America Needs To Pay Reparations To The Descendants of Slavery
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 13 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 8,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Let's talk reparations. It's plain and simple, American needs to cut the check to the descendants of slavery to write the wrongs of the past. Even though today's reparations hearing was bogus, it has shined new light on the topic at hand. America has paid reparations to every other group that it has had conflict with, but for some reason, this country does not want to repair the people who built this country. If you don't agree, then you are simply racist. Anyone is welcome to take this challenge, but you must bring facts and a logical argument or I won't take you serious.
- Efficiency - Are reparations efficient?
- Consistency - Are reparations logically consistent?
- Morality - Are reparations moral?
"We should know by now that when someone "decides" to relocate to a new country/region of the globe, then that person/people takes on & accepts the burdens of the country/region in question. With that being said, everyone came to America for opportunity, and that opportunity was created by slaves. In other words, the economy was built from slavery because none of the founders wanted or couldn't do the work."
"What my opponent doesn't seem to understand is that you're benefiting from slavery today. If you don't have a problem with inheriting the benefits of your forefathers, then you shouldn't have a problem with inheriting the crimes of your forefathers."
"Now did you know that congress just passed a multibillion-dollar bill a few days ago? Yes, congress passed a $3 billion bill for farmers who lost their crops over this year's floods, fires & drought."
"By using your logic, these farmers shouldn't get a dime because myself, you or anyone else didn't have anything to do with causing floods, fires and drought.."
"Every race has in-fighting but I'm pretty sure there weren't any "African-war lords" running around before slavery. War lords before slavery? Please tell me that's a joke..."
"America & any other nations can magically come up with billions/trillions of dollars to fight in wars"
"So...why did Native Americans get reparations? Why does America pay Israel Billions in Reparations every single year? Why do you (not) have a problem with your tax dollars going to that? Yes, my friend, you are paying reparations as we speak & you didn't even know it."
"My response is "would farming even be possible today if the foundation wasn't already laid via slavery?" That statement alone destroys your entire argument. If bankruptcy is bad for the economy, then explain to me who or what built the economy?"
"My opponent goes on to say, "This is a bare assertion and is untrue. Money does not magically appear, it comes from taxpayers like my opponent and me."...OK, so why do you keep asking me where would the money come from? Isn't that a contradiction if you already knew where the money was coming from?"
"My opponent also said, " I never said that I agree with either reparations to Native Americans or Israel. I never said that I don't have a problem with my tax dollars going to that"...Of course, you didn't say that because you never even knew that your tax dollars were already being used for reparations..."
"On the other hand, if you honestly knew about it, then why haven't you introduced it into your argument?"
"Since America has to pay reparations, he is now trying to hold other countries accountable for their crimes. What damages his case even more is that other countries Are Being Asked To pay Reparations, which proves he doesn't know what he's talking about."
So; to start with, pro offers a very light argument related to the need for reparations. Pro doesn’t offer any detail other than slavery and racism was bad, therefore reparations.
Con does very well to break down the practicalities. It’s impossible to work out who should get the money and who should pay: its too expensive, those deeply involved in the slave trade won’t pay due to where they are and that forcing those who had nothing to do with the slave trade themselves to pay is immoral.
Pro starts off with a reasonable argument: that the opportunity afforded to whites were based upon the opportunities ancestrally built upon by slaves. That if one were to accept that opportunity, one must accept the price that comes with it.
While that is a good argument: it doesn’t answer the central question: who exactly pays, how much and who gets paid.
Con outlined that reparations would be prohibitively expensive. Pro doesn’t disagree, and asserts hypocrisy relating to farmers receiving bailout money. This doesn’t follow; cons argument is that we can’t afford trillions of dollars in reparations - not that we can’t afford a few Bn. Con points this out, points out the benefits of such payments and also points out that pro hasn’t offered any justification for how reparations will help solve any of the problems
Con also points out that pro has not shown that he and his ancestors benefited from slavery - and thus is simply a bare assertion. Pro replies with a highly generalized reply about how slaves built the economy, but does not in my view provides cohesive explanation - con points this out.
In terms of warlords, pro doesn’t sufficiently answer why those involved in the slave trade but didn’t start it should not be included. Pro also asserts that con believes that other forms of reparations are acceptable - which he rejects.
The problem with this debate is that pro offers a notional argument, that the broad idea of reparations is valid. While this is probably true at a very high level, for the purposes of this debate, pro should be showing how much reparations would cost, how they would be paid for, who they would go to, and how much of an impact they would have on the world.
That way I can weigh the harm against the benefits, and draw a conclusion.
Pro doesn’t do any of this, and simply falls down onto the original notional premise, which is not enough; we can all agree that blacks have been substantially harmed by the US over time, and that policy should be enacted to help fix the systemic problem: but this doesn’t justify pros policy.
On the other hand - con does very well to address the practicality, the issues and the potential issues with reparations: in the absence of any tangible benefit that pro presents: this argument clearly wins out.
Arguments to con.
Hard resolution to prove due to the “need” qualifier. In order for anything to be a need, there must be a consequence. E.g., I need coffee before I drive home tonight, otherwise the drive will be less safe (“I need coffee” would work as a resolution, with the driving as a contention towards this).
Gist:
Con set the real debate in motion with an outline of actually relevant points, giving pro some chance to meet BoP. If pro does this again, they should base it around their actual reparations plan, with con helping them identify faults to be improved on it.
1. Ad Hominem
Pro’s case for this contention started in the description “If you don't agree, then you are simply racist.” Went into R1 “anyone who's trying to logically deny it is an illogical thinker as well as a hypocrite.” … This should never be in a debate.
