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

I negate. I appreciate my opponent's adherence to the rules of this debate. (It is NOT a form of affirmative action, because my opponent is NOT being punished for something for which he/she was not responsible.) My opponent's 1st contention is about how affirmative action allegedly compensates for past wrongs. He/she says that blacks were consistently been put at a disadvantage for centuries. My main response to this is that inequality is a deplorable thing that cannot be fixed with more inequality. The fact of the matter is that slavery and gender inequality are terrible, but they should NOT be fixed by punishing generational descendants of the people responsible for that injustice. Cross-apply my first contention, where I talk about how it is not possible or morally sound to punish me because my great-grandfather stole an automobile or held a slave as possession. I argue that we fix these inequalities by providing ethnic minorities with social programs and chances to succeed in school. However, this should NOT be a detriment to or burden on ethnic majorities because giving minorities special privileges as the expense of majorities doesn't maximize net benefits; it minimizes them. The second response that I have to my opponent's first contention regards the evidence/example. My opponent references a movie but fails to provide any logically consistent evidence from any philosopher, professor, or unbiased source. I personally have not seen Gladiator and refuse to give his/her opponent any validity in a movie example that wasn't necessarily intended to endorse current affirmative action policies. My opponent's 2nd contention is about how affirmative action allegedly helps to reduce societal inequality and increase peace. I have several responses to this contention as a whole and will number them appropriately: 1. his/her first study is a correlational study, NOT a causational study. In debate, it is a logical fallacy to assume that A CAUSES B just because B generally is higher when A is higher as well. All my opponent says is that there is a CORRELATION between income inequality and crime rate. I could say that there is a significant correlation between number of computers in a household and IQ of each person in the household. Does that mean that the computers CAUSE intelligence? That would be hard to prove, and my opponent doesn't have sufficient evidence to show that my plan (of limiting affirmative action) would increase crime. 2. My opponent says that the frequency of getting doctorates is lower among blacks than it is along whites. I would point out once again that this is NOT a reason to put affirmative action policies in place. It may just be typical of blacks to be less interested in getting doctorates because they would rather pursue Master's degrees and spend less money on education. The fact of the matter is that affirmative action is not the answer to simple inequalities in society that could be attributed to a number of different causes. It may just be typical for blacks and Hispanics to culturally be less interested in education. They might put more prioritization on building strong social relationships and exercising personal traits. White people may culturally just have a better work ethic than blacks, but that shouldn't be the FAULT of whites in our society. If blacks and Hispanics, the two minority groups that my partner points out, want to succeed, they should have the SAME educational and social opportunities that whites have (ex: AP courses in their high schools, recreational clubs, sports, etc.), NOT more. As is one of the key points in this round, discrimination cannot be driven out with more discrimination. My opponent's 3rd contention is less clear than the other two, but I think it basically says that whites currently have more educational opportunities than blacks and Hispanics and that the inequality did not JUST exist in the past. He/she brings up a statistics that says that 15% of freshmen in top colleges are white who did not meet the standards for acceptance. I would like to point out that my opponent is still blaming the actions of a select group of white students on an irrelevant majority. He/she says that since a small portion of current colleges have white kids who didn't earn their positions in those schools, ALL minority groups should have priority over ALL people in the majority groups. This is a fundamental attribution error, because while it is deplorable that a few kids are accepted into colleges because of "alumni and politicians", the vast majority of them earn their positions in their institutions on the basis of merit. Thus, if I am part of the vast majority of white students who DOES meet the minimum standards for admission, why should I have to be punished by having a minority figure with lower scores come take my spot? Cross-apply my 4th contention. My opponent has a tendency to blame the actions of majority groups as a whole on the actions of either groups from 150 years ago or very tiny groups of unfairly advantaged people. Just because there are a few people who got in because of legacy does not mean that affirmative action is automatically a moral choice. As is one of the key points by which I stand in today's debate, you cannot drive out inequality with more inequality. Instead, reduce inequality altogether by getting rid of those policies of legacy in the first place. However, I would be careful with interpreting Schmidt's analysis, because while legacy generally plays a small role in admission, the majority of the reason that 15% of students was accepted is probably because of merit, the way it should be in a capitalist society. With the rest of the capacity that I have, I would like to extend my arguments and refutations to my opponent's refutations to my own arguments. In Round 5, I will be addressing voting issues and why I think judges should choose the Pro ballot. Essential Idea #1: Generations have passed. Slavery and gender inequality are horrible aspects of a historically flawed American society. Abraham Lincoln spent lives and money to combat inequality and injustice of blacks. While we should recognize equality and balance in American society today, racial inequalities during the 1800's and reverse racial inequality in the present times do NOT cancel each other out. I should not be punished for something that my great-great-grandfather did. Blacks, hispanics, and other minority groups, particularly in public school settings, have just as many opportunities as whites do. They can enroll in AP courses, use office hours time, enroll in social clubs, volunteer, etc. Thus, affirmative action makes no sense in a nation that was but no longer is racially or sexually unequal. Essential Idea #2: Affirmative action hurts the economy. Hiring people who are less skilled for particular positions decreases American productivity and makes the nation less globally competitive. This is bad for anyone who pays taxes in America, because he/she gets fewer returns on each dollar. If we employ the most fit people for the job as opposed to the people with the most interesting skin colors, we can abolish racism and simultaneously create growth, incentivize hard work, and solve national issues. Essential Idea #3: Affirmative action undermines the accomplishments of minorities. Minority students who apply to selective colleges and get accepted, regardless of how much merit they actually had, are insulted. ALL of their hard work and achievements, as many in number and much in magnitude as they may be, go down the drain and irreverently attributed to affirmative action programs. If we get rid of these programs, we can attribute success to success and failure to failure. Essential Idea #4: America is a capitalist nation. The idea here is that all situations of employment and admission in this society should be based on merit. The grade you get on a test is based on merit. We should keep this consistency. Thus, I negate.