Is diversity a proper objective

Quick overview of what I'm going to do in this round: 1. Summary of the debate so far 2. Rebuttal of my opponent's points from the 2nd round 3. Voting Issues Summary: In the first round, my opponent provided (1) contention, which was supported by (1) piece of evidence, and no logical explanation: 1. Diversity decreases civic participation I responded with (4) rebuttals to his point: A. Outdated Findings B. Correlation =/= Causation C. Does not Negate Long-Term Benefits D. No Real Impact and I added (3) Pro Contentions of my own: 1. Diversity Improves Problem Solving (2 studies to support): 2. Economic Benefits (2 studies to support): 3. Political Benefits (1 study to support): The Con did not respond to ANY of my points in his 2nd round. He has dropped his only contention, and you can extend all of mine to the final round. That means at this point in the debate you have 4 + 3 = 7 reasons to vote Pro, and 0 reasons to vote Con. The last round is too late for my opponent to attempt to rebut my points for the first time, or to reaffirm his dropped contention, so no matter what he does in the last round, you should be voting Pro. Rebuttal: In the 2nd round, what my opponent did do was start by attempting to define the term diversity. He wanted to equate diversity with programs such as affirmative action or political correctness. I have (3) responses to his definition: 1. Abusive It's totally abusive for my opponent to attempt to put forth a framework for the debate after I have already started debating it, especially one which goes against the common conception of diversity. Affirmative action is once specific way of achieving diversity,m but it has nothing to do with whether diversity itself is good. Likewise, political correctness has nothing to do with diversity at all. Because his framework is so abusive, you have an (8)th reason to vote Pro. 2. No reason to believe it: My opponent provides no source, for his definition; he's really just making up something which is convenient for him. 3. His own evidence contradicts him. Conventional wisdom on what diversity is indicates it is akin to multiculturalism. In fact, my opponent quotes Robert H. Bork who says that diversity and multiculturalism are the same, NOT that diversity is a catch all term that applies to affirmative action or political correctness, or anything besides multiculturalism. With the knowledge that he has not sufficiently established a credible definition for diversity, my opponent should remember that it would be absolutely ludicrous for him to attempt to establish a framework in the last round, and leave the definition to Merriam Webster's which says that diversity is, "the state of having people who are different races or who have different cultures in a group or organization." Now lets go to the second thing my opponent did, which was try to create a new contention that diversity somehow increases racial tension. There are (3) fundamental issues with this contention: 1. Lacks common sense: On the face of it, it just doesn't make sense that diversity would increase racial divides. This is because allowing people with differences to interact with each other makes these differences less significant. 2. It's unsubstantiated: Most of this point is unsupported ranting about "the elite" and "leftist intellectuals." The only part based on logic or evidence amounts to an unsourced quote which claims that students in diverse environments do not learn how to deal with people of other ethnicities. 3. No impact: The problem here is that the quote itself says that this only applies to those students in diverse environments who "socializes with only members of his ethic group." of course this is the case. Nowhere in the quote is it implied that diverse environments cause people to not interact with other ethnicities, so diversity does not increase the harms, and there is no impact. My opponent concludes by claiming that certain groups getting special privileges causes divides, but as I explained, diversity is not the same as affirmative action, so this point falls flat on its face. Voting Issues: As a prelude to the final round, let's go over the flow of the debate on how you should make your vote: Pro contentions: 1. Diversity improves problem solving [No Response] 2. Economic Benefits [No Response] 3. Political Benefits [No Response] Con Contentions: 1. Diversity decreases civic participation: response A. Outdated Findings [No Response] response B. Correlation =/= Causation [No Response] response C. Does not Negate Long-Term Benefits [No Response] response D. No Real Impact [No Response] 2. Increases racial tension: response A. Lacks Common Sense [No Response] response B. Unsubstantiated [No Response] response C. No Impact [No Response] My opponent currently lacks (10) responses, and he has no substantiated a single point in this round. Remember according to my undisputed framework, all I have to do is prove that there are benefits to diversity. Therefore I should win unless my opponent can do both of the following: 1. Rebut all (3) of my contentions 2. Rebut all (3) or (4) of my rebuttals to either one of his contentions With this in mind I wish good luck to my opponents and urge a PRO vote. http://www.merriam-webster.com...