Political debate on this nation's most sweeping issues

Affirmative action- A-The quota itself is detrimental to a business like outlook. Instead of choosing a person that would best help the business, the business is forced to hired someone who will cause their quality of business to drop dramatically thus lowering profits. This in turn leads to the person being fired. Now this is a key problem with the Pro's view of Affirmative action due to it wasting resources from the private sector. B-The pro has not managed to prove how Black's and Latino's are actually at a proven disadvantage. He merely says they are. He also ignores that some White Americans are at a disadvantage as well. Which leads to the next point C-The Pro's view on affirmative action effectively rules out those who are White and at a economic disadvantage. Now if the pro would like to state that since White are the majority of the population that it is impossible for them to be discriminated against. This is found false due to evidence saying it is harder for Asian Americans(A small minority) to get into college than Blacks, Latinos and even athletes. [1] D-The gender point can still lead to reverse discrimination. Just swap the words Black/Latino with Woman and White with Man E-The pro dropped the argument on starting point affirmative action. F-In closing with my rebuttal to the Affirmative Action point, I offer this question to the audience/judges and even for the pro to answer if they would like. A Black woman's great grandparents were robbed but her family has managed to secure the wealth back over many generations and have become an affluent family who can easily afford college. A White man's was born into an impoverished family and barely has enough money to pay for college. Both are applying to the same college and and the white man has the higher GPA, SAT and ACT. Ignoring other factors, who should be picked? Abortion A-This statement is still not legitimate due to pro still appealing to emotions and arguing from a self made moral standpoint. He uses the word responsible but this can only come from what he thinks is responsible B-The pro is basing what he thinks is ready on his own standards. Gun regulations A-That example was going by the pro's flawed logic in that "If it kills it is bad" B-The pro ignores my point about the black market being established if assault weapons. This is important because the entire reason I was against an assault weapon ban was due to a black market being established. Now you can see that the ban would be counter productive since it would put the supposed most dangerous tools into the criminal sector easier. C-Since I am for Handgun restrictions we must talk about assault weapons or all weapons not of handgun caliber when we discuss bans. These were at the pro and con clashed on as we both agree handguns should be limited more than they are being limited now. D-Again the pro uses an appeal to emotions rather than the factual points and date I used in my previous round. Note-I honestly have no idea where that source is supposed to go. I read it and it talked about Canadian families at an economic disadvantage. I could find no place in this debate where that was relevant. Sources [1]-. http://www.princeton.edu...