Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions

I did have some fun video's to show my opponent why CAPS for emphasis on words is good for debate. However, I ran out of characters from showing how flawed my opponents position is. My Case CONTENTION 1: ---Can't this ‘encouragement' be fulfilled by a quota? ---Evidence? Anywhere? If you look to my poverty example however, you will see that obviously they do not have a job or a college admission, because, well they are in poverty. Furthermore, if you actually look to his definition, it just says encouragement of increased representation, but does not say that this increase is earned. He and the definition assume they are equal in qualifications, but in the end, there is no way to know this for sure. ---He makes no direct attacks on my actual arguments. At this point, flow through my arguments. Particularly the quota evidence where he claims that I don't know what affirmative action is. But at the point where one of the few evidence quotes in this debate says that affirmative action leads to quotas and that this is absurd, my arguments stand and affirmative action should not be practiced. CONTENTION 2: ---You COMPLETELY miss the point of my 2nd contention. By having legislation like hate crimes, affirmative action, special scholarship programs, etc., we actually recognize that all of us are different. However, we are all Americans with similar goals. Why then do we treat each other with different standards? CONTENTION 3: ---He does not answer my question. "When will the people taken advantage of, by affirmative action, be made up for?" Flow this through. This is unfortunately true. Minorities and women were taken advantage of in the past, but now all that we are doing is reversing this and now we are taking advantage of white males. (Cross-apply this to the Reverse-Discrimination line of arguing) CONTENTION 4: <'do both affirmative action and help the poor.' "Theres no reason why we can't just do both"> ---There is no reason that we SHOULD do both. When you look to Obama, you will see that there is absolutely no built in disadvantage for minorities and women. However, there is a built in disadvantage for people in poverty. And if you accept this resolution, there is a built in disadvantage for white males as well. We should mitigate this and recognize affirmative action as bad for America. His ‘case'… I think DEFINITION OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ---In my opponent's last speech, he pulled through the definition of affirmative action. Note the contradictions however: -Affirmative Action defined: "the encouragement of increased representation of women and minority-group member" -(Round 1): "All i have to prove is that all colleges should have to do is ensure that minority groups are represented, no matter how small of representation." -(Round 3): "Just read the definition, it just ensures there is representation" ---From this, I can assume that we can drop the idea that affirmative action is simply encouragement, but rather, it actually proactively increases their representation. And by doing so, decreases the representation of non-minorities and males. ---My opponent says time and again that we are racist if we don't use affirmative action. But once again, I have no problem admitting minorities, IF IT IS EARNED (flow this through). I have shown time and again that it is actually racist to be blindly increasing representation of minorities and women just to escape racism and sexism. If you look to the definition, it would fit if there was a (white) student with a 36 ACT score vs. a (minority) student with a 12 ACT score, and we accepted the 12 score above. The definition ONLY calls for an increase, nothing more. Is it fair to have such a blind view of racism? I think not. ---Finally, this does not have to be the final definition used in this debate. Cross apply my very first contention where I say through evidence, "Allowing blacks entrance to a university to fill some quota or to enhance the "racial balance" of a campus is absurd" … what this means is that he talks about increasing minorities and women in college, but fails to see that this could very well be meeting some sort of quota. ---Your definition gives no indication, so even according to your ideas from you last speech, it doesn't matter ‘what you said'. ---Again, what if it is not earned? You give nothing to counter this. Furthermore, I urge you to flow through my Barak Obama analysis that clearly shows that we as a society have overcome the racism barrier. Does it still exist? Yes, but currently, it is only legislated against whites and males. And the racism barrier vice versa from this is minor. ---Furthermore, if a minority or a woman thinks that they have not been accepted based on race or sex, they can still sue, but yet white males can not because of affirmative action (see why new arguments in your last speech is bad? But as you say, "debate and shut up") ---But even as you admit, they are not the only ones. Furthermore, several minorities are richer than white people. Not just people like Oprah, but even just the race of Asian. Certainly this has presumptuous ideals, but so does Affirmative Action. WHY do we have to give special legislative rights to people because the pigmentation of their skin is different than mine? It is just something that we should NOT practice. ---Um… no? First of all, there is absolutely no proof to back up this point. But more importantly, look to the special scholarship programs that can be targeted at minorities. But guess what? There are absolutely NO scholarship programs that only white people can obtain. My options for colleges were extremely few and far between because I could not afford to get into the places that I actually wanted to go to. Yet minorities obtain these special scholarships all the time. In a time where our president is black, we no longer need this special legislation. ---No… RICH people have a better chance of having higher grades. This is exactly why we should target people in poverty, not people with different colors of skin. If you are a minority in poverty, then you will get this special treatment. But it would be unjust to say that a white person with the exact same disadvantage gets no special treatment whatsoever. ---A) What if this increased is not earned? Cross-apply my ACT example. ---B) It is a pure assumption that we are still in a racist world that desires this special treatment. Does racism exist? Yes. Does it mean that we have to go out of our way to become REVERSE-discriminatory? No. Why is it, that we can elect a black president ---As you say, "debate and shut up"… Besides, you've provided absolutely NO evidence this entire debate. Except perhaps a definition. In the end, we should either: A) No one should get special treatment and we should strictly work off of an equal opportunity, or B) If we are to give special treatment, it should be given to people in poverty. Either way, affirmative action should NOT be practiced in college admissions. Even though I don't like how you constantly made fun of me for the stupidest reasons. And your grammar is terrible. I still enjoyed this deba