Resolved: Affirmative action is in the best interests of the United States.

I start with my refutations: Refutation of negative's argument #1: The negative side contents that racial inequality is history and only existed in the past - more specifically during the 1800's. I would like to point out that racial inequality was prevalent in the US until long after the 1800's. Racial segregation has been outlawed by the supreme court of the US only in 1954 [1] though this court decision didn't translate into significant change immediately. It was in 1960 when Ruby Bridges was admitted and "integrated" as one of the first back children into an all white school encountering incredible resistance - no teacher was initially willing to teach the class with a black child in it. And even today there is substantial evidence for racial discrimination. Studies [2] show that blacks are half as likely as whites to get a job offer presenting identical qualifications. Furthermore the negative side contents that black students have equal access to AP courses as white students. However the data [3, Figure 6] clearly refutes this claim. It shows that 80% of black students were either left out of an AP subject for which they had potential or attended a school that did not offer the subject. This proportion was significantly higher than for white students. This in turn significantly impacts their chances for college admission since grades in college preparatory courses are the top factor that colleges consider in the admission decision. [4] Therefore the lack of access to AP courses for black students puts them a step behind. In order to compensate for this, AA is needed. Refutation of negative's argument #2: The second argument of the negative was that AA hurts the economy. First, it is not about race or skin colour as such. It is about compensating previously disadvantage parts of the society and making them fit for competing. It is because these people were systematically exploited and discriminated and still are at disadvantage today, that they are compensated for it, not because their skin colour is "interesting". Second, the argument is based on the assumption that economic prosperity is the highest goal of the society. I explained earlier why I think that this is a very simplified, one-dimensional way of looking at the issue and that I think that there are many other desirable characteristics for a society. I gave the example of a peaceful society and I provided evidence that shows that there is a strong correlation between the level of inequality and the crime rates in societies. The negative's objection was that correlation does not translate into causation. So I offer another study which shows that crime rates and inequality are not only positively correlated, but that this correlation also most likely reflects causation from inequality to crime rates, even controlling for other crime determinants [5]. If we take these other factors into the equation, then the fact that AA might lead to decrease in productivity in individual cases becomes less significant. Refutation of negative's argument #3: The negative side contents that AA undermines the accomplishments of minorities and gave the example of a college student being bullied because another student thought he was admitted due to AA (which he wasn't). I already refuted this argument earlier but will try to clarify again. If X bullies Y, because Y belongs to a minority and X thinks that he got admitted into college because of AA, then this doesn't necessarily mean we should get rid of AA. It could instead just reflect an attitude problem or a lack of understanding of X and instead we should maybe educate X. The bottom line is, irrespective of what some students think, if we think AA is the right thing to do, then we should fight for it and educate those who might not yet understand it's significance. Refutation of negative's argument #4: "America is a capitalist nation. The idea here is that all situations of employment and admission in this society should be based on merit." Two objections: 1) The argument rests on the assumption that a purely "merit"-based system without any consideration of something like equality is the best option and therefore AA is not desirable. But it is exactly that assumption which is up to debate here, therefore this is circular logic. 2) Even if a merit-based system would be preferable, the question arises how do we define "merit"? Can merit be reduced to SAT results or GPA without taking into account other circumstances? Is the "merit" of a kid growing up in very privileged circumstances, having visited a nice school with good teachers and access to AP courses and SAT coaching higher than the "merit" of a kid who grew up under difficult circumstances without access to these privileges simply because he scored higher in one particular test? In the following I will defend my arguments from the last round: 1) AA helps to compensate for past wrongs and to achieve equal opportunity. Centuries of discrimination have put the black group of society at a disadvantaged position. The negative side objects that inequality cannot be fixed with more inequality. I don't see the reasoning behind this. If you have two people racing against each other with x starting 2 min before y. Wouldn't it be considered reasonable to compensate y for that by stopping x for 2 min? Furthermore the negative says that it would be unmoral to punish someone for the acts committed by his grandfather. Again I repeat: It is not about punishment. It is about offering equal opportunities. I think it's impossible to deny that certain privileges are passed on over generations (example relay race). If let's say someone's parents were slaves and someone else was born as the child of the slave master, can we talk about equal opportunity here? Even though the level of inequality might have decreased over last couple of decades, it is evident that there is still a huge level of inequality existent today. I provided statistics in support of this earlier. 2) AA helps to reduce inequalities in the society and thereby helps to restore a peaceful society. I already provided evidence indicating that this relationship is a causal relationship. The negative's second objection was that inequality in education is not caused by unequal circumstances and furthermore that minorities should have the same educational opportunities that whites have (e.g. AP courses in high schools), but not more. I already gave evidence in my refutations that clearly shows that currently there are significant disparities in terms of quality of high school education, specifically in terms of access to AP courses. My point is that until these disparities are levelled and we can truly speak of equal access to high quality education, AA is needed as compensation. 3) AA compensates for current forms of discrimination. I pointed out that approximately 15% of freshmen at America's top colleges fail to meet the minimum entry requirements and are admitted due to personal bonds with the University, i.e. mostly children of faculty, alumni, politicians. The negative's objection is that this is a negligible minority and doesn't weigh much. I want to point out again that according to the source this group makes up nearly twice as many students in top universities than blacks and latinos who had been admitted because of AA. My point is again, as long as these kinds of privileges and current forms of discrimination exist, AA is but a small effort to level the playing field. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.princeton.edu... [3] http://apreport.collegeboard.org... [4] http://www.nacacnet.org... [5] siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf