Affirmative Action to promote equal opportunity in the United States is justified

First off i'd like to point out that my opponent does not offer many sources in this round, therefore reducing her credibility. Because my opponent does not give a source for her definition we have to look at the con side for all the definitions. From the Cato Institute, "Affirmative action means taking positive steps to end discrimination, to prevent its recurrence, and to create new opportunities that were previously denied qualified minorities and women." According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, to "Justify" something means "To prove or show to be just; to vindicate; to maintain or defend as conformable to law, right, justice, propriety,or duty." I will now move on to the rest of my opponents case. Contention one: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION HAS OUTLIVED ITS USEFULNESS My opponent explains how Affirmative Action works, and Barrack Obama is living proof of this. So therefore we no longer need affirmative action. UCLA law Professor Jerry Kang said there needs to be affirmative action because discrimination is natural within humans. In an ideal world, humans would not make decisions based on race, so there would be no need for affirmative action, he said. But studies show that people still carry some stereotypes, called implicit bias, even though they openly declare that they do not, Kang said. He said experiments have shown discrimination does exist, even if only on a subconscious level, and that is why affirmative action is so necessary. Instead of dodging the bullet, Affirmative Action actually goes to the root of the problem to fix it. Because discrimination is so wide spread, affirmative action is one of the most effective ways to promote equal opportunity in the United States. I will now move on to my opponents second contention. Contention two: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DOES MORE HARM THAN GOOD. My opponent uses the following quote: Currently, eighty percent of whites and 71 percent of Hispanics are against the special preference given by Affirmative Action. We can not weigh this piece of evidence in the round, because it has no source, and therefore is not credible. Writer Paul Kivel rejects the notion that white men are widely subjected to "reverse discrimination" or are systematically by-passed in favor of unqualified minorities: If one looks at the composition of various professions such as law, medicine, architecture, academics and journalism, or at corporate management, or at higher-level government positions, or if one looks overall at the average income levels of white men, one immediately notices that people of color are still significantly underrepresented and underpaid in every category. People of color don't make up the proportions of these jobs even remotely equal to their percentage in the population. Therefore reverse discrimination does not have many measurable impacts. I will not finish with my opponents last contention CONTENTION THREE: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS RACIST. What you must realize is that equal opportunity does not always mean equal treatment. If were were to accomplish equality Affirmative Action is the most effective means of reaching it. Equality is an impossible concept to achieve. We can only make it easier to get. I will assume you agree with the statement that: Socially, there is currently no full Equality of race. So, Affirmative action is a system to allow equality to be stable and exist. And with this you can see most of all the impacts fall on the Pro side of this argument: Therefore i urge a ballot in Affirmation of the resolution revolved: Affirmative action to promote equal opportunity in the United States is justified.