The free market is the best solution for racism and discrimination.

I shall now make my counterarguments. "I am talking about discrimination in the context of the market; regarding jobs, careers and businesses. I am not talking about a society in whole, just an aspect of the society, in this case, the market. " Incorrect. I can assure both the audience and my opponent that there was no misunderstanding whatsoever. I was fully aware of the scope of my opponent's proposal, but he did not understand my point fully. My point is that regardless of how much we narrow the scope, racism and discrimination are rooted in the very fiber of society. I don't expect my opponent to eliminate all racism and discrimination through this free market proposal, but I also find it naive for him to think that the free market proposal can balance against something that is so intrinsically rooted into society. What my opponent fails to understand is that the economy is held up by people, not by computer programs or soulless robots. His proposal is founded on the irrational notion that the mechanisms taught in a high school economics class are enough to explain the complexities of the human interaction we call the market. So no, this is not "outside influence". My opponent cannot argue this resolution by fantastically cutting off ties to the real world, and what the real world entails. As long as people act as employers, and people run the economy, and people run businesses, we cannot ignore the variable of human bias in this conversation. "There are two applicants - one rhino and one panda. The employers job manager estimates that while the panda will bring in $28,000 in profits, the rhino will bring in $31,000 in profits, based on their experiences and individual merits. .. If he decided to act on his prejudice and chose the panda as his employee, the panda would only earn $3000, thereby costing the employer $3000 in profits. " My opponent's point rests on the assumption that we can find, with exact precision and accuracy, the amount of profit that an employee can generate compared to another. Does no one else find this completely absurd? What my opponent is looking for, is an objective measure of economic worth, to weight his argument with evidence that does not exist. The fact of the matter is that employers hire mainly out of bias, with certain documentation to help sway their decision. Simply put, an employer that is hiring based on his prejudice has as little idea about his potential profit as an employer that is hiring without irrelevant prejudice. Even *if* my opponent could conclusively prove that there are methods by which he can accurately distinguish between the profit level of one employee and of another employee prior to hiring, having a purely free market does not mean that every employer has to have the pure goal of making money. It just means that the government has no hand in regulating the market. There is nothing about a free market that would make the employer in the analogy change his tune, if he really does have a heavy prejudice. "Lastly, I would like to mention that I find it quite disturbing that my opponent has a seemingly laissez-fair attitude toward intolerance, and gives no real solution on trying to combat it. Remember: genocide ends where indifference begins. " I think I need to take some time to remind my opponent that as the proponent and the instigator, he bears to burden of proof. As the contender, I need not find ways to repair and enhance his proposal in order to help him solve his discrimination-related issues. My stance since the beginning of the debate is that racism and discrimination are inescapable parts of society. My opponent will have to excuse my "seemingly laissez-faire attitude" because that is exactly my position in this debate. Whether not he finds this position disturbing is irrelevant. "My argument stands: the free market is the best way to deal with racism and discrimination. " Something cannot stand if it never existed. See the definition of "free market" . http://en.wikipedia.org... "A free market describes a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to regulate against force or fraud. " In order for my opponent's "argument" to make sense, he must somehow connect the unrelated notions of a free market, and the focus of an employer to put profits above prejudice. He has made this assumption many times, but has never addressed it. In addition, my opponent's "evidence" is a situation in which an employer consciously decides to lose profit because of his prejudice. I have addressed the absurdity of this situation because an employer would not be able to tell the difference with that much accuracy in the first place. With all these holes in his argument, I am surprised that my opponent would even make such a concluding statement. Thank you, I look forward to my opponent's response.