Resolved: Affirmative Action is Reverse Discrimination

My argument(s) to follow will largely be semantical, which I assume will be okay with my Grizzly friend given the private interactions that lead to this debate--namely, I jokingly called Mr. Bear a "racist" with regard to his stance on Affirmative Action, which resulted in him getting all squeamish, feeling the weight of social stigma. Surely, in honour of that noble creature from which my opponent takes his name, he would not have us quibble over mere words, but rather the force with which words might meet the world. I will not be arguing, then, that Affirmative Action is not discrimation--for indeed it is, sans connotations which include prejudice, intolerance, unfairness, etc.--but rather will argue that this in itself is not a substantive argument to the negative. I look forward to a good debate--and I mean "good" in every sense of the word (besides the bad ones).The first argument that comes to mind, then,--and this is how I shall be doing it, because Mother Chaos, maaaannn--is that Affirmative Action is easily reconciled with such things as welfare (which my opponent takes the affirmative stance on, by the way :,) and so uh... what exactly is the problem? THAT'S RIGHT! F*CK BLACK PEOPLE! No, but seriously... What's the issue? Are poor people and rich people not discriminated between when it comes time to decide who gets a welfare check? Indeed. And is welfare immediately discredited by the simple fact that it is dispensed in accordance with discrimation? No. And so we have a problem: there exists a disparity between welfare and Affirmative Action in their justification which can only be seen as counter-intuitive, my opponent's arguments to the negative remaining as they are. Indeed, discrimation can be a very good thing--is it not sensible, for example, that the most seriously ill patient receives medical attention first? or that the most malnourished child be fed first? Now, what I think resides at the heart of this argument to the contrary,--that it is "reverse racism"--is somewhat of a societal sickness. Perhaps it is fear of the other. Perhaps all those other orderings which I have mentioned take into their catchment all creeds, colours and ... creatures? No ... amm, countries! Nope... But you get the picture, right? Alliteration is indeed hard. No wait. I mean maybe denying Affirmative Action on the basis that it is "reverse racism" is actually just reverse reverse racism, right? Think about it. And actually that brings us right back to plain ole racism, because if you reverse it twice... well... right? African American people are at a disadvantage, it's as simple as that. If they don't get a chance to get in the game,--and let's not pretend they wont be discriminated against in trying to get into the game--then they don't have any chance. It's about racial standing, not reverse racism--heck, you could call it positive racism on the behalf of the current culturally dominant ethnicity ...that is, white people. (There's definitely some small conspiracy in it being called "Affirmative Action," by the way; to resemble "African American" and maybe elicit some immediate recognition and visceral reaction. And then we lump them in with the alcholics of Alcoholics Anoynmous, too, and there's a whole chain of negative connotation going there...)In conclusion: word play does not suffice as a real argument in politics. I might say uh... that "Barack Obama" sounds like a terrorist's name (and it does), but that shouldn't discredit him, should it? Even if it does look suspiciously like Illuminati manipulation: a black man to promise gentler black people to come; named for a terrorist to promise gentler terrorists to come (and we're getting back to the A.A.'s here, right? See what I'm saying???) *bows* Good day, folks! *explodes and everyone gets covered in my guts*