IQ2: Affirmative Action Debate: Tim Wise part 3 of 14

The motion: "It's time to end affirmative action"

Moderator: Robert Siegel
Speaking for the motion: John H. McWhorter, Terence J. Pell and Joseph C. Phillips
Speaking against the motion: Khin Mai Aung, Kimberlé Crenshaw and Tim Wise

IQ2US marks the launch of Oxford-style debating -- one motion, one moderator, three advocates for the motion, three against -- in New York City. Each evening begins at 6:00P with a complimentary cocktail period. As you enter the theater before the debate starts at 6:45P, you cast your vote for or against the evening's motion. Those results are displayed midway through the debate as each side makes its statements. After all six panelists speak, the audience has a chance to ask the speakers questions and vote again. The debate finishes with brief summations from the panelists, the votes are tallied and a winning side is declared.

Like on us Facebook: http://bit.ly/IQ2onFacebook
Tweet at us: http://bit.ly/IQ2Twitter
Subscribe to us: http://bit.ly/IQ2onYouTube

• Category

  News & Politics

[zutroy1]

This speaker (Part 3, Time Wise) lowered the standard of this whole debate. Is there some sort of affirmative action plan forcing IQ2 to lower its standards to this degree, or is it just that in 2007 the organization hadn't yet established the quality of debate and speakers.

It might be the most I've ever heard a speaker put words in the other side's mouth and tell people what the other side thinks.

[PinkFlying Menez]

Affirmative action was made to protect minorities from the racist dicks that manage to gain enough power to be an employer, or political leader. We need affirmative action today, sadly. Because our society is too stupid to just accept people for who they are, and live equally. If MLK were alive today he would be ashamed.

[geo wells]

This is what we have:

White countries flooded by non-whites.Whites are told be TOLERANT.Whites are forced to integrate.With assimilation we see the extinction of the White race.

Its all about White genocide.

So f I read more anti-white history, I will come to believe as you do?

Really you just support a future without any White people in it. so anti-white.

Is there anything better to do than fight?

[James Stillman]

Interesting points raised. It was mostly an emotional argument, but he did have some good points. Though I have never seen a 400 old white guy run anywhere...

He said something to the effect of "Unless an alternative solution can be found..."

How about treating people equally, not giving benefits based on financial or economic status, and going based on academic or athletic ability.

[RetroSpunk21]

You must be a child or really young. For that, I will be gentle for now. I want you to know your comment is ignorant. PLEASE elaborate which Countries are the "White Countries". Do you know that some of your "white Countries" were actually populated with people of color, not necessarily black, before white people populated it? So, that would make white people the integrators, am I correct? Your assessment is VERY MUCH incorrect and I encourage you to read more and learn real history. :)

[geo wells]

ANTIRACIST HITLER would agree with you on immigration.

We have an endangered White race, Whites are not having enough babies to replace themselves.

This is not happening by chance.

Being anti-racist, like ANTIRACIST HITLER, you are happy to replace one race with another and say there is no difference.

If someone objects they are just racist.

The discussion is, I point out the big picture of what is happening to the White race. And you gaslight.

An effective technique to suppress White action

[Alexis Delanoir]

This is free discussion. Apparently you're too brainwashed to even see THAT.

And, no, immigration can't cause the destruction of a race. It never has.

That's not justification, that's just the lack of any destruction. Without destruction, there is no genocide. Not that hard to understand.

[geo wells]

Now compare with the Brothers Tsarnaev

[geo wells]

Its written in stone that the destruction of a race, just part of a race, is not genocide?

Aren't you justifying a lot of genocide?

So the destruction of the White race is not genocide?

We can't agree on the facts or the law.

See why we need a free and open discussion on White genocide, to get all the facts out there and work towards a solution that may need legal intervention (maybe Putin can help).

Why do you want to suppress free discussion?

Why distortions of fact as desperate measures?