Affirmative action is contrary to the public good

There are two negatives of affirmative action, one is objective while the other is subjective. The objective negative of affirmative action is the fact that it favors applicants who are less-qualified over applicants that are more qualified. Who decides how much of a boost that minorities receive on a civil service-type exam for public service such as the police, fire fighting, or other government work? Can one prove that this boost accurately fills the "gap" it is supposed. Where is the oversight to determine if the score boost is too great? I have heard talk of twenty five year plans, and other lengths of time when affirmative action will not be needed, but what is the criteria to decide this? Quotas have been deemed largely illegal, but what if the score boosts enforce defacto quotas? My point is that even if one could prove that minorities unequivocally need some boost, it is almost impossible to show that boost given is commensurate with the situation at the present time. However, two facts that are not in dispute is that these are all service geared towards the public good, and less qualified employees equals a lower quality of work performed by these agencies. Therefore, it is a simple task to deduce that affirmative action lowers the level of public good in an objective manner. The only way to disprove this objectively would be for someone to prove that minorities receiving score boosts performed just as well as those applicants who scored the same without a point boost. Of course, this would mean the test is not objective, which means the test should be re-designed because it discriminates against minorities. I am not aware of test discrimination being the rationale for score boosts, since it is usually talked about as a way to get more of certain group in because they are underrepresented. I will therefore posit that it is an objective fact that in a comparison of two government agencies, all else being equal of course, the one with more qualified employees will outperform the other agency the majority of the time. Of course, these two hypothetical agencies are not equal when comparing one employing affirmative action to one that does not employ affirmative action, the affirmative action agency has more minorities in it, so I will use the term "diverse" to describe a possible advantage it may have. Therefore, the onus is on affirmative action proponents to prove that this diversity makes its less-qualified workforce equal in overall merit to the more-qualified workforce. My opponent's argument seems to be that a diverse workforce somehow serves the public good, since it makes a more moral society. Possibly, but this must be proved as well. Is it more moral for a police force to be more effective, and thus lower the amount of crime committed against innocent people, or for it to have a politically correct appearance that can be likened choosing a good paint job on car vs. making sure that the car runs as efficiently as possible. Again, this is subjective and thus difficult to prove either way, whereas my argument is objective and can quantified in some manner. Also, I will counter with a subjective argument as well; affirmative action can lead to tension with minority groups and tension between majority and minority groups. Majority groups will tend to develop some idea that a minority serving in a role that uses affirmative action as a hiring criteria only got the job because they are "black", or "female", or insert underrepresented group. One might say that this person is bigoted for saying this, but since they know that some minority applicants would not have gotten the job if they did not get the score boost, they are just using deductive reasoning; not bigotry, in coming to this conclusion. Of course, not every minority that gets a public service job is only there thanks to affirmative action, some are just as qualified as anyone else. Again, this can create tension between these employees and their fellow minorities who are not as qualified, because they feel that they make them "look bad". All of these are subjective arguments, but one cannot deny that they are reasonable possibilities and therefore must be considered if my opponent desires to use subjective arguments in this debate.