On balance, affirmative action in the United States is desirable

Thank you for taking time to read however much of the debate you read. I know that reading long debates like this one is quite challenging (especially at 10k characters a round), so I really mean “thank you” when I say it!For you, I have summarized all cases and contentions. Negation CaseA salient accusation from the opponent is that my argument is “bull”. I will demonstrate between “bull” and my argument: (Above is “bull”, found here: http://galleryhip.com...) (Above is not “bull”)As you can see, “bull” and my argument are entirely different entities.Premise: The cost of affirmative-actionThe opponent’s counter-argument is mitigation, so even if you agree with the opponent, my argument still generates negation weight.I will admit that the $1.7 and $21.4 billion costs are only partially accounted for by affirmative-action. My Negation Case generates partial weight from this point.The opponent’s misinterpretation of my source is catastrophic, when he blunders accusing my source of saying that the $236 billion cited is a result of “bad hiring decision” and “negative effects on morale.” Please, control+f the source, and you will not find either. Rather, the source *explicitly* says, “Peter Brimelow and Leslie Spencer determined […] cost attributed to federal compliance with affirmative action policies [… were] well over $225 billion” [6]. This figure, ultimately, is uncontested.As for lack of data, Brimelow and Spencer published data in their Forbes article [2].As for the data being not recent, does that mean that the opportunity costs today is non-existent? If anything, due to inflation, the costs will be higher. The opponent’s complaint is trivial.The diversity argument is addressed under my Counter-arguments section.Negation ArgumentsArgument in relation to minority affirmative-action recipients (i.e. African-Americans, Hispanics etc.)Link 1: Affirmative-action hurts minoritiesOverpromotionThe opponent begins by wasting everyone’s time with more impact-less quotes.Ayres’ qualitative assessment is destroyed by the facts I presented: minority students, with affirmative-action in place at a law school, had a pass rate of one in four and are over-represented in the bottom 10% of classes [3]. The opponent provides only an appeal to authority.Wilkin’s point is null because whilst these affirmative-action students have greater networking opportunities available, the expense is that someone else (likely Asian) is deprived of these opportunities – someone gains and loses either way.The argument, in conjunction with Bok’s argument, is more qualitative nonsense. Here, it does not matter whether someone “thinks” they are being harmed. Rather, *are* they actually being harmed? The answer, as I showed in my Round 2 arguments under this heading, is yes! Even worse, as the opponent’s data suggests, is that they’re tricked into thinking that attending courses far above their ability is beneficial! Again, more banal quotes for my opposition.Less black lawyersThe opponent’s counter-argument to Sander’s source is beyond ridiculous. The opponent argues that affirmative-action is “pivotal in achieving racial diversity”, and therefore, Sander’s data is “discredited”. Sorry, but “racial diversity” is not an end in itself (hence the contention). What is an end, is the three out of four minority students flunking their law school courses, and over-representing the bottom 10% of classes [3]. Law schools enroll “potentially successful” students (i.e. the one in four who pass, along with the three who do not) *instead* of the students who are far more likely to succeed, which damages the U.S. economy with $236 billion of opportunity costs [6], as well as the emotional harms to the students [14]. Self-doubtMy opponent’s round 1 definition dictates that affirmative-action applies to “education”, hence, my “high-school” sources remain relevant. Ultimately, three out of four blacks will fail their degrees, thanks to affirmative-action policies. Furthermore, the bottom 10% of classes were found to be over-represented by affirmative-action students [3]. I do not think, especially after presentation of my sources, that anyone enjoys failing or doing poorly at school. Therefore, after failing like this, it is no surprise that affirmative-action students experience self-doubt, great stress and anxiety [14]. Remember: affirmative-action hurts the people who it is meant to help, too.AsiansThis point negates itself; the Asians whom apparently benefit are null by virtue of the ones who do not. Remember: someone’s promotion is another’s sacking.Link 2: Affirmative-action hurts high-performing students, and leads to racial violenceThe opponent concedes that both high-performing White and Asian students are negatively affected by affirmative-action. After that, the opponent argues irrelevancies. The fact is that there are Whites and Asians who *feel* discriminated