Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions

I stand against the resolution: Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions. CONTENTION 1: Affirmative Action creates unfair advantages that should not be practiced. ---. http://www.progressiveu.org... -"Allowing blacks entrance to a university to fill some quota or to enhance the "racial balance" of a campus is absurd… It shouldn't matter the racial, demographical, or ethnic heritage of the applicant. Good grades and extra-curricular activities should be the only criteria used for the limits tests used to consider admittance. " ---There is ALWAYS something to break the tie. We need not allow interpretation of people to rely on ‘It's just a tie' and to admit the minority or woman of the two from simple association. This can not be called justice in any form. CONTENTION 2: Affirmative Action furthers division. ---From: . http://www.washingtonpost.com... -"Affirmative action is the nation's most ambitious attempt to redress its long history of racial and sexual discrimination. But these days it seems to incite, rather than ease, the nation's internal divisions. " ---This truly shows how we are creating a line in America. You are either on one side or the other. Group ‘A' gets one set of rights, while group ‘B' gets another set of rights. The article then goes on to say that there is an opposition that clearly shows "equal rights for all citizens has been fought and won – and that favoring members of one group over another simply goes against the American grain. " All in all, WHY are we still doing this when people are treated equally? CONTENTION 3: An eye for an eye makes the world go blind. ---Several people have argued in the past that Affirmative Action makes up for past wrongs. This is truly unfortunate since you are giving preferential treatment to people who weren't even the ones who were ‘taken advantage of'. Furthermore, by TRYING to make up for past mistakes, we CREATE more mistakes. When will the people taken advantage of, by affirmative action, be made up for? CONTENTION 4: Affirmative Action is unnecessary. A. Barak Obama is President. ---Does racism still exist? Yes, but just as much so for white people as it is for minorities. However, at the point where we finally have a minority as president, you will see that our objective problem with racism has conveniently moved to a subjective problem. Then why do we still have this objective legislation that affirmative action creates? It just isn't necessary anymore. B. We have gone too far out of our way to help minorities. ---From hate crimes, to special scholarship programs, and of course affirmative action, we have gone above and beyond to try to not be racist. However, by legislating all of these unnecessary programs, we have actually created REVERSE-DISCRIMINATION! Not only should we NOT practice affirmative action, but we should not practice ANYTHING that treats people any different then what they are: AMERICANS! C. Affirmative Action targets inappropriate disadvantages. ---We have literally legislated special admission rights to people with different skin pigmentation or even women. However, those things are not inherently disadvantageous. Perhaps we should look to things that do affect educational performance. Things such as poverty, single-parenting, or even mental diseases (as far as tie-breakers go). Those would actually target REAL logistical flaws in educational opportunities. OPPONENTS CASE: ---What about my respect? ---This entire argument looks to jobs, not college. Furthermore, it announces that we should help people in poverty, however, that is not what affirmative action does. EVEN HE defines it as helping minorities and women. Finally, women can be rich, and Asians (and several other minorities) are richer than several rights, then why do they get benefits ON TOP OF this. Not to mention that some of the poorest kids I know are actually white. Would it be just to put a DOUBLE disadvantage on them? At this point flow through where he asks us to treat people with respect. Alright, too bad my opponent gives NONE! ---Certainly… IF IT IS EARNED! If we just give out free spots, it's like giving out free money in communism. People just stop trying because they know they will get the exact same thing at the end of it all anyway. ---Not at all true. EVEN YOUR DEFINITION calls for an increase, not at least SOME representation. This means INCREASING representation that did not exist before the status quo. Which means you are intentionally choosing a minority/woman over a white man. I think that is good, if that admitted student IS ACTUALLY MORE QUALIFIED. ---Once again, this is not guaranteed. I urge my opponent to show what happens when this is not true. Also, what happens when the opposite is true? Do you have some sort of ‘negative' action?