Resolved: Affirmative action is in the best interests of the United States.

I negate. As this will be the last opportunity for me to speak in this debate, I will go over my opponent's refutations to my contentions, refute my opponent's defenses to his/her arguments, and state the voting issues for this debate.My Essential Idea #1: Generations have passed.My opponent tries to respond to this by saying that racial inequality existed up until 1954. I have two responses:1. 1954 was the year that "separate but equal" education was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Public education was still EQUAL (at least relatively) before 1954, and my opponent does not have any evidence that shows otherwise. Thus, racial inequality is a thing of the past.2. My opponent says that the first time a black child was admitted into a white school was in 1960. Even if you believe that racial inequality carried on ALL the way up to that date, the fact of the matter is that 53 years, about two generations, have passed. Nowhere in the debate does my opponent counter the principle of deontology - the idea that people should be treated as ends in themselves. The United States could have supported affirmative action programs up until 1990 or 2000 to reverse the impact of racial inequality. But now, it is 2013, and the national population now is completely or almost completely different from the national population of 1960. My opponent has NO reasons not to prefer principles of deontology in today's debate.My opponent brings up a statistic that shows that blacks are half as likely as whites to get a job offer presenting identical qualifications. It is a common trend for my opponent to blame the actions of either an archaic population (ex: the whites from 150 years ago) OR a very small group of people (ex: racist, white employers) on EVERYONE in the current majority group. With my plan, we would eliminate the ethnicity box on applications for education and employment so that the employers could NOT discriminate on race. But we cannot punish the actions of a few employers on everyone in the majority group.My opponent shows a statistic that 79% of black students attend a school that does not have the AP class for which those students are best suited. My simple response to this is that African-Americans should attend schools that DO have the courses they are interested in. Any course denied to a black student at XYZ High School is also denied to a White, Hispanic, or Asian student. Furthermore, the statistics are also high for other races (63% for White and 74% for Alaska Native). Thus, my opponent's evidence falls on itself and is not valid in today's round.My Essential Idea #2: Affirmative action hurts the economy.My opponent is completely unable to respond to the fact that affirmative action policies are bad for national productivity and global competitiveness. He/she just says that it doesn't matter. So let's look at some of the specs.Magnitude: a good economy benefits everyone, not JUST majorities and not JUST minoritiesTimeframe: if my counter-plan came into effect today, the economy would begin to improve tomorrowImpacts: A good economy creates more jobs, strengthens the military, improves the quality of life, and spawns new technology that makes life easier.My opponent alleges to bring up a statistic that says that income inequality CAUSES increased crime. Here are my two short responses, one of which remains unrefuted from Round 4:1. Nowhere in my opponent's evidence does it show a causation link. Thus, it is a logical fallacy. My opponent cannot necessarily attribute increased crime TO income inequality.2. There are a lot of reasons that income inequality exists in America. Some people are simply less motivated than others. Some people look harder for employment than others. Don't let my opponent say otherwise in his/her Round 5 speech, because I have no opportunity to refute.My Essential Idea #3: Affirmative action undermines the achievements of minorities.My opponent has left this contention entirely unrefuted, substituting real argumentation with defensive pleas that serves as appeals to emotions and pathos. The fact of the matter is that minorities should be recognized for what they accomplish in society. IF we have affirmative action policies in schools, THEN all successes and triumphs of minority students are mistaken for those policies of affirmative action. My opponent says that we should educate the students who perform these faulty attributions, however this is a new argument as of Round 4 that has no solvency or practicality in the scheme of today's debate whatsoever.My Essential Idea #4: America is capitalist.My opponent's only valid response to this is that merit is an ambiguous term. He/she asks me to define merit. Let me define it loosely in this way.Dictionary.com defines merit as "the quality of being particularly good or worthy, esp. so as to deserve praise or reward". My interpretation of this is a high GPA, a successful SAT score, an abundance of extracurricular activities, strong letters of recommendation, and rewards from schools or clubs. Minority students can ACHIEVE these things if they desire to do so, but the merit of a minority student should not be worth any MORE or LESS than that of a majority student. Thus, we should reduce affirmative action.I now refute my opponent's arguments one more time before going over voting issues:Opponent's Claim #1: A.A. compensates for past wrongs. My opponent's only argument is that discrimination have put the blacks at a disadvantaged position. But now, they are put on equal grounding with whites, and it should stay that way. With respect to the x-y example, we aren't talking about x starting 2 minutes before y and therefore y being able to stop x for 2 minutes. I think that THAT is valid. What I do NOT find valid is M starting 2 minutes before N and therefore Y stopping X for 2 minutes. Generations change. People change. "IOU's" don't work as gracefully as my opponent would like. Gender inequality is over, and it should stay that way.Opponent's Claim #2: A.A. reduces inequalities in society. I would say that there is equal access to high-quality education. If black students are unhappy with their course curricula at their high schools, they can transfer. Furthermore, as aforementioned, if an academic opportunity is denied to a minorty group, then it is also denied to a majority group by definition.Opponent's Claim #3: A.A. compensates for current forms of discrimination. My opponent CONTINUES to blame the actions of a few people who benefit from legacy on EVERYONE in that ethnicity group. This is immoral for all of the reasons I have outlined in my case. Prefer deontology to any principles that my opponent has emphasized in his/her case.I now state voting issues.1. Which is fairer?Answer 1: the Con side. Individuals who put more effort into their work should be rewarded correspondingly. This is the only way to uphold American ideals.Answer 2: the Con side. Voting Pro would blame the actions of ancestors on their descendants. We do not do that with crimes like stealing cars or killing people, and we should not do it with a crime like slavery or gender inequality.2. Which is better for society?Answer 1: the Con side. Everyone benefits from a good economy, not JUST the members of a particular ethnicity group. Since A.A. is harmful to the economy, I cannot see a Pro vote as affirmative action does not protect net benefits, the standard for today's debate.Answer 2: the Con side. The achievements of minorities are overlooked by racist affirmative action policies. I provide real-life examples of that in my Round 2 speech. 3. Which is more in-line with our intuitions?Answer 1: the Con side. America, the agent of the resolution, is based on a system of merit. We should NOT judge people on their skin color but rather their ability to work well in a school or employment environment.Thus, I negate and extend my plan of reducing affirmative action as outlined in Round 2 to the judges.