Official TOC Round 1

I will attempt some form of organization, but it's tough. Counterplan: 1. Perm it. Not only is my case's AA generally color-blind anyway, but it is only *not* color blind if a student chooses to identify as a specific minority on a college application. Just don't check the box. 2. The Con ignores the fact that A. A. only has only contains *some* weighting, and that it includes far more minorities than just ethnic. He doesn't address the fact that A. A. is now primarily an education and confrontation program within the public sector, and that quotas have been entirely abolished. 3. Even if he does win counterplan, he doesn't win the debate. He's saying something like: if I give $10 to help the Darfur refugees instead of giving $20, then I've done nothing good for the Darfur refugees. " It's all positive reform, which affirms. On the 3 questions/necessity of AA: 1. Sowell is taken out of context. Badly. Sowell never argues that African Americans are more inherently dangerous than any other ethnicity. Furthermore, Sowell is basically a libertarian Jared Diamond. His works espouse the view that multiple factors play into the development of a person, so he would never, ever claim that African Americans are inherently violent or criminal. 2. My case is not race-centered, even though my opponent is unfairly focusing the debate thusly because he doesn't seem to be able to accept the fact that minorities are not only ethnic. Straw man much? 3. To address my opponent's questions: a. Yes. b. No, and I never claim to, nor is this necessary to claiming the benefits of my case. c. Can my opponent please explain to me a situation in which racism is deserved? How about sexism? Ageism? Bigotry at this level is precisely why an educational system like A. A. is an absolute necessity within society. On increased segregation: My opponent missed the boat here. I encourage him to re-read my statements. I said that segregation is worse due to factors outside of AA that increased due to resistance to the educational steps AA was taking to correct the subjugation of minorities. See: white flight, for example, which my opponent drops, as well as negative response through anti-AA legislation. On placating the complaining kid: By my opponent's logic, women's suffrage is spoiling women, because clearly they don't have the capacity to vote properly; women are stupider than men, genetically, just like black taxi cab drivers are inherently dangerous. So, we should reverse women's suffrage, and everything "will go back to normal. " My opponent ignores the fact that when a problem exists, like women not voting or minorities being abusively discriminated against, we solve the problem. That's not awarding a spoiled child; that's correcting abuses against the child. On CPR: As detailed in the source I cited at the bottom of my case, the Confronting Prejudices Response (CPR) Model is the current AA model for the entire nation. Besides the weighting of *some* college applications, this model entails 2 things: 1) Education with regards to cultural diversity, tolerance, & other information necessary to debunk bigoted stereotypes regarding race; 2) Confrontation & mediation of instances of prejudice or discrimination, much like a peer mediation program in a school or in a workplace. On public sector: An equalized public sector simply means that each grouping of people has an equal shot at education and employment. Con's "counter plan" equalizes the public sector by giving favor to the disadvantaged, as well. So, clearly, he's contradicting himself massively, because he wants the disadvantaged to be assisted, but only if *he* believes they should be assisted, empirical warrants be damned. On the professor to student conversations: 1. The conversation you are imagining is flawed for 3 reasons: A. Weighting systems don't penalize. They add points to designated areas. Supreme Court precedence makes it illegal to add points to an application to the point where reverse discrimination occurs. I recommend reading the University of Michigan cases I cite in my case. B. Assignments vs. college applications are apples & oranges. Just because they both start with an "A" and happen in or around universities does not make them correlative in any way. C. I remind you that, on an application, the applicant can mitigate AA on their own, if their individual ideology conflicts with the policies, by simply choosing not to identify their minority status. D. This microcosmic example in no way proves that AA has not produced positive reform. 1 person's objections doesn't equate to indication of social change. On majorities not being hired & rewarding random people: 1. My opponent is arguing quotas here, which are clearly non-resolutional, since quotas haven't been used since the 1990's. AA, especially in the workforce, is based on the CPR model that I outline. If the public sector is hiring more minorities (warrant? ), it is not a product of AA as outlined in my sources & case. 2. If by "random people," my opponent is referring to those groups that have been historically abused & robbed of their natural human rights, then sure. Whether they have reached their full potential or not is highly debatable. I would argue, based on historical precedence, culturally accepted fact, & my sources, that these populations don't have full ability to reach the potential of the majority due to the same factors that, funnily enough, Thomas Sowell writes about in his commentaries & books. On the drastic reduction of minority college admittants: Apparently, my opponent would be far happier in a "normal" world in which only white males are allowed to attend college, or work in a blue collar establishment. The numbers were never high for minority acceptance. Cross-apply my equalizing the public sector arguments. On correlation of poverty & race: 1. My opponent is straw manning me here. I make no correlation whatsoever, except to say that minority populations, including the socio-economically disadvantaged, perform poorly on standardized tests. The socio-economically disadvantaged can be any ethnicity. I never said they couldn't be. 2. I didn't assume that any ethnicity was poorer than any other. Based on the common knowledge of discrimination statistics, White populations & Asian-American populations are stereotyped as being more apt, hence statistics show them favored by higher education and the workplace. That's all I said. 3. You are making the assumption that White & Asian-Americans are automatically *more* qualified for a given position merely because they identify with those ethnicities. On the "brilliant" plan of weighting: My opponent doesn't get AA. Extend my definitions & framing in RD 1 (no one is correlating ethnicity with poverty directly—that's just my opponent). On my Supreme Court Warrants: 1. So, are you attempting to claim that "beem0r" is on equal footing in shaping American policy to The US Supreme Court? My argument is not an appeal to authority, but a legitimate citation of the framing of AA in the 21st century. Wanna give me a *good* reason why we shouldn't consider their ruling legitimate to this debate? On the negative "advocacy" at the bottom of RD 1: 1. I find it laughable that my opponent accuses me of making insulting generalizations about minorities. Which one of us was the one who claimed that all black cab drivers were more violent? I forget… 2. My opponent is arguing only partially within the scope of the resolution. He is attempting to debate the 1990's version of AA, which is not what I've established as AA, nor is it what AA really is. Even if my opponent can salvage some harms out of the weighting system, which he can't, he is still losing all of the benefits I can claim for all *other* minorities he ignores, as well as ethnic minorities.