Affirmative action leads to majorities being robbed of opportunities they rightfully deserve.

"Because of same reasons the children of Yirimnots end up less educated, less aware and consequently less qualified in next generation also." However, because Yirimnots always have a chance of succeeding, and Yarimjots have a chance of failing, over time, the two races will be equal. It would just take a lot longer, but it would go more smoothly. Additionally, the added benefit to Yirimnots is obvious, but it doesn't help negate the resolution. "And you are completely wrong! What is more - your mistake takes us to the heart of problem. As I have explained above ï¿½€" they will never catch up on their own." And why not? The hardest-working Yirimnots will be hired by Catino, and then if their children are also hard-working, based on their parents' hard work ethics, they will also succeed, and after a number of generations, it will even out. "So it can be safely assumed that they are relatively more intelligent as well as hardworking. The lack of qualification is just due to circumstances." Relatively more intelligent? The Yarimjots had more education, which directly contributes to higher intelligence, and thus more qualification. And qualifications are really the only thing that an employer should have to consider. It takes hard work to get a high education in the first place. Thus, because the Yarimjots go through this relevant hard work, they deserve the job. "I don't see the problem. Rather - this is the way it should be." However, trying to fix a problem quickly rather than over time results in people who aren't qualified for a job. It is fairly obvious that society benefits most when all people are qualified for their jobs, and perform their jobs correctly. If Yirimnots who aren't qualified take jobs, then they do the jobs worse than those Yarimjots would have, and thus, less production for society. "Let me just repeat. These figures are exaggerated." Maybe. I don't really know the effect, but it will inevitably have an effect, and the effect will inevitably have a downside for the economy. Also, it is relevant, because it shows how people should be hired for the jobs they are qualified for. "I do not know Mr. Thomas Sowell..." Well, yes. Teenagers who work at McDonalds counters will not work at McDonalds all of their lives; they will eventually move on to a better job, and as they continue to get promotions, they travel through various quintiles. Yes, he did back his claims with many sources at the back of the book. "Happy hunting!..." Yeah, those statistics are misleading. For one thing, the income of a household by no means tells the income of an individual. Page 126: "A rising standard of living is itself one of the factors behind reduced household size over time. Increased real income per person enables more people to live in their own separate dwelling units, instead of with parents, roommates, or strangers in a rooming house. Yet a reduction in the number of people living under the same roof as a result of increased prosperity can lead to statistics that are often cited as proof of economic stagnation. In a low-income household, increased income may either cause that household's income to rise above the poverty level or cause overcrowding to be relieved by having some members go form their own separate households-- which in turn can lead to statistics showing two households living below the poverty level, where there was only one before. Such statistics are not inaccurate but the conclusion drawn can be fallacious." If everyone in America suddenly had their own house, it would be great, but statistics would show that the bottom 10% of households make nothing, when the households are actually individual children and retirees. Thus, your source is fallacious. Another thing that makes most of those statistics fallacious is that the standard of living is always rising: Page 129: "As for stagnation, by 2001 most people defined as poor had possessions once considered part of a middle class lifestyle. Three-quarters of them had air-conditioning, which only a third of all Americans had in 1971. Ninety-seven percent had color television, which less than half of all Americans had in 1971. Seventy-three percent owned a microwave, which less than one percent of all Americans owned in 1971, and 98 percent of 'the poor' had either a video cassette or a DVD player, which no one had in 1971. In addition, 72 percent of 'the poor' owned a car or truck. Yet the rhetoric of the 'haves' and the 'have nots' continues, even in a society where it might be more accurate to refer to the 'haves' and 'have lots.'" Thus, because people are generally living in a more comfortable, advanced lifestyle as time goes on, the standard of living is always rising. Oh, and note that Reamviatiff is as developed as America is today, for consistency. "To fit this logic into the debate..." However, you have admitted that Yarimjots are more affluent on average than Yirimnots. This would mean that more company executives are Yarimjots than Yirimnots. And even if this particular factory is headed by a Yirimnot, there are bound to be situations elsewhere in the country (it's a large country, about the size of Brazil) in which a Yarimjot is being forced to cut down productivity. My logic has now been reinforced to be more relevant to the debate. "Sure..." Good. I just wanted to establish a brief history for Reamviatiff. "I am lousy in solving anagrams..." http://wordsmith.org... In conclusion: Affirmative action results in Yarimjots being deprived of the chance to be hired by Catino industries, even though they are, as conceded, more qualified than the Yirimnots that would replace them, and qualifications are what decide who rightfully deserve a job. Additionally, affirmative action forces company executives and factory managers (mostly Yarimjots, by majority and affluence) to hire workers who are less qualified, and therefore less productive for the company. Thus, the Yarimjots are robbed of the opportunity to hire the most qualified workers of all applicants overall, which is an opportunity that any business manager rightfully deserves. Thank you for this debate. I've enjoyed writing this story and anagrams, and I look forward to your response. :-)