Affirmative action policies should be justified in the US

Because that we are now on the final rounds I will put up one rule following upon the next round 1)No more new present arguments/evidence->unless your opponents asked for one For now let me reconstruct my opponents refutation towards my argument They have refuted my claim that we should now discriminate the other class for past discrimination, and discrimination has now lessened. But just because we now have a president that is black does not mean that there is no discrimination at all in our country, which in my definition is the US. My opponents are complaining on the fact that we NEED to discriminate higher classes to pay back the minorities disturbed past. But ladies and gentleman I ask you, what other way is there to pay back these minorities? Which now leads me to the question that I want to state: Does that mean it is okay to discriminate the other side forever? That we should never let minorities have their equality? No, that is why we need affirmative action because I can't stress enough that this way is the most effective to pay back all the killings and unfairness brought upon minorities! My opponent have basically stated in the first sentences of the paragraph exactly what I intended to say! Perfect! Nonetheless, they have also said refuted my claims in now black people are getting more chances and making it unfair. Haven't I not stated that there are people out there who work hard for their degree, yet they don't get hired for it?[1] It also follows me up to the fact that they refuted my claim for "extraordinary sources" and hiring without merit. Extraordinary source? Here you go. [1] But have my opponent not read that before, they were never considered from skin and race even if they had a degree? Affirmative Action is allowing discriminated people have a chance! Higher classes have been favoured one too many ladies and gentleman! Why should we not allow affirmative action? There is no reason why we should not! The fact that my opponent is implying in her whole arguments is that we are being unfair to the higher classes! But why should we be fair to them when they have already been considered to in the future? Affirmative Action is making things fair, and they fail to realize this. Not only that, but they gave us the SAT example. But do they not realize that these minorities never got chances they had in the past? "What is our moral obligation to present an unfair workplace due to past grievances, and admittedly, grievances that happened well over a century ago (slavery and widespread discrimination)? I'd say that, while we need to recognise what happened in the past, we do not need to elevate the precious workplace in order to make people feel good about bad things that happened in the past" Because these grievances happened over a century ago, doesn't mean we should skip it in our cycle of life. People still grow up, knowing these specific discriminated races. They are implying that we have no right to make them feel good. But that is not what I am saying. I am showing why we need to do this. For equality, for better diversity, not solely off of past discrimination. My opponents are taking my argument too harsh and we are not focused on that one argument. It only SUGGESTS that it only makes it fair. I apologize for taking "reverse discrimination" into this debate, but if my opponents will not use this as an argument, I will move forth into my case. Because my opponent said there is no such thing, I will consider this as something I do not need to refute on. From what I read, they have not refuted my diversity claim, therefore making it still stand. Affirmative action shows an equal future. That if we allow the other race to have a chance in reality, our future promises an equal society. Affirmative action shows us an increase in diversity, making workplaces much more efficient than hiring the same race over and over again. Not only that, but it shows justice towards the discriminated race. Ladies and gentleman, my opponent has been ignoring my definition all along. It says in the resolution, justified. We see affirmative action as a just act towards our future. It shows a right towards the minorities, a right for them to be as equal. My opponent only suggests that it harms the higher classes. But ladies and gentleman, these minorities have been harmed. Why do we make this just by not giving the higher classes a burden, like the minorities. On the balance of equality, affirmative action shows us that it balances it out in our future. It will make better work forces from diversity. It will increase opportunities the Lets dig into the cost-benefit analysis. On the opposition, the cost is large especially to the higher class. On my side, the benefit is towards the minorities. Which one would you want to support? My viewers for the debate, do you not agree that the benefit towards minorities is much more vast than the harms of higher classes? Long term, the impact of affirmative action is big. It is equal, and we want an equal society. Be my guest, would you let the minorities take a stand in our society today? Or let the higher considered race take over the whole equality stance? Vote pro, please take in consideration of my last questions. I again, give my best wishes to con. It was a great debate and I am looking forward to debating again with you :) 1: http://www.usatoday.com...