Con's choice

Alright, first and foremost I would like to point out that still you have provided absolutely no substance to your claims. You provide two different definitions that don't help your case at all. In fact, you even say that affirmative action sounds like a good thing. But you claim that it is a form of racism. I believe that you have forgotten what racism is. Racism - The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others...or...Discrimination or prejudice based on race. These are from the American Heritage Dictionary. Both of those definitions and all the others I could find involve negativity. Affirmative action does not put minorities at a disadvantage. It also doesn't establish minorities as superior to another race. In fact, you admit that affirmative action is making sure that there are enough minorities in an area. So how is this establishing one above the other? It isn't saying that no white males can recieve jobs or an education. It's just a check against racism. You urge the voters to vote against racism but have failed to show how it is racism. You don't provide definitions, and you fail to show how it actually meets the criterion of racism. Affirmative action is in place to fight racism. So by urging the voters to vote against racism you have told them to vote for me. By admitting that affirmative action is a good idea you have lost the debate. But onto an argument by argument presentation of why I should win. Let's begin with my opponents. Her last rounds first argument was that Affirmative action is racism. I already proved how it isn't. Secondly she says how it shouldn't be a check against past prejudice. This is not the only reason, and my opponent knows this. When you look at the definitions she provided, you will see that isn't necessarily what it means. Not only that, but the idea of affirmative action that I presented in earlier rounds has nothing to do with past discrimination, instead it is in place to stop prejudice from happening now. So her arguments on the past are moot and invalid. Thirdly, she talks about disadvantaged peoples and brings up an analogy of the olympics. Your analogy is not a good one. It's not about helping someone who is injured, it's about helping someone who is disadvantaged. It's like making someone run in the olympics who should be running in the special olympics. They would have a much harder time as it is, so they help them out. They help out the disadvantaged. Most employers want the best workers possible. And to be honest, most employers don't view the mentally handicapped as the best. But without affirmative action, this minority group would never be able to work. It helps them. You also argue that it's abusive that it's like helping them because they wouldn't get the job normally. Affirmative action helps stop discrimination. It stops the people from only hiring white men. It puts into place guidelines against that. It's not that these minorities need help getting a job at all, just that there may be an employer who discriminates against any given minority. It's in place to help them get a job. That's all. Lastly you talk about the three points of hiring. If I'm a white supremicist, all I have to say is that there weren't any african americans, any hispanic americans, any asian americans, etc. that beat out my white workers, and according to you that is a legitimate reason to have no minorities working for me. Affirmative action stops that from happening. Most often, it is about who is the better worker. Very rarely does affirmative action step in, and only if there are two EQUAL candidates and a smaller percentage of minorities working. That's the only time. People blow it way out of proportion. This RARELY EVER happens. Now for my arguments. Look back to last round about how I tell you how I'm winning the arguments. The only one she talks about is the first one with Justice Scalia. So I apparently have won all the others. Now for the Scalia link. Justice Scalia sided with me. Read the link and it tells how it is good to have a wide range of people groups. It's definitely an argument for me. All of my opponents arguments have failed, and mine have gone through virtually unargued. I don't see how you can't vote for me.