Official TOC Round 1

Counterplan: 1. Simple. The minority members who like affirmative action feel no pressure. However, the few who question the morality of affirmative action start to question the idea of marking themselves as "disadvantaged. " See the man I cited in R1. 2. Women are not a minority. . http://en.wikipedia.org... The ratio is in favor of women. Sexual orientation is an even worse basis for affirmative action. Wait, are we now rewarding people with points for being gay? That can't make sense. The socio-economically disadvantaged aren't a real minority. There's no set line to distinguish when one is socio-disadvantaged, and there's a huge difference between being unable to make a house payment and living in a box. Culture and religion are also poor bases for A. A. Necessity of AA: 1. The crime rates are linked to the fact that felons aren't allowed to apply for many jobs, so it explains the underrepresentation of blacks without racism. I believe that races are generally equal, although the difference in crime rates is a fact. 2. You can't fix racist history with a racist present. 3. However, it isn't racism if it isn't even caused by race. This racism isn't nearly as real as you think. The only real racism is A. A. Increased segregation: 1. Your source is too long. I'm not searching it for any mentioning of country-wideness. White flight isn't confirmed by this source. It only says that socio-economic standing isn't the only factor. Perhaps blacks tend to live near each other by cultural or family ties. 2. Misinformation? The fact is that racism is present in university applications, so it needs to be stopped. Complaining Kid: 1. Your AA isn't part of the debate, by the definition. 2. Any mark-up, even by 0.1%, is racism. I don't even know what 20 points does on an application. On CPR: "If the public sector is hiring more minorities (warrant? ), it is not a product of AA as outlined in my sources & case. " This means that your AA does not increase the hiring of minorities. Increasing application to universities for minorities would directly lead to more hiring, so your AA does not increase that, either. Therefore, it is not PMAA. You said yourself that the increased representation is not a product of your AA, so if that's what it was supposed to do, it wasn't working. Again, CPR is not AA, by definition. Public Sector Equalization: You said that points were given to minorities. Even one point is reverse discrimination. The Supreme Court apparently thinks that a little bit of reverse discrimination is okay, but it's not. It's not about whether or not it's greater than a set value. It's about whether or not it's greater than zero. Professor to student "convo[sic]": A. The legal line should be zero. I don't care how many points it is, because it's still racism. This social discrimination is not caused by race. Plus, social discrimination should not be countered with political discrimination. That just warps everything into a mess. B. I was talking about the professor as the interviewer, and the points being application points. I'm sorry that I implied it to be assignments. C. Your source talks about the majority of minorities. It is obvious that some feel this pressure, as I cited. D. Your source talks about segregation in schools. And CPR isn't applicable to this debate. Majorities not being hired/random people being rewarded: 1. Either what I described has occurred, or none of the points have ever done anything, making the addition of points a waste of time. "Much" is subjective. The more qualified should get the job, always. Even if by a little bit. Race should not change that. That's racism. 2. However, increased representation would lead to more hirings, which you said isn't caused by CPR. Therefore, CPR doesn't cause increased representation. 3. In your quote, you say that AA could not have caused increased representation in employment, which is a requirement to be known as affirmative action, by definition. 4. I shouldn't have to read your sources. You should outline your arguments quoting your sources. Reduction of college admittants: Yes, it did. You completely misinterpreted my intentions. I'm for people doing whatever they can do. I'm not a racist. I'm anti-racist, and therefore, anti-affirmative action. Things will balance out over time, and if they don't, it doesn't really matter from a color-blind perspective. Correlation of poverty & race: 1. Then why are all African-Americans getting additional benefits? 2. The fact is, Asians have a culture that currently works harder, which means that an over-representation by them is justified. Same thing goes for under-representation. 3. Anti-generalization leaves you without words? "Brilliant" plan of weighting: Cross-apply my argument against CPR being AA. My opponent does not deny the correlation. Supreme Court Warrants: All authority should be questioned. The fact that the Supreme Court isn't logical makes them unreliable. You didn't deny that. My Advocacy: 1. Flawed race? No. Different race. It is crazy to expect that all races be the same (Sowell 156). "What reason was there to expect these groups to be the same in the first place? " The fact is, there is a higher crime rate, which explains underrepresentation, as African-Americans have a higher felony rate, as well. Or should we allow X black felons to be hired against the will of the employer every year? 2. Well, just saying that there is race plus a bunch doesn't help you. You never really explained your "laundry list," either. How do they help your argument if you never address them? Again, to readdress my advocacy: There is no such thing as an okay amount of racism. Any addition of point based on race is racism. The addition of points for being a minority is racism. Any affirmative action that could actually affirm the resolution is racism. My syllogism: Logical. 1. However, you went against your own definition. A loose definition allows for things that aren't restricted, but your statement about AA directly contradicts the definition, which is unacceptable. 2. You claim that it is easily logically applicable, and yet you never make the "easy" logical application. Therefore, it should be dropped, as you don't do what you claim you can do to save yourself. Representation - the action of representing Representing - serving . .. by delegated authority. .. By these definitions (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...), increased hiring is increased representation, and having more successful applications for universities is increased representation, but voice is not. 3. Increased education? That isn't affirmative action, by any definition. Decreased discrimination via conflict resolution? That still isn't affirmative action. Improved higher education admission practices? With racism? Even worse, it's legalized racism. How can that be improvement over equality? Why couldn't it have been like it was with the Civil Rights Acts that promised equality for all, not benefits to some because they look like those oppressed people way down south? . http://en.wikipedia.org... Oddly enough, I'm in Texas, and I see no racial conflict whatsoever, nor do I see any CPR and whatnot. In conclusion, this Pro-Minority Affirmative Action is racism, and violates the idea of equality, so it cannot be considered as "positive" reform. Note that my opponent makes no motion to affirm the resolution anywhere in the last round. With my remaining characters. .. . http://vids.myspace.com... "When the last thing we notice is the color of skin And the first thing we look for is the beauty within When the skies and the oceans are clean again Then we shall be free" -Garth Brooks That is all. Thank you for your time.