The US should abolish affirmative action

I want to make two observations. Observation One - In the status quo, affirmative action is carried out by the state in the public sector and in public universities. Those are carried out by the state, and those will continue. The difference from the status quo is that they will be multi-tiered. This is a clarification on Hayd’s observation.Observation Two - The weighing mechanism for this round is based on the balance of rights, as Hayd notes in Round 1. Hayd concedes that the right to life, the right to economic opportunity, and so on are all facets of the right to freedom. So note that, given that Hayd has pretty much dropped the whole of contention 1, he has conceded a huge portion of the balance of rights. My CaseExtend contention 1. Affirmative action reduces discrimination. I gave you three mechanisms through which it reduces discrimination. First, discrimination in hiring is extremely prevalent and affirmative action solves for it. Second, within workplaces and educational institutions, affirmative action changes practices by increasing overall representation, meaning better sexual harassment policies, dealing with wage gaps better, and so on. Third, and exceptionally importantly, affirmative action enables poor individuals to put food on the table for their families and to escape conditions of poverty. Hayd concedes all of this. The only thing he says is that he “disagrees” that affirmative action is a way to resolve the problem of discrimination in hiring – even though I proved that affirmative action solves this discrimination and Hayd doesn’t even mention an alternative. He even concedes that affirmative action changes policies within the workplace and increases the quality of life of individuals. He loses this debate already.This is the single biggest impact in the round. Hayd’s value is the rights of citizens – rights that need to be held in a balance. Injustice is a fundamental violation on the freedom of individuals. If affirmative action counters that injustice, I already win. But beyond just that, basic access to economic opportunities and a life without poverty is a facilitative right: it guarantees a much larger number of freedoms, in terms of basic survival, in terms of educating your kids, putting food on the table, and in terms of being able to afford a lot more. Insofar as the third subpoint holds, I’m already preserving freedom much more than Hayd is – especially as the individuals whose freedom I’m protecting are marginalized people who have access to far less freedom than those Hayd is protecting, majority individuals who don’t face this systemic discrimination. You don’t even need to look at the rest of the debate to vote Con. Note: This impact is also a “quantified” one. Hayd is going to through millions of people into unemployment and replace those jobs with far wealthier individuals, who need those jobs far less. Just look into sources [9], [10], and [14] for precise quantification. Extend contention 2. Affirmative action ensures diversity. Hayd concedes this, but contests the impact of diversity as “unquantified,” and thus is outweighed by his impact of freedom. First, his impact of freedom isn’t quantified either. The impact of diversity is economic efficiency, which translates to better wages for workers and more employment, which is a huge impact in terms of Hayd’s framework of “freedom.” Which means, since both impacts are freedom-based, both impacts are unquantified. Second, here’s some quantification, if that’s what Hayd wants. One study found that “increase in women’s overall share of labor in the United States—women went from holding 37 percent of all jobs to 47 percent over the past 40 years—has accounted for about a quarter of current GDP.” [17] A study by Vincenzo Bove and Leandro Elia found that diversity due to migration has a “distinct positive impact on real GDP per capita.” [18] The same logic must extend onto affirmative action. Diversity has clear benefits, which are much more quantified than Hayd’s abstract of “freedom.” Third, Hayd drops that diversity also facilitates integration, by creating role models and by destroying stereotypes (given that more interaction with smart minority individuals will probably end up destroying stereotypes). Conclusion: My case has huge impacts of economic growth, poverty reduction, and fighting injustice. There is clear racism and sexism in the status quo that deprives vulnerable individuals of educational and economic opportunities, that affirmative action provides. Pro’s Casea) Hayd first says “affirmative action values genetic lineage over ability, and that this runs counter to the concept of free will.” This is a bare assertion – there’s no reason to think that “merit” as a value is fundamental to the idea of freedom. Moreover, even if it’s a violation of freedom, he doesn’t quantify the violation, and it pales in comparison to the benefits of affirmative action on marginalized individuals. b) Hayd says “Tej has to prove that AA dispels more racism than it creates, which is impossible in the absence of quantity.” But that’s not my BOP – it’s Hayd’s burden to prove that affirmative action creates more racism than it dispels if he wants to make this argument. I’m not making an argument here, Hayd is. c) On the taxation analogy, Hayd says that you can control your income, but not your genetic lineage. This is a lie. The amount of control you have over your income is very, very limited in the vast majority of instances – individuals from wealthy backgrounds are more likely to get better opportunities because they get educated better, and so on. For all intents and purposes, income can’t really be controlled either.d) It’s true that those who receive reparations aren’t slaves. However, they do face direct harm as a result of historic slavery. So I concede that the reparation doesn’t have to be “directly proportional” to the historic harm of slavery and Jim Crowe – merely to the extent that they are harmed by it and individuals in the present continue to perpetuate that harm or benefit off of the theft of property that led them to this condition. Underview:Even if you buy Pro’s entire case, vote Con. I protect the rights of people substantially more than Hayd’s marginal, unquantified impacts. [17] https://www.americanprogress.org...[18] http://www.sciencedirect.com...