Official TOC Round 1

Counterplan: 1. AA is far from color-blind if it rewards one race over another. The pressure to check that box is pretty intense, as seen in the article I cited. 2. My opponent gives no examples of non-ethnic minorities. Any amount of racist weighting is racism. Quotas may have been abolished, but until we abolish the weighting as well, we're still in the hole. 3. Racism isn't positive. On the 3 questions/necessity of AA: 1. Sowell said that crime rates for blacks have gone up, and even black taxi drivers acknowledge this. He states that black males are more often violent than white males, so the taxi driver is more inclined to pick up a white male. 2. My opponent gives no examples. 3. So, you admit that race isn't the primary factor. By "undeserved," I mean that the stereotype isn't true. The fact is, banning felons will ban more blacks than whites. It's true. However, those blacks brought it upon themselves by being felons. For sexism, women are naturally not as strong as men, so having less female firemen makes sense. People get smarter and more experienced as they get older. The correlation there is extremely strong. On increased segregation: I am arguing that the steps are being taken incorrectly. Additionally, not all blacks are impacted by white flight, so rewarding a black man in California for a series of white flights in Mississippi doesn't make sense. On placating the complaining kid: Women's suffrage is an equality movement. That's good. If we started a policy where every woman got two votes, that would be bad. I never said black taxi drivers are more dangerous. We went beyond solving the problem. We recreated the problem in the other direction. That's like saying, "He punched you, so you punch him." That gets us nowhere. On CPR: CPR doesn't even fit the definition from Round 1. On public sector: Well, giving certain races more points on their applications isn't creating an equal shot. I think the Pro-Minority thing should be tossed out completely, and it should be entirely replaced with Pro-Disadvantaged, because it avoids the huge problem of having middle-class blacks hired above lower-class whites. On the professor to student conversations: A. The penalization might as well have existed. It was for imagery. Any weighting is reverse discrimination. If the points ever make an impact, it's racism. Otherwise, why'd you add the points? B. The words "assignment" and "application" haven't been mentioned until this point. C. But even the government is pressuring them to check the box! D. It's a first-hand experience that affirmative action labels blacks as "disadvantaged" and is reverse discrimination. On majorities not being hired & rewarding random people: 1. No, this is looking at the weighting for minorities, which edges a minority into a position to replace a majority, even though the majority had more deserved points. "If the public sector is hiring more minorities (warrant?), it is not a product of AA as outlined in my sources & case." This is, in fact, a concession that the A.A. that you are using does not lead to an increase in the hiring of minorities in the public sector, which is what the definition of Pro-Minority Affirmative Action requires. You've killed your own case. 2. No black American alive today has experienced slavery. Few black American college applicants today have experienced Jimmy Crow laws. That was the past. This also ignores the fact that there are majority members who are in the lower class. Should we ignore them? On the drastic reduction of minority college admittants: Only white males? No. Pro-Disadvantaged Affirmative Action would help minorities, although it is indirect, and a number of minorities and women made it to college before Affirmative Action. Any person who can climb whatever ranks are in his or her way (it's not as many as you think, for a bright enough person) should be allowed to whatever he or she wants, as long as it is legal. On correlation of poverty & race: 1. However, there is correlation, because the poverty rates and distributions in each race are different in a consistent manner. My opponent admits that anybody can be socio-disadvantaged. So, why should we only help the ones that have dark skin? 2. http://www.apmforum.com... The Asian work ethic. The Asians actually do have a better work ethic than other races. If all ethnicities have equal income, then why would A.A. even sound reasonable? You assume that Asians are favored by legend, but they started the legend themselves. 3. No. I'm saying that people should not assume that just because those two groups have a higher average income, that all whites and Asians are more qualified than all blacks and Hispanics. On the "brilliant" plan of weighting: Your A.A. isn't even A.A. by your own definition. If you're not going to make the correlation, I am. http://www.infoplease.com... On my Supreme Court Warrants: beem0r is logical, as proven by his debates. The Supreme Court's statement falls at the first application of logic. Something that discriminates against students does not help them. It's obvious that their statement isn't logical, so they become unreliable. On the negative 'advocacy' at the bottom of RD 1: 1. The idea of affirmative action for all socio-economically disadvantaged minorities (as you have decided to exclude Asians) generalizes that they are all socio-economically disadvantaged, including those in the middle class. I never claimed that black cab drivers are more violent. I said that even they are less likely to pick up a black male, because they know that there is a high crime rate among black males. The facts are there to support that. However, not all black males are violent. It's just a fact that they are more likely to be violent, which is really the black population's own fault. 2. My opponent hasn't established these *other* minorities. Also, I shall reiterate why my opponent's affirmative action doesn't qualify as Pro-Minority Affirmative Action, as defined in this debate. From Round 1: "Pro-Minority Affirmative Action: positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded." From Round 2: "If the public sector is hiring more minorities (warrant?), it is not a product of AA as outlined in my sources & case." 1. To qualify as Pro-Minority Affirmative Action for this debate, a policy needs to increase the representation of minorities in areas of employment, education, and business. (Established in Round 1.) 2. The policies that are called affirmative action by alto2osu are not the cause of the increase of hiring. (Conceded in Round 2.) 3. "Affirmative action" does not qualify as Pro-Minority Affirmative Action for this debate. By this logical syllogism, my opponent's entire case falls apart. She's not even arguing to affirm the resolution. The only thing she does have that can be used for the resolution is the weighting of applications for minorities, which has been conceded to be racism. So, it comes down to whether or not this racist policy is positive reform, and racism is not positive, especially given the Fourteenth Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org... "[N]o state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Therefore, any law enacted to prevent adding points based on race is constitutional, because currently, universities have been distributing rights unequally, giving an advantage to those of darker skin. Until my opponent can point out why a middle-class African American deserves more points than a lower-class European-American because he is "socio-economically disadvantaged," it is obvious that weighting applications is unfair, and far from positive.