Affirmative action promotes rascism.

My opponent contends in round one that affirmative action policy in fact gives a benefit to what I have been referring to as the 'big picture' and uses this contention as the basis for his argument against the proposition. My opponent asks that I support my claim that affirmatibe action programs on their own do not result in such a benefit. Very well. Premise one: Affirmative action policies have been established by the government in the past.Premise two: At the time that affirmative action policies have been established in the past no signifigant GDP per capita growth took place as a resultConclusion one: Shown by premise one and two- Affirmative action policies, when implemented, have no significant effect on national GDPPremise three: National GDP per capita is a useful measure of the health of the 'big picture'Conclusion two: Shown by conclusion one and premise three- Affirmative action policies, when implemented, have no significant effect on the health of the 'big picture'.Definitions:Significant-More than would be expected had no affirmative action policy been put in placeDefense of premise one- The easy partIn round one I presented a certain definition of an affirmative action policy. Therefore, to uphold this premise all I need to do is demonstrate that a policy matching this definition has been implemented in the past. As my opponents argument from round one was in the context of the United States, I will use the example provided by Executive Order 11246. This order legally required certain institutions (in this case, federal contractors of a certain size) to favor individuals of a certain group/race (in this case, any minority group that a government review deemed as 'underrepresented') with employment opportunities Source: United States Department of Labor http://www.dol.gov...Defense of premise two- Look at this graphAs you can see here around the time that affirmative action policies have been established in premise one to have been put in place (executive Order 11246 was signed in 1965) the increase in GDP remains stable when compared to the general trend of GDP per capita over time (excluding, for obvious reasons, times such as the great depression). Because the trend is followed so closely during this time, premise two is upheld. Source: Department of Labor again, third graph. They cite the Department of Commerce (bea.gov) http://www.dol.gov... Defense of premise three- My opponent agreesIn round one my opponent posted an article in general support of his primary claim which he outlined in round one. In this article it is claimed, as I have quoted in round two, that an increase in the average national GDP would benefit society as a whole. If my opponent disagrees with premise three then he is contradicting the only source that he has used to support his claim and therefore admits that said source is unreliable. Conclusion: Affirmative action does not necessarily have an overall positive big picture effect and my claim that it produces no new opportunities in the big picture is shown to be valid. My final words on the matter: Because I am unable (due to time, character, and motivation restraints) to provide such statistics for every single example of affirmative action policy established in history my opponent could very plausibly argue that some other policy matching the definition put into place somewhere else in the world at some other time does have a positive effect. I would be open to such a suggestion, provided that my opponent backs this statement up with an actual example in real life just as I have done. Until then, my conclusion and all arguments supported by it stand.