On balance, affirmative action in the United States is desirable

Thanks to the opposition.Counter-argumentsAddressing: PreambleWith all due respect, my opponent’s preamble is poor use of your time. Referring to a quote has zero impact on the debate, and explaining the resolution in rudimentary detail implicates that my opponent perhaps thinks poorly of your capacity to comprehend debate implications. This should strike as offensive to you, the voter, who spends your valuable time adjudicating debates. Spoken lowly to in condescension is not worthy of your time. I, however, promise not to waste your valuable time with such inanity.Addressing: Reparatory JusticeThe opposition’s argument here is self-refuting. The notion that “past wrongs” are rectified by creating future wrong (i.e. racism against, non-affirmative-action Whites, Jews and Asians), is a self-defeating aspect of the opposition’s case. The opposition claims to correct “racial wrong”, by, well, creating further racial wrongs! In other words, as I demonstrated previously, non-affirmative-action students suffer greatly at the hands of my opponent’s myopic retribution, via way of *biased* racial preference. Talk about hypocrisy! Affirmative-action, whilst failing to help racial minorities (see my Negation Arguments), is also disguised, racial hatred against Whites, Jews (as if they need more) and Asians.Furthermore, if we wish to humor the opponent’s thinly-veiled justification for racism, how would racial discrimination against Whites, Jews, Asians and other non-affirmative-action recipients “rectify” the past? The past, by definition, happened previously. Does my opponent laughably think that by granting university entrance more readily to an African American, a slave of the past unpicks a field of cotton? Nonsense. I suppose my opponent would advocate for “reparatory justice” for the Mexicans, due to the actions of the Spanish Conquistadors, despite this happening approximately 500 years ago! Or how about the Egyptians, demanding that Greece accept thousands of Egyptian students over Greeks, due to the work of Alexander the Great 1000s of years previously? You see, the people clambering for affirmative-action today were *not* even affected by it! Justice, in reality, would be ensuring equal opportunity for all regardless of race (of which I advocate), not equal results to fulfil a racist’s desires.Addressing: DiversityMy opponent equivocates when citing his first study. I have not the faintest idea how differences in race lead to better problem solving abilities, and this is largely because the term “diverse teams” is not specific to “racial diversity” of which this debate is covering. Have you ever heard of an affirmative-action advocate, arguing in favor of promoting those of thug-life culture? Neither have I. If anything, my opponent argues for cultural diversity, *not* racial diversity, of which the latter the resolution addresses.The second cited piece is perhaps an attempt at humour by the opposition. Apparently, a Professor “notes” something about affirmative-action, and therefore it’s a valid argument. Further hilarity ensues when the opposition claims that affirmative-action is “meritocratic”, as if “pursuing diversity as a goal” (i.e. wanting distinct people) is more valid than pursuing those of competency (i.e. high-marks on the SAT test).Now for actual evidence/studies; the negatives of diversity are bolded:Professor Robert Putnam of the prestigious Harvard University completed a study, in which he interviewed a staggering 30,000 people from multifarious parts of America. He came to the conclusions that when diversity increased in communities: fewer people volunteered, smaller sums were given to charity and work for community projects, civic health declined, and people had roughly half the trust in other people (when compared to people from homogenous communities) [18]. In the classroom setting, this translates to a less charitable, less healthy, less trusting environment.Further evidence of diversity come in the form of Professor J.P Rushton’s scholarly work, in which his researched report concludes, “Since individuals have a greater concentration of genetic interest (inclusive fitness) in their own ethnic group than they do in other ethnic groups, they can be expected to adopt ideas that promote their group over others” [19]. Thus, 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).Addressing: [Forced] IntegrationThe opponent’s advocation here is that there must be equal results (“ensuring that the multiracial character of the United States is reflected in all its key institutions), rather than (as I have purported), equal opportunity. As I demonstrated with 171 SAT point gap, increased fail-rates of racial minorities and the vicious circle of lowered self-confidence(under Link 1), even with affirmative-action implemented, show