Affirmative action in the United States is morally justified.

It's certainly ok that you don't know protocol. It can be somewhat confusing at first though I am sure you will get used to it eventually. This is similar to an LD round and also a CX round. Perhaps this round is none of the above. Whatever it is, I ask that my opponent clarify in his next speech, and I will use this information in the third round. I ask this, because this seems to be a value debate that is structured on policy. If this is a value debate than the problem is defining the actual definition of morally justified. To who is it justified? Aligned to whose morals? Is the opponent assuming that all people's morals are the same? So in a value debate, overall the decision of it being moral would be based on the majorities thoughts on it. If the majority of people think it is immoral, than surely it is? But, this can also be looked at through a policy lens. If this is a policy subject, than the overall decision would be based on whether or not the status quo is improved through the implementation of such a thing as affirmative action. Because I am unsure of which type of debate my opponent wishes, I have no choice but to debate it as both. I will show you A)Why the majority of people would find it immoral or unnecessary and B) If the status quo will improve with the implementation of such a policy. Without further ado I will attack the opponent's case and talk about some points about why affirmative action is round politically and morally. OPPONENT'S CASE Contention 1 : Status Quo In this contention, my opponent shows what the current problems are in the U.S. relating to this case. He says that: minorities aren't treated fairly do to race, nationality. He states that minorities live in poverty more often. Says that majority get's advatages. I will start off with his first point 'Disadvantages for minorities'. It must be noted that these disadvantages exist directly because of discrimination. Discrimination is when a person sees a group as being bad simply because of a trait they have, most often one they can't help. This is an attitude that IS negative but it is exactly that. An attitude. Policies in the United States can change the structure of things and they way law works, but it can't change the way people think about others. No policy in the world has the power to end discrimination, because discrimination is completely legal. My opponent used an example of a person not getting an open apartment because of his race. The owner has the complete right to say no to that person, whether it's fair or not. Affirmative action can't help this problem, because to do so it would have to take away people's freedom to think. Seeing as this is impossible, affirmative action will not help the people discriminated against. His second point stated that the majority gets extra advantages. This maybe true, but once again, it's based on feelings and prejudice and is completely legal. No law will change people's right to freedom, and this includes affirmative action. Thirdly, I would like to point out that the U.S. DOES implement some affirmative action today. My opponent is able to present these harms, though, so it is obvious affirmative action will not work, because it has not already. There is no reason to increase something if it won't end up helping anyone at all. In fact, if the majority sees that the government is attempting to help the minority, their hate and prejudice will increase even more, which ends up worsening the problem. So in all, affirmative action will make the status quo worse than it already is, a policy no-no. Also, the majority, as we have said, finds affirmative action wrong because they are the ones who are prejudice. Because the majority think it is wrong that it must be immoral. So on the front of policy debate AND value debate, I have shown affirmative action wrong. CONTENTION 2: Affirmative action creates diversity (which is good) My opponent's A card basically says that the mixed group of students is able to produce more of a thinking class than one all of one race. In the United States, though, colleges DO have a mixed group. Whether racism exists or not, people of all races will still exist in college. No law can be passed that will make that happen because schools a while back stopped being segregated. Unless the affirmative action involves segregating them again, then affirmative action will not work. This is one again based on the one previously mentioned that no law can change a persons prejudice and feelings, thought it can make it worse. As worse is bad, affirmative action should cease to exist and certainly not be implemented further. THIRD CONTENTION A) My opponent show some facts that some people benefit from this affirmative action, but it is only temporary. All that we are doing with these plans are treating some of the symptoms, but we are not actually fixing the problem. Discrimination in the U.S. has been decreasing slowly but surely over the past years, but implementing a plan that promoted even MORE unfair advantages toward the minority will surely increase the hate and discrimination toward them. B) This card talks about the effects law will cause but it does not mention the harms that the people will still feel toward the minority. This minority will, as stated, become even more discriminated against and eventually lead to violence and death. The third contention was mostly about some positive effects arising from affirmative action. While I acquiesce, benefits do exist, the disadvantages of the overall effect will end up being worse than what we started with. So yes, there maybe a moment of peace, but this will soon decline into even more discrimination, ending up less that the status quo in the end. This is an obvious policy no-no. I have also shown previously how this is a bad plan according to a value look on the debate. Whichever way you look at it, whether it be values, policies, or both; I have shown all to be harmful. Because of these reasons, I urge you to vote Negative. Thank you.