Official TOC Round 1

RD 3: I encourage judges to carefully consider this last round. I've primarily made extensions & only addressed new arguments outside of what has already been said. Hold my opponent to the same standard. Counterplan: 1. The pressure argument is unwarranted. In fact, an incredibly intensive & expansive study conducted in 2008 by Onwuachi-Willig, Houh, & Campbell demonstrates that the stigma you refer to surrounding AA & its current applications in the college sector don't actually exist. [1] Via direct accounts of minority & majority applicants from the 2009 graduating class, authors show that the pressure you speak of—to bend to the will of AA policies—does not cognitively exist in a vast majority of minority applicants. 2. I didn't realize I needed to list the other minorities in question, but those would be women, LBGT, the socioeconomically disadvantaged, cultural & religious minorities, etc. My advocacy is in no way limited to only race. Necessity of AA: 1. I still see no warrants indicating that the crime rate increasing has anything to do with an AA debate. My opponent is trying to convince you that minority populations are inherently less fit than white people, essentially. Don't let him. 2. Check my sources, which explain, in detail, histories of minority discrimination. My word count is too precise to prove the obvious. 3. I freely admitted that racism is caused by a number of things. This question doesn't gain him any offense against my case. Extend my previous response. Increased segregation: 1. White flight is a country-wide phenomenon. [2] 2. He doesn't answer my argument. Extend the fact that anti-AA action based on misinformation is hurting the ability to provide minorities with fair representation in societies institutions. Complaining Kid: 1. AA is an equality movement. It is an educational and conflict resolution movement. My opponent is still stuck on this concept of quotas, which is totally extra-resolutional. Don't let him skew this debate. 2. One more time: the Supreme Court actually mitigated reverse racism in those decisions I keep harping on. He's arguing something that no longer exists with totally unbalanced weighting, too. We aren't talking about 200% mark-ups, here. He's being hyperbolic. On CPR: Asserting it does not make it so. My definition of AA (as a reminder): Positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded. How does my definition of CPR not fit this definition, as CPR is clearly positive steps taken to assist in the representation of minorities in the public sector? If he had this concern about CPR, he should have looked up the easily researchable theory himself before his RD 1 post (I even give him the citation) and attacked my definition then. As it stands, I have a highly credible source detailing the movement & its uses. CPR stands. Public Sector Equalization: No warrant for this problem he says will occur. He has yet to address the fact that reverse racism is not occurring according to my evidence. Professor to student convo: A. The Supreme Court drew this legal line in the sand with U. of Michigan. Furthermore, impacting an application process does not automatically translate into reverse discrimination. The equality of the transaction is in quantity of points (my opponent is being severely hyperbolic in his arguments here) and in the fact that all of my bibliography shows that minorities are socially discriminated against. B. I don't know about you, but I've only been talking about college applications the entire time. You just presented two conversations between students and professors. Logic dictates you are speaking of assignments, which is a totally false comparison. C. See previous response about pressure to use AA. D. That's still a single first hand experience, which makes it a wash. I could find just as many first hand experiences of people who were properly served by AA (see my source 1 for this RD, actually). Moreover, I have sources that prove broad success (such as the CPR source). Majorities not being hired/random people being rewarded: 1. You are arguing quotas because your arguments are too hyperbolic to apply to the real world. I keep having to repeat myself: AA weighting systems for colleges cannot, by law, tilt an application so much in favor of a given minority that someone *much* more qualified will get bumped out of college. 2. That's cute, but unfortunately untrue. My definition is clear, and uncontested until now, at which point it was contested poorly. AA is "positive steps to increase the representation" of minorities. Representation need not be in the form of new hires to affirm. 3. You also took my statements entirely out of context. I already said that public sector workplace AA is entirely based on the CPR model. Hence, vast increases in minority hires cannot be attributed to a quota system AA program, which is what you are trying to lock me into. 4. *Sigh* No one is ignoring the socioeconomically disadvantaged of any minority or majority. They are given consideration in CPR & AA weighting, as well. I encourage you to actually read my sources. Reduction of college admittants: This doesn't answer my public sector equalization argument at all. Extend me again, please. Not only that, but extend that AA is doing what he wants it to right now. Correlation of poverty & race: 1. *Sigh* We don't. Again, take a look at all my sources and the entire debate. 2. I don't assume anything about Asians. You are assuming that something about their race (which is a genetic distinction) gives them a better work ethic. This is cultural conditioning, and could be just as easily seen in any other human being if raised in said culture. That is a blatantly racist stereotype. 3. This response has left me without words. Read & enjoy, judges. "Brilliant" plan of weighting: My opponent links you to an "infoplease" website about unemployment rates (akin to yahoo answers) & then tells you that I'm violating my own definition again, with no warrants to back it up. Cross-apply my previous responses. I am topical. Supreme Court Warrants: In matters of constitutional law & American justice, I defer to the Supreme Court. Neg "Advocacy": 1. Again with the presumptions and false correlations that he accuses me of. How is a higher crime rate indicative of a flawed race? There are many, many factors that play into crime rates, which include socioeconomic status, family and childhood environment, treatment within correctional facilities and within the justice system, all which are influenced by discriminatory practices that are hardwired into each institution. Totally unwarranted assertion here. 2. I don't need to give a laundry list of minorities in order to affirm. My opponent hasn't actually told you why this is important to the debate. It isn't, because my advocacy never limits itself to race, no matter how much he wants it to. Neg's new syllogism: totally flawed based on a lack of understanding of AA. 1. I told him that my definitions were relatively loose, and that I would clarify my position throughout my RD 1 post. I did so, establishing AA with reputable sources, none of which, mind you, bore "wiki" in them. 2. Since when did we decide that positive steps *or* representation directly equated to increased hiring? Representation is logically & easily applied to them being given a voice within the workplace via conflict resolution for discriminatory actions, or education as to their culture within the workplace. 3. Even if I don't hire huge numbers of minorities, how does that negate positive reform? Go back to my $10 vs. $20 to Darfur refugees analogy. I have increased education, decreased discrimination via conflict resolution, & improved higher ed. admission practices.