My affirmative action policy is better than my opponent's.

Thanks for the quick response. P1) A. My opponent initially referred to mixed races in the context of a 50/50 mixture, and that's the scenario in which an individual can choose to be recognized as black or white under my policy. In cases where individuals have a small amount of a particular minority race (40% or less) in their bloodline, they would be viewed as the majority race (white), and vice versa. For instance, an individual whom is 75% black will be recognized as black. B. Here, Pro wonders why it's okay for Asians to be ahead of everyone, but not for whites to be ahead. Well, my system incorporates factors of history into its design, which is why this difference in application exists. The problem isn't that whites are ahead of everyone else, but instead that everyone else is behind whites, which is the result of historical injustice. Asians were victims -- not perpetrators -- of this injustice, so its okay that their race has worked ahead. For whites, the situation is different because other races were held back while whites were able to excel, which isn't fair. P2) A. In this rebuttal, my opponent shapes his argument around the assumption that whites and blacks are currently equal in every stance, except for race. If this were the case, then my AA policy would have no place in today's society. But because a very checkered history has caused the individuals of these two races to currently be unequal, it is necessary to reform these disparities. Also, racial equality is important for the same reason that any form of equality is important, which is fairness and justice. Would it be fair if blondes were currently unequal due to past oppression and current discrimination? Of course not, and the same applies to race. B. Pro outlines the specific difference between our policies, which is the different approach taken to two persons of equal standing, the only difference being race. The reason this difference exists is because my AA policy is geared toward solving the issue of racial inequality, while my opponent's is not, thus being less fair in the long run. C. Here, Pro is asking why luck is any different than race when determining which individual should receive preferential treatment. The reason is that luck is a simple reality of life, and everyone suffers some degree of bad luck, while racism is an arbitrary limit on a specific race's ability to progress socioeconomically. And even though two individuals of similar status can be considered similarly lucky, the black individual is less advantaged on average, which isn't fully the result of bad luck, but past and contemporary racism, which is key. For example, it would be as if we were both running track and you happened to trip and lose; that would be unlucky, but I would still be considered the rightful winner. However, if we were both racing, and I tripped you, then that's no longer a matter of luck, but cheating. The same concept applies in the real-world, which is why luck and racism are two distinct issues. P3) A. Statistical averages demonstrate where the average individual of any particular group stands, which is why averages must be incorporated into a fair AA policy. It is true that an entire group cannot be identified by its average member, which is why my AA policy will not admit a rich black over a poor white. But, this doesn't mean that these averages should be totally discounted, otherwise the issue of racial inequality between the average black and the average white will go unaccounted for. This is why my policy will admit a black individual over a white individual of equal income; it's a process of counteracting the unfair reality of racial inequality that has been driven by historic injustice. B. Current racism, like historical oppression, limits the socioeconomic ability to progress for blacks, which is unfair, and why it's addressed in my AA plan. In any case, Pro claims that historical injustice is irrelevant because it happened in the past, but what he fails to realize is that the effects are still being felt to this day by the average black. Certainly poverty and contemporary inequality matters, and because it's largely the result of what happened in the past, the historical events are relevant as well. .. P4) A. My AA policy discriminates to reverse the effects of past discrimination, which establishes racial equality, and in turn, contributes to societal fairness. My opponent's plan may not discriminate at all, but that's specifically why it is less fair than mine. In order to solve the issues of racial inequality, the college admissions process is going to have to recognize race, or else none of the current racial problems America is facing will be fixed, thus fairness will not be accomplished. == Conclusion == Pro's plan does not discriminate based on race, which is a seemingly valid objective at face-value. However, this means his policy is also inadequate in addressing the racial inequalities that have been derived from past oppression and current racism, which certainly fails to achieve fairness. On the other hand, my AA policy understands that the average black individual is less than equal, and it also acknowledges why, so it's able to properly solve this issue. And by accomplishing the goal of racial equality, my plan inevitably becomes the fairer and better policy.