against (for every affirmative-action student, there has to be someone who misses out). Implicit within the opponent agreeing that “the perception of mistreatment is usually wrong”, is the concession that affirmative-action does indeed generate great amounts of racial tension. Add to that the fact that the opponent concedes my graphs demonstrating great, public tension on the issue, and the result is that my argument here generates great weight. Thus, even the opponent agrees that racial tension results from affirmative-action!The novel “randomly” cited is a summary of research conducted on genetic (racial) interest, so the opponent concedes that source. The opponent later concedes via Ad Hominem and bare assertions (e.g. “racist propaganda”) Professor Rushton’s work on racial tension. Therefore, I affirm, as Salter summarizes, that: “As racial tension strikes a community, as it becomes less homogeneous, it becomes less caring, less friendly and less stable, making it a worse place to live in” [16].As my example of the Baltimore Riot shows, racial tension can erupt into racial violence, which gives further weight to my argument [17].Link 3: Affirmative-action encourages women into jobs they have little interest inGender quotas are backed by the U.S. government, whether illegal or not [12]. The opponent does not understand the grave implications of my contention here. Women *already* have the choices available, as there are laws against exclusion. Now, the U.S. government is taking steps to actively exclude men from positions they would otherwise be entitled to, under equal opportunity laws. As expanded upon in my counter-argument to the Ongoing Sexism contention, women are *choosing* not to enter these professions, even when they have every opportunity to. Hence, there is a great cost in terms of opportunity cost and enforcement of affirmative-action (see my Premise) in attempting to persuade women into jobs they are not interested in. The other impact is that the government openly supports the idea of blatant sexism against men!Counter-argumentsCrystallization: Reparatory JusticeThe opponent never verges on affirming that *past* racial wrongs affect black people *today*, so this argument is hollow nonsense. The opponent’s only attempt at affirmation was under the “Ongoing Racism” contention, wherein both examples the opponent gave vanished in later rounds. Otherwise, the opponent never attempts to demonstrate adverse effects present today; the contention is merely a massive bare assertion.Furthermore, should we not focus on the present? How does racially discriminating against non-affirmative-action students (seeing that places are limited, and someone has to miss-out) “rectify” *past* wrongs? Conclusively, this contention is a massive bare assertion and non-sequitur. Crystallization: DiversityThe opponent completely drops my research from Professor J.P. Rushton, of which demonstrates, using methodology and the scientific method, that increases in diversity merely exacerbate these genetic interests, which leads to racial tension/division in the classroom (which is bad within itself, and can lead to violence). Please extend this argument.The opponent’s interpretation of Putnam is inaccurate. Curiously, even if Putnam does not agree with his data, the fact is that his results show serious problems with diversity, and as we know, diversity leads to racial tension and violence. Again, my opponent appeals to authority, rather than what the facts say.Evidently, diversity is weakness, and actually helps me negate this resolution.Crystallization: [Forced] IntegrationThe opponent’s final clarification is circular: “integration increases the legitimacy of our multiracial democracy” – why would we want such a thing in the first place? Is not one of the contentions on diversity? We are debating this contention on diversity, yet the opponent wants to use it as an assumed premise!Crystallization: Ongoing Racism/SexismWhat a cataclysmic embarrassment this was for the opponent! The opponent drops *ALL THREE* of his original evidence, and then whimpers the bare assertion: “we live in a world where racism/sexism still exists.”After the racial ones were displayed for comedic benefit (they never linked to the resolution, regardless), I eviscerated the gender wage-pay so badly that it is now working heavily in my favor. Moreover, due to the gender wage-pay gap *not* existing, men are heavily *and* unfairly discriminated against under sexist affirmative-action. This impact here is enormous: any place where a woman is hired under affirmative-action (elaboration in Link 3) means that a man is sexually discriminated against!The opponent’s final efforts involve Ad Hominem and bare assertions against Professor J.P. Rushton. Hence, extend my arguments from here (the contention: Actual racial distinctions)References[18] Peter Brimelow and Leslie Spencer, "The National Extortion Association?" Forbes, June 7, 1993, p. 74.