My affirmative action policy is better than my opponent's.

Thank you, TheAtheistAllegiance, for this debate. This will be my final round; I request that my opponent not make any brand new arguments in this round, as I will be unable to respond to them. 1) Clarifications My opponent plans to allow mixed-race people to choose which race they are. Obviously, if they want to benefit from affirmative action, they're all going to identify as a minority. I know quite a few people who are a small fraction Native American; even though they've never been oppressed by the fact for generations, and are in all other cases completely white, they're still going to benefit as if they were an oppressed minority. How fair is it to reward someone for having different blood, even though it made practically no difference in their life? The same could be said for any mixed-race individual. My opponent also claims that there's no problem of racial inequality involving Asians. However, I've already pointed out that Asians have done better than any other race in America. Doesn't this mean racial inequality, which is supposedly a problem? Apparently, it's okay for Asians to be ahead of everybody else, but not okay for whites to be ahead of blacks. This doesn't make sense. Asian success is generally attributed to a culture heavily geared towards higher education, pushing Asians ahead of their peers; it could also be caused by simple genetics [1]. If a culture or gene can exist that increases success, like Asians, why is it unthinkable that another exists that decreases success in other races? 2) Color-Blindness A. My opponent again discusses racial equality, although why racial equality is so important is still unclear. He points out that black individuals have been cheated for centuries, but if, today, a black individual is equal to a white individual, aren't they overall equally cheated/rewarded? What happened centuries ago is not as important as the result, which is that this admissions policy is deciding between two individuals that are now equal in every respect except race. The paths their ancestors travelled isn't what is important; it's the paths that they travelled, which are pretty much the same. B. It is true that the average white individual earns more than the average black individual, but in my opponent's affirmative action plan, the only scenario in which our policies would produce different results would be between two individuals of the SAME income of different races. Under both our policies, the poor are favored over the rich, but only in his system is one person preferred over an equal. He calls this scenario "the exception," but because it is the exception, my policy doesn't discriminate upon this exceptional equality, while my opponent's policy does. My opponent also calls bad luck and bad financial decisions "one's own problems and responsibility." However, it is usually the individual's ancestors that had bad luck or poor decision-making skills. Why should the son be punished for his ancestors' mistakes? Nobody chooses their parents; one could consider being born into any family of low income to be "bad luck"; why should the reason that the family was unlucky make an impact on the fact that the luck was overall the same? If two individuals end up applying for the same college with the same grades coming from families of the same socioeconomic status, doesn't this mean that their luck is equal? And perhaps my opponent would argue that being born into a black family would itself be "bad luck" because black families tend to make less than white families, but as long as the incomes turned out to be equal, the "bad luck" was then followed up by good luck, so race really doesn't matter. 3) Individual vs. Group A. Yes, averages represent groups, but there is no one average person that you're discriminating for or against. And yes, there is a significant difference in the average incomes of blacks and whites, but why rely on overall statistics when you can look at the exact income of each individual? There may be racial equality overall, but if the two individuals have the same family income, then the racial disparity doesn't apply; as my opponent himself said, we have come across an exception to the rule. Shouldn't this exception be treated differently from cases in which the white individual is richer than the black individual? Doesn't the equality of two individuals demand equal treatment? Anything short of equality would be unfair. B. My opponent claims that discrimination against whites and for blacks is okay because the inequality is largely attributable to historical injustice and current racism. He hasn't actually made any arguments using current racism yet, and doesn't establish this claim very well. However, I have already explained why historical injustice is irrelevant: it happened in the past, to the individual's ancestors. The net effect of everything that happened in the past is the current status of each applicant, which, in our only debatable scenario, is exactly the same. Equality. It is only fair that they then be treated with such equality. 4) Averages Most of these points are repeat points, I'll just use my opponent's quote here: "If the policy arbitrarily focuses on a relatively rich black and a relatively poor white for its comparisons, then it isn't going to achieve optimal results, such as fairness and equality among race." Both of our policies will favor a poor white over a rich black and a poor black over a rich white. The only situation in which our policies differ is when the two individuals are equal; we have a relatively rich black and a relatively poor white. My opponent himself claims that this discrimination won't help to achieve fairness and equality, even though he's the only one who uses such discrimination. In effect, by claiming that the only action he will take that I won't doesn't contribute to fairness, he has admitted that his policy is no more fair than mine. As I have already explained why such discrimination not only doesn't increase fairness, but actually decreases fairness, as it discriminates between equals, my policy is more fair than my opponent's, affirming the resolution and winning me te debate. To conclude, I will quote myself to summarize my position: "Ultimately, discriminating between equals is hardly a sound measure for promoting fairness or equality." Thank you, TheAtheistAllegiance, for this debate. I've enjoyed discussing our affirmative action policies with each other. Good luck with your final round. I would also like to thank the readers if you've managed to read this entire debate, which took no small portion of your time. 1. http://freewill.typepad.com...