that the opponent’s advocation fails to sprout into fruition. Clearly, *forced* integration simply does not work. Rather, *equal opportunity* (i.e. non-affirmative-action) is obviously far more beneficial, for both minority and majority racial groups, as evidenced by my Negation Case.Addressing: On going Racism/SexismThe opponent’s quote of a court is nothing more than an appeal to authority. Instead of lending our minds to be slaves to others, let us look at the facts ourselves, and we will see if the conclusion is reasonable.My opponent, in comical discombobulation, makes my argument for me! Yes, Pro, I agree that “[U.S. laws prohibit invidious discrimination in the workplace, housing etc.” Thank you very much! From this, enforcement of these laws would solve the apparent problems for the first two issues which the opposition raises.Increased black shootings How does the opponent suppose allowing underqualified students into universities amends the increased rate in black shootings? Are affirmative-action students supposed to wear their diplomas on their chests to stop the bullets? I am beyond baffled at this non-sequitur.More likely to be arrested for possessing marijuanaAgain, even if this is the case, why is this issue not amended with actions which affect it, rather than irrelevant changes in preferences in matriculation?Wage-pay gapMy opponent poisons this debate with misinformation. The reason there is a wage-pay gap is that the people whom purport it do not incorporate variables into the data in which they derive the statistic. When controlled for variables, such as hours worked, education, experience, occupation, union states etc., the wage-pay gap shrinks to ~5-6% (i.e. women earn 95 cents to a man’s dollar) [20] [21]. Why? The reason is that those who purport the 77 cent to 100 cents, for example, compare the average wage of a part-time female primary school teacher, to that of a male petroleum-mining executive. But the remainder is indicative of sexism, right? Incorrect. The Stockholm School of Economics released a paper detailing how, according to their study, 42% of males negotiate pay, whilst only 28% of the females did. This capacity to negotiate higher pay certainly accounts for a fraction, if not the whole, of the remaining gender wage-pay gap [22]. This result is corroborated with the fact that women are far more likely to be satisfied, if not easily satisfied with their job, hence the tendency not to push for higher wages. According to The New York Times, the amount of money which makes men say, “I hate my job,” is the annual salary of ~$52,000 at which women say they are “extremely satisfied” [23].So, by championing reverse-sexism against men with clearly faulty statistics, my opponent champions sexual discrimination against men.Actual racial distinctionsRather than slathering the entirety of racial discrepancies with a label of “institutional racism”, perhaps a more intelligent approach would be to consider other possible causes of higher incarceration rates and lower university admittance.In terms of genetics, Rushton and Jensen’s work, involving MRI scans of 3 year old children, found that racial differences in I.Q. already emerged, despite a lacking of what my opponent calls “institutional racism” [24]. Furthermore, corroborated with a plethora of other studies they cite, the average I.Q. score for African Americans is 85, and around 106 for East Asians and 100 for Whites. From this, it is plausible that significant differences in academic results are a result of these cognitive discrepancies.Summary of rebuttalsReparatory justice: Racism is not rectified with more racism. In fact, past racial injustices cannot be rectified, for they happened 100s of years ago *in the past*.Diversity: My opponent offers not a shred of evidence that *racial diversity* is of value. Furthermore, I demonstrate, using actual research, that racial diversity leads to classroom environments in which participants are: less trusting of each other, less healthy, less charitable and harbor greater amounts of racial tension/division. [Forced] Integration: I advocate equal opportunity, where my opponent argues for harmful equal results. My entire Negation Case is the impact.On going Racism/Sexism: My opponent offers several non-sequiturs, and then makes a colossal blunder in arguing that there is a pay-gap (to which, with my answer, I gain serious negation on the resolution). I also offer an alternative theory to racial differences in academic results, as opposed to my opponent’s: it’s all institutional racism.References[18] Putnam, R. (2006). E Pluribus Unum:Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First. [no publisher found] Vol.30(2), pp.137-174[19] http://tinyurl.com...[20] http://tinyurl.com...[21] http://tinyurl.com...[22] http://tinyurl.com... [23] http://tinyurl.com... [24] http://tinyurl.com...