Affirmative Action should be abolished

I'd like to again point out that affirmative action necessarily requires these for someone to be eligible: 1. discriminated against, 2. be disadvantaged because of this discrimination. Now, you can say "Lexus, you're making things up", but that's exactly what the definition of affirmative action is, as pro actually provided (...the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination within a culture). This means that arguing that affirmative action benefits people that are not discriminated against is completely besides the point, this is warranted by my opponent's definitions that he and I agreed to.C1. Institutionalised discrimination.You start off your contention by defining what AA (affirmative action) is, even though that is different in nuance from what the definition in R1 was provided to be. In the rules it even says "debate ... definitions cannot be changed in the middle of the debate", and that's WAY too late to provide definitions. You provide a case of an African American male vs. a Caucasian male that are both competing for a job, and you (incorrectly) assess that the black male will automatically be hired, ceteris paribus. But in order for the black man to be hired over the white man, the employer must show that he acted: a. arbitrarily and at chance, or b. based on AA. This means that the black man had to face discrimination and had to be disadvantaged over the discrimination. If everything is equal between these two people, weight should be given to the one that has been disadvantaged to applying for a job because of widespread discrimination. This is because you must reward perseverance through hard times, because that shows that the disadvantaged person is able to do the job better. It is actually beneficial to an employer to hire someone who was disadvantaged over someone who was not, ceteris parabus, because it shows that they are a harder worker. This isn't discrimination, this is trying to hire someone who is best fit for the job. Then pro goes on to say that I support some claims that he lists, completely in an act of defense (which should not be allowed to be judged upon, offensive arguments only, but that is besides the point). I don't claim that AA brings equal oppurtunity to everyone, I understand that giving weight to others based upon perseverance isn't an act of pure equality; but neither is putting weight on hiring college graduates over high school ones. C2. No longer neededWell, that's cool that in general it isn't necessary when you look at it under the scope of the definition you provided in R2, but this debate is under the scope of R1. Saying that there are not people that are discriminated against due to race, sex, sexual orientation, or anything else that has reasonable grounds to be called "discrimination by culture" is a lie - for example, many Native American tribes are discriminated against just because they are Native Americans [1]. Of course there is discrimination by the culture or the structure at large, therefore AA still remains relevantC3. Less effortAA only takes into account, ceteris paribus, favoring those who have been disadvantaged because of discrimination by the culture at large - so saying that AA is giving admissions to black students higher than white students isn't AA, it's flat out discrimination based on race, only calling itself "affirmative action" because that's what is in the public psyche. You give an example of a white student needing 95% to get into college and a black one 90% to get in- that isn't what AA is under the scope of this debate. What AA is, is if two students, white and black, both have scores at 95%, they should give weight to the black student because of systematic and cultural discrimination and disadvantage.What is going on in that study by Bowen and Dot shows how much AA is actually necessary! "Crazy", you may say, but let me show you: AA does not favor one race over another, it favors discriminated ones over not discriminated ones. The white students in these situations were being discriminated against simply because they were right, and therefore the institution is actually discriminating against them based on race under the guise of AA. What should happen is we enact an AA policy that gives white students an equal or better chance of being admitted into this college, because they were being discriminated against by the structures that are in place.Just because someone is a minority doesn't mean that AA favors them - it favors those that were harmed by structual, systematic, or cultural discrimination.C4. Racial tensionYou say that people that aren't helped by AA would see those who have been benefited as a threat, since those helped by AA don't have to work as hard to get what they get. But what you are failing to realise is that jobs aren't given out to someone simply because they are of a discriminated group; first, employers or colleges that have AA would look at the qualifications of two applicants, and if they are the same except for their discrimination levels, then the employer gives higher weight to them. The only other choice is being chosen arbitrarily and without any real ruling principle.People would actually be less mad, because there is a system in place that gives weight to certain people, instead of just an arbitrary choice based on what someone feels. I'm not seeing how any of the other stuff relates to your contention, but I'll address it.People would work harder through being discouraged because they are ensured that they have a possibility of actually being hired; this is what AA does. They are not willing to work if they are discouraged and they are not guaranteed that their hard work can be put into use because of arbitrary actions that are often discriminatory against the discouraged. AA helps the workforce; so your point is based on misrepresentations.C5. Unprepared for jobsThat's cool, but not relevant at all. That isn't an example of AA, that's an example of selectively choosing people OVER others; not when faced with two equal candidates choosing someone based on a system, not arbitrariness that oftentimes is discriminatory. There's no topicality to this argument, this is an argument based around dropout rates of African Americans because they were chosen unfairly and not in the spirit of AA - not AA itself.C6. Other minoritiesSure, AA was originally imposed to help minorities, but that's not what it is anymore. Even if AA is helping the majority, it is only helping them if they are discouraged and discriminated against in the industry.I know how bad it is that Asian Americans often have to work harder to be accepted into colleges or tech jobs, it really is. But, the problem is, that the policies in place are just named AA, but they aren't actually AA. I can say that I am a "pro-equality" supermarket, giving 100% discounts to gay couples - that's not equality, even though I say that it is.Asian Americans do not need to have policies in place that are named AA that selectively make the admissions harder for them; for Cambodians or Laotians the admissions need to be lowered to incentivise them coming into the labor market even though they were discouraged - the only way that we can really fix the low bachelor degree rates of these peoples are making them overcome discrouagement and letting them get into the jobs and education institutions that they want.