Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.

Alrighty. Here goes: "The term affirmative action refers to policies that take sex, race, or ethnicity into account in an attempt to promote equal opportunity." I have stuck to this definition throughout this debate. I have expanded upon how it should be applied, but have kept and maintained this definition throughout nonetheless. "In Grutter's case, they took race into account. They took into account the fact that she wasn't part of the minority and rejected her unfairly." The flaw in the argument of my opponent here is that my opponent is assuming both "affirmative action" definitions (both in this debate as well as the example case given) to be exactly the same. The definition of how affirmative action SHOULD be used, as I have insinuated throughout this debate, may differ from how it has improperly been used in the past. "…Whether affirmative action, in the way it is currently being used, should be used. Not whether we should use an unrealistic, idealized form of affirmative action…" There are different forms and type of affirmative action. That is given. Thus, we cannot use every possible definition of affirmative action in this debate. All I must do as the Pro side of this debate is show that affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions. To get a credible definition of affirmative action, I used Wikipedia. It seems to me that my opponent has just conceded that there are good types of affirmative action (such as the one described in the previous rounds). "In this source we see that the government can't use race as a detriment but can it use it as a benefit? Seems racist and unconstitutional…" Minorities have suffered less opportunity than the standard Caucasian in the Untied States. It is fair to admit them based upon racial diversity over a Caucasian if an only if their academic standing and application ranking as determined by the college institution is greater than or equal to the application of the Caucasian. Constitutionality is irrelevant. It can always be amended. What matters is if it is the RIGHT decision to make, if affirmative action is just. I have argued that such is the case, that affirmative action (as described) is indeed justified for use in the college admission process. "Obviously, if something is illegal it shouldn't be done. Any police officer will tell you that." One hundred years ago it was not legal for women to vote in his country. Does that mean it was unethical for them to pursue these rights? 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. "Only 20% of blacks and 16% of Hispanics leave High School College ready. Of those, almost all graduate. So, then, the problem is not discrimination in colleges, it's the public high-schools' failure to properly educate these children." Again, affirmative action would only apply to those of equal application status as other applicants. Thus, regardless of what the statistics are, if and when the hypothetical scenario occurs, affirmative action ought to be used. That is the point. "So you're saying this law has a low chance of effectiveness but a lot of chance for controversies? Sounds like a good law to me." I am saying that the utilization of affirmative action may not be as high as some may imagine. Will it cause controversy? More likely than not, it will. But what things DON'T cause controversy? Even if something causes controversy, that doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong or right. Ergo, affirmative action may still be just. "Affirmative action addresses the wrong part of the problem. The government should be focused on making these minority members smarter in the first place and more driven in high school instead of trying to pawn them off to colleges." The government definitely SHOULD help out under-privileged children, whether minority or not. But that should be done as a separate thing. Affirmative action still has a place, however, in the national arena. Practicing affirmative action allows for colleges to admit the same academic-oriented applicants into its institution, while also increasing diversity on campus. In summary, I have affirmed: Affirmative action, as defined, should be practiced in college admissions. It increases diversity, creates more equal opportunity at higher learning levels for minorities, and allows for ways to properly conduct a tiebreaker when needed. Vote PRO. I would like to thank my opponent for the fun and enjoyable debate. Good luck in the next debates in this tournament. Cheers, Oboeman