Con's choice

"Alright, first and foremost I would like to point out that still you have provided absolutely no substance to your claims. You provide two different definitions that don't help your case at all. In fact, you even say that affirmative action sounds like a good thing. But you claim that it is a form of racism. I believe that you have forgotten what racism is. Racism - The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others...or...Discrimination or prejudice based on race. These are from the American Heritage Dictionary. Both of those definitions and all the others I could find involve negativity. Affirmative action does not put minorities at a disadvantage. It also doesn't establish minorities as superior to another race. In fact, you admit that affirmative action is making sure that there are enough minorities in an area. So how is this establishing one above the other? It isn't saying that no white males can recieve jobs or an education. It's just a check against racism. You urge the voters to vote against racism but have failed to show how it is racism. You don't provide definitions, and you fail to show how it actually meets the criterion of racism. Affirmative action is in place to fight racism. So by urging the voters to vote against racism you have told them to vote for me. By admitting that affirmative action is a good idea you have lost the debate." I said it may SOUND good, not that it WAS good. Affirmative action makes it harder for white males to get jobs, because the employers have to fill the minority quota. In several cases affirmative action gives some people unfair advantages. If affirmative action is a fight against racism, then why give people advantages? Shouldn't it be the quality of work that is important, rather than the quantity of minorities in a buisness? "Secondly she says how it shouldn't be a check against past prejudice. This is not the only reason, and my opponent knows this. When you look at the definitions she provided, you will see that isn't necessarily what it means. Not only that, but the idea of affirmative action that I presented in earlier rounds has nothing to do with past discrimination, instead it is in place to stop prejudice from happening now. So her arguments on the past are moot and invalid." Afirmmative action is wrong, it is making up for the past, by not giving everyone a fair chance in the present, which is a form of discrimination, which will cause an endless circle of wrong. We need to see and understand we were wrong in the past and use our own morals to make up for it, NOT a law. If we make the law substitute for all morals, we won't do the right thing, unless it's a law. These are all reasons why you shouldn't vote for racism. "Most employers want the best workers possible. And to be honest, most employers don't view the mentally handicapped as the best. But without affirmative action, this minority group would never be able to work." Some important facts from that: 1) I thought by my opponents deffinition affirmative action only takes place when people are EQUALLY QUALLIFIED. Meaning if someone is mentall handicapped to a point where [s]he is not equal affirmative action would do absolutely nothing. 2) There are programs to help the mentally handicapped to get jobs. It can be done, and if it can be done why give them an unfair advantage? 3) If they are unable to get a job without an unfair advantage then doesn't it stand to reason that they are not best suited for the job? 4) Naturally employers want the bes workers possible, which is MY WHOLE POINT, give the person BEST SUITED FOR THE JOB the job. If they are not best for the job, why give them the job? four good points about those three sentences, isn't it clear who you, the voters should vote for? "Lastly you talk about the three points of hiring. If I'm a white supremicist, all I have to say is that there weren't any african americans, any hispanic americans, any asian americans, etc. that beat out my white workers, and according to you that is a legitimate reason to have no minorities working for me." That only works when it is the truth. If an asian american, is not better for the job than the african american, who was beat by the hispanic american, who did worse than the white male, then the whit male desearves the job, not the asian american, no matter how the ratio already is. Is it impossible for there to be someone there during the interveiws to see who is best, to ensure everyone an equal chance. "All of my opponents arguments have failed, and mine have gone through virtually unargued. I don't see how you can't vote for me" I beg to differ, my arguements have not failed they have been better than my opponents, so I see no way you could vote for him. Thus you he voters should vote for me.