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

I will start with my refutations: 1) Refutation of Negative A1: Generations have passed The negative side insists that public education was already equal before 1954 when the "separate but equal" doctrine was abandoned by the supreme court. This claim even contradicts the statement of the supreme court itself which concluded back then that "Racially segregated schools inherently unequal." [1] Furthermore there is plenty of evidence available that proves the negative's claim wrong and shows that the majority of all black schools were of a much lower quality (e.g. received old textbooks, used equipment, and poorly prepared or trained teachers) [2]. 2) Refutation of Negative A2: AA hurts the economy (i) The negative side keeps repeating that productivity would suffer under AA and fails to address my refutation that GDP is an one-dimensional, incomplete and unsatisfactory measure of welfare in an economy since it doesn't take into account other factors like, equality, social cohesion, education, overall quality of life (including happiness), etc. (ii) The negative side fails to recognize and address the provided evidence in the last round, which gives strong evidence that the relationship between inequality and crime is indeed causal. 3) Refutation of Negative A3: Affirmative action undermines the achievements of minorities I extend my earlier refutation. 4) Refutation of Negative A4: America is capitalist (i) The negative side continues to follow circular logic. I repeat my earlier objection: His argument rests on the assumption that a purely "merit"-based system without any consideration of something like equality is the best option. But it is exactly that assumption which is up to debate here, therefore this is circular logic. (ii) The negative side reduces "merit" to a high GPA and SAT score and fails to address my objection that it is significantly easier to achieve those in privileged circumstances (good school with good teachers and access to AP courses and SAT coaching) than under less privileged circumstances. It comes back to the analogy of a race with one of the contestants starting ahead of the other. In the following I'm going to defend my arguments: 1) AA helps to compensate for past wrongs and to achieve equal opportunity (i) According to the negative side blacks and whites "are now on equal grounding". He thereby ignores any evidence that I have provided throughout the debate which proves this wrong. (ii) Furthermore he fails to address my contention that many 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 The negative side says there is equal access to high-quality education. Again he ignores any evidence that I have provided that proves this wrong. He contents that black students could simply transfer to better high schools with better access to AP courses, etc. He completely ignores the fact that the type of neighborhood one lives in will determine to a large degree the quality of schools in that area because funding for public school is tied to local property taxes. Thereby someone living in an affluent area will end up in a better school. [3] Therefor my argument remains: AA will help to reduce inequalities in the society and thereby helps to restore a peaceful and socially cohesive society. 3) AA compensates for current forms of discrimination. This shall not be regarded as a sole-standing argument for AA by itself. Rather it shall remind us that by no means we can talk of equal opportunity for everyone in today's society. Therefor I repeat: 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. With regards to the mentioned voting issues: 1. Which is fairer? Answer 1: The negative side assumes that the only determinant of the GPA or SAT score would be effort and ignores other previously mentioned factors like quality of school attended, access to AP courses, SAT coaching, etc. Answer 2: The negative side keeps talking about blame and punishment and therefor completely misses the point which is creation of equal opportunities. 2. Which is better for society? Again the negative side reduces the well-being of the society to GDP and therefore ignore other previously mentioned factors like equality, social cohesion, education, overall quality of life (including happiness), etc. 3. Which is more in-line with our intuitions? Again the negative side reduces "merit" to GPA, SAT score, etc. ignoring any outer circumstances. I would like to thank my opponent for this interesting debate and am looking forward to see the voting results :) [1] http://law2.umkc.edu... [2] Clark, Kenneth. "Segregation Ruled Unequal, Therefore Unconstitutional". [3] http://sitemaker.umich.edu...