My affirmative action policy is better than my opponent's.

Thanks for the response, Pro. P1) My opponent asks for further detail about Asians and half-mixed races. The latter simply depends on how mixed races choose to identify themselves. As for Asians, that race has climbed out of poverty and overcome the injustices of the past, so I don't see the need for preferential treatment, for the problem of racial inequality has already fixed itself. Why fix what's no longer broken? P2) A. Pro bluntly asks why an admission policy must discriminate based on race; the answer is simple: That's how the problem of racial inequality is reversed. Without a policy that distinguishes between race, there isn't much way to accurately aim the preferential treatment, which is the mechanism used to accomplish racial equality. Some white individuals might be 'cheated' under this policy, but recognize that black individuals have been cheated for literally centuries, and this has been the root of myriad socioeconomic disparities found among race. To simply leave the situation as is -- to not adequately address the situation in context -- is to abandon any attempt at fairness. And keep in mind, left-handed people have not undergone the historical restraints that blacks have; there is little legitimate reason to help a group that hasn't been arbitrarily forced into unequal circumstances by the US government or American society. B. My opponent, in this post, continues to gloss over the fact that the *average* black individual earns about half the salary of the *average* white individual, which doesn't address the full context of the situation. Sure, some black and white individuals might be of equal socioeconomic standing, but this is the exception -- not the rule. If it was the rule, then there would be no racial inequality, thus no reason for my AA policy to exist. But in reality, it's apparent what is actually taking place in the US, and it shouldn't be neglected or looked over. Pro also mentions the socioeconomic inequality of those who have bad luck and make bad financial decisions, but these factors are of one's own problems and responsibility; segregation and racism is arbitrarily enforced, thus the two situations are not analogous. This is why AA shouldn't apply to the unlucky, the left-handed, etc. Not to mention, my AA plan focuses specifically on *racial* inequality anyways -- not "luck" inequality... P3) A. Here, my opponent centers his argument around individuals being of equal standing without regard to statistical averages, for they supposedly do not represent any 'real persons'. For one, an average does actually represent real people; in fact, it represents the *average* person within any given group, with this case being blacks. Although blacks and whites are scattered all throughout the economic ladder, once the *average* of all these individuals are calculated, it demonstrates that there is considerable inequality between these two races. And to reference Pro's claim that his policy accounts for the economic position of these individuals, I'll say that my policy does that as well. My policy will not admit rich blacks over poor whites, but it is geared toward lending blacks preferential treatment in regard to the overall racial inequality found on the economic ladder. So really, my policy accounts for both individual AND racial disparities, while my opponent's plan accounts for only the former. This isn't fair for reasons I've listed multiple times, which are related to where blacks currently stand and why. It also doesn't fully satisfy the goal of AA, which is fairness. B. My opponent points out that my AA policy will not address inequality between right and left-handed people in the long run, but then again, it isn't supposed to. AA focuses on inequalities between race, and it does that for a specific reason, which is that blacks are very unequal -- largely attributable to historical injustice and current racism. Left-handed people never suffered past discrimination, they aren't discriminated against now, and it hasn't even been established that left and right-handed people are unequal. So, as I pointed out in P2, there isn't much reason for lefties to receive any preferential treatment. P4) In response to Pro here, I'll refer to the point in my previous post, which is that this black immigrant income isn't equal -- on average -- to his/her white counterpart. If an AA policy is going to solve the issue of racial inequality, then it has to focus on where the average individual stands in each group. If the policy arbitrarily focuses on a relatively rich black and a relatively poor white for its comparisons, then it isn't going to achieve optimal results, such as fairness and equality among race. I thank my opponent for his on-topic, relevant, clear and concise responses. Good luck with the next round, Pro.