Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.

Thanks to my opponent for the delightful debate. Here goes: "What I was trying to prove is that there is a built in disadvantage." While this may be somewhat true (i.e. smaller proportions of specified minorities in a given workforce, etc.), it does not justify affirmative action being used. If my opponent chooses to call this a disadvantage, I'll go ahead and agree with that. But whether or not women make less than men on average is a separate issue that should thus be dealt with separately. Affirmative action in college admissions is a different topic. "Affirmative Action is necessary so that women and people of color of every economic class have the opportunity to enter all fields." But who is to say that women and minorities do NOT have the same opportunities as others have? The color of the skin of an individual does not alter the opportunities in which they are presented. Rather, if a major determining/causative factor were to be established, then it would most likely be financial status of the individual. More money means more opportunities (as many opportunities cost money, sometimes lots of it). "Affirmative Action helps qualified candidates overcome racism and sexism." Again, if the institution wanted there to be more diversity in their admissions, racism and sexism are not things to worry about. Even if affirmative action were to only be applied to tiebreakers, it is unjust. Just as I can CHOOSE to watch CNN or MSNBC over FOX News, a private institution for college should be able to choose on their own, without interference, their admitted students. Not admitting a minority (even if they are hypothetically equally qualified) does not equal racism. Similarly, not admitting a women (even when hypothetically equally qualified) does not mean sexism. "Everyone benefits when discrimination is eliminated." Discrimination would unlikely even be limited, much less eliminated altogether, with affirmative action steps. Caucasians are the ones being discriminated against in affirmative action. Merely because they were born with less pigmentation is not a justified reason to not include them in tiebreakers. As well, my opponent has already stated that there would be few spaces in which affirmative action would likely be used anyway, reasoning to be a less-than-significant factor in reducing said discrimination. "People with poor financial records have no problems getting into college if they try just like everyone else." But my point was this: if there should be a tiebreaker, it should be awarded to the individual who had less opportunity. This would most easily relate to the one who had less money to support opportunities that others may have taken for granted. "Not to mention that Affirmative Action STILL gives a disadvantaged group. Perhaps if you accept this argument, then give impoverished people AND minorities and women special acceptance policies." What affirmative action does is it makes a sweeping generalization, making it appear that all minorities and women are disadvantaged. This is not at all the case. If there should be a valid tiebreaker, then it should go to the individual who worked hard to acquire the same opportunities as many wealthier kids already had. There should not necessarily be any distinct and intentional correlation between tiebreaker winners and ethnic groups. "First of all, I don't see ‘definite' in the resolution. Second of all, just because something SHOULD be done, doesn't mean it's the only thing that should be done. Finally, affirmative action is a choice." Pro logically must prove with evidence that affirmative action should be used in college admissions. There is no room for potential doubt that it might not be good to be put to use. Meanwhile, I, as the contender, must show that affirmative action should not NECESSARILY be used in college admissions. I do not have to prove that it explicitly should not be used, but rather take a position that would negate the resolution. The resolution does not state that affirmative action should be a choice. Instead, it reads, "affirmative action should be practiced." The verb usage of "practiced" signifies, according to a standard dictionary search, it should be carried out, applied, performed, engaged in, etc. This is definite. I have been arguing that affirmative action should not necessarily be "practiced" in college admissions. "Affirmative Action levels the playing field so people of color and all women have the chance to compete in education and in business. White men hold 95% to 97% of the high-level corporate jobs. And that's with affirmative action programs in place." Since when was the playing field not "level?" Rarely, if ever, do I hear of college institutions that are racist. I am not arguing that tiebreakers should go to the Caucasians, but rather that a neutral stance should be given. Instead of it going to any specific group, the private institution should decide upon the admission independently. The race of the applicants should be irrelevant and have no bearing on the decision. If "white men hold 95% to 97% of the high-level corporate jobs," then perhaps Caucasians are on average more qualified for the specified jobs, and/or the Caucasians are more abundant in the referred workforce. "RACISM STILL EXSITS." Unfortunately, it does still exist. But my impression of racism was anything the included the color of the skin of an individual as a part of making a decision that could include other people as well. Ergo, making Caucasians automatically not win tiebreakers would be considered a racist fashion. "The resolution says that it SHOULD be used, not that it MUST be used." However, there is a difference between "it should be used" and "it can be used" (with the latter referring to the choice of it being used or not). Whether or not it "must" be used is irrelevant. When one says, "affirmative action should be used," they are restricting the decision-making capability and right of the private institution that SHOULD be the one that decides anyway. Of course it should be a choice amongst private institutions. Along that assumption, I win this debate. "Affirmative action does NOT infringe upon this right." The way the resolution is worded assumes an infringement upon this right. See above. The reason I previously brought up the issue of how we should define people of color was mainly to stress the fact that there is somewhat of a subjective authority here. That is, is a Mexican a person of color? Does it only apply to a specific group of ethnicity? These are questions that are instrumental in establishing the ethics of affirmative action. For example, it may seem that the government is giving preferential treatment to African-Americans more than Asian minorities. Assessing the level of color in the skin of an individual seems like either an arduously irrelevant or far too arbitrary of a task for maintaining a proper and logical system. Secondly, I brought it up as a practicality of how ridiculous and futile it would be for the development and implementation of a logical system of affirmative action. See prior rounds for further detail. For the reasons of the inequality (whether intentional or not) caused by the affirmative action as addressed during this debate, restrictions of private institutional liberty of choice given by the wording of the resolution, and social effects (racism in either direction: see the above rounds) that would likely be caused as a result of affirmative action implementation, I stress a CON vote. I would like to thank my opponent for providing an exciting and rigorous debate. It has been a joy participating. I would also like to thank any audience, judges, or people speculatively interested in this debate topic for reading it. Good luck in future debates during this tournament as well. Cheers, Oboeman