Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.

Here goes: "At no time during this process do we go out of our way to admit a minority or woman. " But this would still inevitably happen anyway. If an institution is afraid they do not have "enough diversity," then they might feel inclined to admit extra people representing specific minorities or genders that are not necessarily as qualified for the position. "There is a built in disadvantage for women. " Then perhaps this nation should work on mandating equal pay for women in the workforce. Admitting a higher proportion into a given institution would seem to do nothing in regards to that…meaning affirmative action-like steps are only a red herring in regards to this important point. ---‘racism in either direction'--> "Without affirmative action, women and minorities would receive the worse end of tie-breakers that were just made ‘on the spot' by administrations (therefore creating a single discrimination which was truly the problem to begin with). " Can my opponent prove this with some evidence? I fail to see how minorities and women would consistently receive the worse end of tie-breakers. "It would be ‘racist' to choose the white man over the black woman wouldn't it? The problem here is ‘equal opportunity' will find SOMETHING to break the tie, but there is a legitimate option just to admit the one with the built in disadvantages as proven above. " It would not be "racist" to not admit the colored person. Referring to this as racist would imply some type of prejudiced belief that one is superior to another. In such the scenario as extrapolated, neither is "superior. " Choosing one over the other does not mean racism. It is a fallacy to assume reasoning regarding such a decision. Perhaps the better tie-breaker, if deemed so imperative, would be financial status of the family. Statistically speaking, many times the family with the lesser amount of money may end up being the minority, but that is irrelevant. A less fortunate financial background often times means less opportunity. Under that variable, it would seem most reasonable to admit the one that did the most work to work their way up to where they are, as they had less of a given opportunity to initially start at the top. "I am merely defending the rights of these institutions to have a built in tie-breaker when that situation arises (rare or not). " Sure, such private institutions have the RIGHT to have that tie-breaker. But this is irrelevant to the debate topic. The debate topic addresses whether or not affirmative action SHOULD be practiced in college admissions. It most definitely can be in a variety of instances. But this does not mean it SHOULD. The resolution is definite, meaning the Pro side must be affirming that the practice SHOULD definitely be used. I negate that affirmation. "I could be mistaken but aren't you referring to the nation that enslaved millions of African Americans? " Reverse discrimination is not a logical solution to past racism. After all, I'll take a wild guess that most of the slaves from before the Civil War are not still applying to colleges today…meaning that we'd pretty much just be making it easier for minorities of whom have not suffered any of the social ills experienced previously in this nation to get into college. While the symbolism does seem commendable, it is still unfair to others and illogical. "I, once again, defend the institutions right to choose affirmative action as a way to evaluate two equal components. " I, once again, still defend the right for a private institution to choose their policy regarding minorities and their admittance. But yet again, this is only a red herring. Whether or not the institution has this right is no indicator of whether or not affirmative action SHOULD be used. There is a difference between whether a private institution SHOULD BE ABLE TO choose their respective policies and whether or not said decision is a good one. <'chances of finding two candidates with the exact qualifications'> "Irrelevant. Not to mention that it has happened before and it will happen again. " Sure, it is possible to find identical candidates when comparing every respect. But even so, the odds of finding those two (or more) identical candidates, WHILE having those two identical candidates being exactly on the deciding line of whether or not they should be admitted is extremely low. But sure, it is possible. In that extreme case, why not admit both candidates? "The government isn't infringing on Caucasian rights, they are simply allowing institutions to pick their own methods. " And again, I am in favor of private institutions being able to choose their own methods. But affirmative action steps, as prescribed by the government, would MANDATE and require particular methods. "Would you trust a board of people to make the choice between a rich white boy who played QB for his high school, or some black person who lived in poverty all their life? CERTAINLY they could make the right choice, but in all reality, affirmative action will confirm that these people have a built in disadvantage, and thus should be given the tie-breaker. " That decision is not mine to make (about who would get accepted, if only one could). The point is, the private institution has the right to make that decision. And having the right to make that decision is imperative for a free state. Sure, it would be better to choose the candidate that made the most progress from where they started out (such as regarding financial background), but (a) this would not qualify as "affirmative action" under the definition my opponent provided (as race is irrelevant and unneeded in determining student progress); and (b) the private institution STILL has the right to choose which one to admit (if in the extreme circumstance that only one can be admitted). And the private institution SHOULD maintain this right. I would like to ask my opponent to clarify some things I inquired about during my Round 1. How would we define people of color? Are their specific guidelines to how much pigmentation one must have to be eligible for affirmative action utilization? At what point are people colored "enough" to be eligible? Is the government going to issue a point of pigmentation at which affirmative action should work upon someone? It seems to me that there is no universally defined standard for how affirmative action-like procedures would work anyway…meaning the institution would decide their own policy on it anyway. But perhaps my opponent could clarify. I would like to state that I have presented all the offense thus far that I have needed. I have not necessarily addressed these in organized contentions, but have made my (logical) point nonetheless. But to remind those reading this debate, I have basically contended that affirmative action should not NECESSARILY be used. It is up to the private institution to choose what they want to do in regards to admissions. Diversity is often nice, but the extent can be decided upon by the individual institution. It is not just to admit minorities because of past wrongs on other people of their ethnicity throughout history.