of the past by giving people free passes based on specific criteria, that "oh by the way" promotes the active discrimination of one person over another. Nowhere, no matter how you try to squeeeeze it in, does any of that create isonomy.

It is under these beliefs, it is under these facts that I stand by my word. If a true equality is to be attained by the protected classes, they must step out of that protection, and into true freedom. The freedom to go after their life ambitions, and be successful based on their own merits, and truly reap the fruits of their own labor, not some poorly written, poorly defined, and poorly upheld piece of legislation that has failed to reach it's goal, been manipulated and beguiled, and in fact created an entirely new set of problems.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I need make no further arguments at this time. I readily rest my case.

 

[Mr. TM]

Game Rage dominated this debate, and there was no question against it. His opponent only brought up one issue that could have helped him, but didnt discuss it deep enough for me, that being the rampant discrimination of women, minorities and others still existing in the westenr world.

The point at hand although, Game Rage was dominant, even though h eshould have just left out the end bit of his second debate, it wasnt really needed and didnt help his debate. He brought up scenarios that helped him, and it was a good debate for him. 45-10 in Game rages favour.