Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.

I stand in negation of the resolution. Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions. === DEFINITIONS === I'll agree with the definition presented, however I'd like the focus to be more on racial affirmative action... === OBSERVATIONS === O1: To negate the resolution, CON need not show that AA should be practiced in ALL college admissions. If it should not be practiced in a majority of college admission, then the resolution is negated. O2: I'll agree with O2 adding that PRO cannot simply support an implementation that would allow a negligible number of students in college... In other words, no comparative advantage cases. O3: I'll agree with O3 as well. O4: I completely disagree with O4. I ask that the judges look at the round as a whole and if need be, actually create a flow. PRO has to prove AA should be practiced, CON has to prove that AA shouldn't be practiced, and dropped arguments should be irrelevant as far as your decision. I assume that the points made by both sides will be substantial and thus dropping one would concede a very important point, but to auto-loss CON for dropping one argument is irrational (however I don't plan on dropping an argument...) === CONTENTIONS (re: means refutation) === re: C1: "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." And that's essentially what AA does. AA actually worsens discrimination because it devalues the meaning of being at college for a minority. Imagine, if you will, a little scenario. Two minorities (just because racial is the most obvious form of AA) are talking to each other on a college campus. Person one got into said college because they graduated with a 4.2 GPA, got a 36 on their ACT, was throughly involved in their school and community, and they were an all around good citizen. Person 2, however, got into said college simply because they were a minority... now because this is true, those on campus think all the people of this race got into said college simply because of skin color and discrimination increases, not decreases C2: AA HURTS THOSE IT AIMS TO HELP. If a school practiced AA, that fact would, without fail, reach the ears of the public. Those who are accepted simply because they qualify for AA help would lose all value of their degree, regardless of actual ability. Sticking with the minority theme, say a minority decides they want to be a doctor. They apply at a college, where they're accepted under an AA policy. They make it through college, maybe not with flying colors, but well enough to get through. Now, this person is in debt from student loans and thus doesn't have the money to open a practice. They decide to join a practice with someone, but no one will hire them. Why? Well, they only got into medical school because they qualified for AA benefits. Otherwise, they'd have never been in medical school and consequently never would have become a doctor. C3: ACCEPTING PEOPLE FOR THE SAKE OF ACCEPTING PEOPLE IS WRONG. America is a country based on ingenuity. Take away that ingenuity, and you've got another subservient country. Each college can only accept so many people. When we start reserving spots for those who may not be worthy, at the expense of those who are worthy, we detract from American ingenuity and become a country that simply manufactures the products others designed. What happens when those products become worthless? That's right... unemployment, which worsens the economy. We need those ingenious people to create new ideas and products to ensure our country prospers for generations to come. === I'm fine with new contentions and I agree it's not abusive as long as you don't at an overwhelming number of contentions. As long as it realistically fits in my character limit, it's fine. I, as well, look forward to the debate, and my best regards to my opponent as well.