Affirmative Action should be abolished

Counter-RebutallC1 : I agree, I provided an addtional defintion. I apologize for that. My arguments, still stand however, because the definition isn't really different, when I compare to my original one. My points would still apply to the original.So, Con tries to explain how AA isn't not how a black man would be hired over a white man, but rather how AA checks if he is actually discriminated. First of all, Con needs to explain this notion a bit further. How do they measure discrimination, and what would qualify for being disadvantaged? This doesn't give us enough information to determine if the disadvantaged individual is more skilled that the other person. I still don't understand how AA would award the person who is most skilled, because one, skill isn't put first, whether they are disadvtanged is. and two, disadvantaged, doesn't equal more skilled. When Con says AA isn't bringing equal oppurtunity, she is sort of conceding the notion it is instituionalized discrimination, because the policy that the government enacted is what is preventing equal oppurtunity.C2: Con argues that there are groups that are still disadvantaged, but first, she doesn't actually provide a source to this. I dont really have a reason to believe this, because no source is provided. Whether or not it is true, it doesn't explain how AA is doing any justice the minority. I just checked the 1st source from Con, and the word "Native American" isn't even there.C3:Here is what Con says. "That AA is, is if two students, white and black, both have scores at 95%, they should give weight to the black student because of systematic and cultural discrimination and disadvantage." I can easily dispute this, because I showed evidence of blacks being admitted with lower SAT scores, than whites. Despite, applying for the same college. Con talks about implementing another AA policy reform where gives white students an equal or better chance of being admitted into this college. This is not relevant to the debate, and this is basically going against what she was arguing earlier. If White's have an equal chance, then it is not Affirmative Action anymore, if I go by what Con's arguments were earlier.C4: I'm having trouble refuting this, because Con doesn't explain how they weigh discrimiation, and basically how it works. "People would work harder through being discouraged because they are ensured that they have a possibility of actually being hired;" Con provides no source for this, because she doesn't show how minorities have improved in their workforce.C5:I have shown, that Con doesn't explain how AA is different. This argument is succesfully refuted.C6: This doesn't really refute anything. Con is saying those policies aren't AA, but my sources say they are. Like I said before, She hasn't given any sources, to back this up. Con is now saying we need to lower the standards for adimissions, but that isn't the current system. You can't just provide solutions to the problem, because that's not what the debate is about.Sorry for the crappy counter rebutall, I literally just typed this, 30 minutes before this was due, due to time constraint. Thank you Lexus for this debate.