The free market is the best solution for racism and discrimination.

My opponent begins with an attempt to defend his point. I must tell my opponent that I am well aware of the concept of "Cost/Benefit Analysis" and indeed, I am also very aware of all the flaws of doing this. My opponent reluctantly added that small concession and tried to gloss over it, but I must make the audience aware that this is no small error. Cost-Benefit Analysis is very often erroneous, and to a degree that makes its reliability very questionable: See the section on accuracy. . http://en.wikipedia.org... It is very clear that this type of analysis in pursuing goals is highly inaccurate. Made even more so by bias from all angles, as it says in the source. Now, please examine this example of Cost per Hire, which is an example of the calculation my opponent says is "commonly used". . http://findarticles.com... You can see that my opponent is trying to mislead the audience. Note that the "commonly used" C/BA (which is already erroneous) is applied to new hires, not used as a method of comparing one new hire to another. The flaws in the system are already bad enough to make the general estimation unreliable. My opponent is declaring that he can then use this flawed system to accurately tell the difference between two measurements? With a margin of error so large, no one could possibly tell which of two employees would be better, using pure objective data. Unless my opponent is God, we must throw out this argument. As per my opponent's second point, he has committed two logical fallacies. First, his argument is a fallacious straw-man attack. Secondly, his misinterpreted argument is also a false dichotomy, making it a fallacious argument within a fallacious argument. . http://www.fallacyfiles.org... . http://www.sierrafoot.org... First of all, I never mentioned anything about the importance of the profit motive. My opponent has purposely maligned my argument to make it easier for him to attack. My point was to show that aside from making profit, an employer has countless other values to take into account when hiring a new employee. This makes my opponent's response completely irrelevant. Furthermore, even if I WERE talking about that, my opponent's response would still fail. He suggests that if an employer does not focus entirely on making profit, then he must be completely selfless. This is a false dichotomy because there is an entire range of gray in between. If my opponent wants to ask me for the selfless employer, I ask him for the robotic employer who does nothing but calculates profits. Suffice to say, this point can also be discarded. My opponent's third point can be thrown out immediately. I find it disrespectful that my opponent has decided to debate with an imaginary person instead of me, as he is bringing up this "counter argument" regarding government intervention in correction evils. I hope the audience notices that I have never argued this point during the debate, and that my opponent is now making an irrelevant argument and talking to himself. I suggest that my opponent focus on responding to issues I actually bring up, not ones that he "just feels like" bringing up, for the heck of it. My opponent's fourth point follows along with his nonsense, branching out to another fallacy, or rather, several fallacies. At this point, I can't even classify it. However, I hope that the audience can. 1. Nazi Germany and Communist China were discriminatory 2. Nazi Germany and Communist China were examples of non-free markets 3. Therefore, a free market is the best way to combat discrimination. A mixture of post hoc ergo propter hoc, non sequitor, and equivocation fallacy. . http://www.fallacyfiles.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org...(logic) My opponent's final point regards an NBA game. This is a very good way to illustrate why my opponent's confusion has led to the failing of his arguments. His argument: If a person is a capitalist, then he should not be racist. Therefore, capitalism is the solution to racism. FREE MARKET =/= CAPITALISM They are completely different terms, with completely different meanings, and my opponent has confused them. As per the definition of a "free market" that I supplied in previous rounds, there is no correlation between government intervention and racism. If the resolution were "Complete adherence to capitalistic ideals is the best solution for racism and discrimination", then my opponent's arguments would make sense. However, this is not the resolution. A free market is not the same as Capitalistic ideals. Capitalism is based on the concept of a free market, but the "profit motive" that my opponent speaks about is a part of Capitalism that has NO CONNECTION to laissez-faire philosophy. There is not much more to say. My opponent has completely failed to introduce even a single argument and furthermore, has been arguing a different resolution the entire debate. Since this is the case, I urge a CON vote. Thank you to the audience and to my opponent.