Affirmative Action is harmful.

Con never responds to my pointing out his hijacking of the resolution, and instead continues to argue under the definition of affirmative action that he has provided. I point this out in the previous round, but Con doesn't respond it. Furthermore, in the prior round Con tacks disabled people and qualified veterans onto this definition of affirmative action; this is further unjust as it gives me a burden not established in the very beginning. Again, Con ignores this violation. This debate was never about whether or not affirmative action took race into consideration. The definition of Affirmative action is "policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, sex or national origin" into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group. .. " We assume that race is something considered under affirmative action. This debate was about whether or not affirmative action is fair or unfair. Con has not met this burden, and has instead attempted to argue that affirmative action doesn't take race into consideration at all. The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission[1], or EEOC is not a subdivision of affirmative action. The EEOC takes race, color, Religion,gender and national origin out of the question when dealing with hiring practices; affirmative action expressly considers these things and creates allotments to make getting employed or getting an education easier for these people. [1] . http://www.eeoc.gov... The three arguments con begins his prior round with are irrelevant. Con does not get to hijack this debate because he doesn't like his burden. Going on to the, I'd like to point out that it is a cherry-picking fallacy[2] to only refer to a single line of an argument and build a refutation based on that 'cherry-picked' term. Con has done this several times in his prior refutation and they need to be pointed out. [2]. http://en.wikipedia.org... For the first argument, this is a flat-out straw man. Con ignores it the first time I make it, and now makes it out to sound as though I am affirming racist hiring practices. My original argument was that hardships build character; when you are poor, you learn to value what you have. When you are the victim of racism, you learn compassion and forgiveness. The EEOC guarantees that people won't be discriminated on by race, but affirmative action makes minorities out to be entitled because they are a minority. On the second refutation, I've already shown that Con doesn't meet this burden. Con also ignores the prior line of thought I provide concerning the definition of Affirmative action. This refutation is a cherry-picking argument and should not be excused. As for the hiring of less qualified individuals, I never said that minorities or women were less qualified. However affirmative action treats them as though they are. It is unjust to assume that women or minorities need policies which guarantees them employment as though they could not secure it by themselves. This refutation is a straw man argument. What this argument is actually saying, is that when we have to consider race, religion, color, gender and national origin in the hiring process, we end up hiring people because they meet a quota instead of their abilities. The next argument is the same deal. Con assumes women and minorities need to be qualified. Finally con claims that most college students are white, but most of the people in the United States are white, so this is a natural occurrence. What is interesting to note is that 75 percent of teachers are female[3], and that asians (a minority) dominate high tier schools[4]. [3] . http://nces.ed.gov... [4] . http://www.nytimes.com... In conclusion, Con doesn't meet his burden and commits more than a few fallacies.