Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions

"---I guess I don't see how this proves that affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions. It addresses none of my points. ---Please flow through all of my points as they have gone dropped. Furthermore, I urge the judges, and my opponent, to consider that no new arguments are allowed in your final speech (if you want to be fair that is)." Oh man, I missed my scheduled online debate... Aw man.. I guess my life will just not be complete without answering this persons arguments. I guess I was just too busy doing meaningful things. He says no new arguments in the last speech, now isnt that a horrible way to win a debate round? You get a rebuttal to my points, don't cry and complain, debate and shut up. As a whole his arguments are merely a rant. Oh, and apparently its cool to write some words in all capital letters. But I guess he's cool because he uses the word "contention" The entire argument is won with the dropped definition. Sure, he attempts to argue what my definition is saying. However, he does not provide a counter definition that is better for the debate, I hold the only definition, you must look at mine. And being that it is dropped, it answers the entirety of my opponents "case". Dictionary.com defines affirmative action as, "the encouragement of increased representation of women and minority-group member" On his 1- My definition answers back this argument, the resolution doesnt call for a quota, just encouraging an increase in representation of minorities and women. The resolution doesnt call for a "racial balance", none of these arguments apply so don't listen to them. Yes, good grades and extra-curriculars are what should be weighed most heavily, however with affirmative action it is insured that woman and minorities that have the same grades as the white man do will be accepted into college, something that is not done in the status quo. Because my opponent doesn't understand what affirmative action is, and provides no definition you have to look to the pro. The entire debate is muddled at this point because he makes all of his arguments in the mindset of not understanding the only definition that stands in the debate round. Some arguments may become difficult to follow, but this is merely because the negative team does not understand what affirmative action really is. Prior to making your decision reread the definition I provided, and because it is the only definition in the round you have to look to mine. Look at the definition and you can clearly see that encouraging minority groups admission into college is the right thing to do. This does not mean a quota, this means that we will hold our hands over colleges and look down upon them when they do not pick a minority when his credentials outweigh a whites. On 2- Affirmative action, by my definition, merely ensures that minorities that have the same or better credentials than a member of the white majority are allowed into college. This stops racist admissions, but is not a quota like your evidence assumes. On 3- Dropped definition answers the argument. This argument is against the quota, my definition says that minorities will not be unjustly denied because colleges will be encouraged to look to the well credentialed minorities. On 4- Sure we use affirmative action now, so what? This just proves how effective affirmative action really is. Without pro-affirmative action people pushing their views into the school system we would still live in a racist world. There is racism out there and if you think otherwise you are horribly mistaken. By continuing to use affirmative action in universities we will ensure that racism will not take over once again. The chances may be slim, but when you see that there are no disadvantages to using affirmative action and there is the chance of an advantage of saving the world from racism once again you have to look to the pro. Obama- Letting racism to take over again by not using affirmative action will stop all progress made in the realm of racism when we can live in a day once again that minorities are looked down upon, to a greater extent. Reverse Discrimination- It is empirically proven throughout history that racism will exist unless the government does something to stop it. Reverse Discrimination is a ridiculous argument and makes it possible for whites to look down upon the minorities. We work within a capitalist system that disproportionately effects the poor, and excuses such as reverse discrimination used to stop any aid to the poor is what makes our social system so broken. So don't follow this same mindset that we can do nothing to help them without creating discrimination because it is not true. Inappropriate disadvantages- Sure, we can give aid to those that are poor, single parenting, and mentally ill. But this doesn't argue the fact that affirmative action should not be used as well. Theres no reason why we can't just do both. Minorities are the ones that fill the areas of poverty thus allowing them to be admitted against the racist admitter's wishes is an appropriate thing to do. My case You have respect, stop making annoying arguments. He makes three randomly places arguments in one paragraph 1- "The entire argument looks to jobs, not college" College helps people get jobs, annoying argument. 2- "we should help people in poverty, however, that is not what affirmative action does. EVEN HE defines it as helping minorities and women" Your all caps writing is annoying Minorities are the biggest group that lives in poverty. Because most immigrants came here poor, and society fights against minorities on an every day basis, they remain in poverty. By helping minorities, we help the poor. Sure there are poor white people, but our society makes it much easier for a white male to get a job, or get into college, than any other group. 3- "Finally, women can be rich, and Asians (and several other minorities) are richer than several rights, then why do they get benefits ON TOP OF this. Not to mention that some of the poorest kids I know are actually white. Would it be just to put a DOUBLE disadvantage on them? At this point flow through where he asks us to treat people with respect. Alright, too bad my opponent gives NONE!" You are probably a really annoying debater in real life too, being that reading your all caps writing makes me mad behind a computer screen, I wouldnt be able to stand you in a real round. Rich minorities have a better chance of having higher grades.. If we revert to a world that doesnt use the politically correct affirmative action we will risk having racism again, and making the rich women/minorities screwed over once again when it comes to college. Now apparently I'm a communist? I never said it doesnt have to be earned, affirmative action as defined in this debate round is merely ensuring minorites representation. Unless you think all minorities are stupid and should not be allowed into college, it is clear that this is needed. Your logic is flawed on the next argument. Stupid actually... Just read the definition, it just ensures there is representation. The increase is then increase from the racist world, not status quo. His last argument is ignorant. Look to the bad areas in America, they are mostly minorities. In his argument he provides no evidence proving me wrong, therefore you must err aff. Because I dont get a speech to respond it would be abusive to provide any such evidence in his next speech. Overall, you mostly just have to look to the dropped definition and evaluate the round based on this definition and this definition only, when you do that you can only vote for the aff. Id say Im looking forward to your next round, but Im really not looking forward how annoying you make debate.