2. Truism
Pro insists their case is a documented truism, which absolutely cannot be argued against. … If it can’t be argued against, you would not have a debate, which is literally asking someone to argue against it.
3. Efficiency (I’d call this feasibility)
Con brings up that it would be impossible (or at least cost prohibitive) to determine the payment ratios, and gives a cost estimate of $59T after that. After some back and forth on this, pro said this amount would be outrageous, but could not set a minimum acceptable amount (he or she could have gained serious ground here, but suggesting a 10 year tax return scheme or somesuch). Con defends the farmers bill (first of all, not reparations, it’s a whole other class of thing), due to us having an actual need to keep them in business feeding us, in addition to the very low comparative cost. … An additional problem here is reading the description, pro specifically says “American needs to cut the check” which does not equate to them saying it could be done over time, as it implies a one time payment.
4. Consistency
Con started strong here with a fairness angle (ironic that if this resolution makes sense, various African countries needs to pay the reparations too), but drifted off topic into other slaves around the world. Pro caught this. Pro brought up that the USA gives money to other people, which was equally off topic (a source to prove we’re paying holocaust reparations would have gone a long way).
5. Morality
I feel like con thought this was a slam dunk, but it (at least initially) fell flat. We all profit off the work of those who came before us, some of us more so, some of us less. … Reading into R2, I’m impressed that pro knows the term “Generational Wealth,” which describes this process (which was a much better reply to this than the actual intended one).
---
Arguments: Con
See above review of key points. BoP is never met for the resolution in question, and if “should” were substituted in, the feasibility angle defeats it as it strongly implies the USA should not. All other contentions combined did not reach the magnitude of this one.
Sources: Con
How interesting it was that there were black slaveowners (poisons the well effectively, as the source discusses different types of slaves and slavemasters, muddying the waters…), but the real checkmate here was using an African American propaganda site to prove a point directly against its own views (the cost calculations, making it impossible to implement). Comparatively pro had no sources, even when referencing various material which seemed to come from one.
Conduct:
Leaving this tied, even while it leans in favor of con. It never got too ugly, even the ad hominems did not feel personal (weird as that is to say).
Let me start off by stating that prior to this debate: I had zero stance on the position of whether or not reparations should be paid for slavery. I came into this with 100% an open mind and interested to see arguments from both sides.... Ironically, as a result of this debate I am more open to the idea of reparations to the descendants of slaves, but feel that Con's arguments were superior.
There are basically 3 arguments between both sides = Cost, Justification, and Morality.... Of these three, the cost argument in my opinion was the most important point that held the most weight, and Pro dropped the ball massively on this one.
When Con introduces his claim that Reparations would cost $60 TRILLION, the random source he pulls that from operates on the belief that the 40 million descendants of slaves deserve $1.5 million each.... Pro could have easily provided a different number to give an idea of how much it would cost (40 million descendants getting $100k each would bring the cost down to $4 Trillion, which would put it at about 1.5 times the cost of the Iraq War..... Instead though, Pro concedes the $60 trillion figure to con and tries to argue that 60 trillion is not that much, which is a tremendously bad line of reasoning to argue. Pro's comparison of a $3 billion farmers bill in comparison falls tremendously short, so Con absolutely won this aspect of the argument.
Regarding the Justification and Morality arguments, these arguments by Con were not as strong as his argument for the cost of the program, but Pro's counter arguments to these points were almost non-existent. For example, when Con first mentions that the US were not the only ones to benefit from the enslavement of black people such as Europeans and even African warlords who profited off of the slave trade, Pro didn't even give a counter argument to these points in round 2, and counter arguments after that revolved around similar reparation payments to Jews and Native Americans rather then the lack of reparations to slave descendants from other places that benefitted from the enslavement of black people.
In summary, while some of Con's arguments left more to be desired, Pro's arguments completely failed to make a case in favor of reparations. The concession that reparations would allegedly cost $60 trillion was a massive blunder by Pro's part, and the majority of the debate descended into an argument over who all benefitted from the after-effects of slavery once it was eliminated..... Con wins argument points by a wide margin, and his arguments were the most well sourced by a substantial margin as well.
Mr. High IQ, are you even aware that you're currently paying reparations for the Native Americans & fake Jews in Israel as we speak?
Please show me where the slaves were assigned "Freedom Dues."...You know, the same "Freedom Dues" that the Irish received?
I'll wait...………………………...
How is it different. They were treated the same way, given slave names, whipped for not obeying their master. Most were kept as slaves and not given land like promised. This is the same things slaves went through. Now you want descendants of the Irish who almost zero of them owned slaves to pay repairations. retarded
Did you not say that "the Irish were treated exactly identical to how the slaves were treated?
Are you aware that chattel slavery & indentured servitude is completely different?
So, which story are you going to stick with?
Nope, I never said all of them got property most just worked for free and never capitalized on their deal, amd it is entirely possible they were treated like slaves and still got property. Slaves got property from their master as well many times. Out of curiosity what percentage of whites were slave owners compared to blacks? Do you know?
You just agreed that the (Irish worked for 5 - 7 years to get free land), but earlier you said that the (Irish were treated the same as slaves).
Yep, you just put your foot in your mouth.
If you had a high IQ then you'd know to always capitalize the term "Civil War" because it's a proper noun. Oops.
Hey Einstein, Explain to me what the "Freedom Dues" were?
End of Discussion......
How the hell did my ancestors who fought to free slaves in the civil war and who were also a part of the underground railroad, die because their gravy train was running out? What is your IQ LOL
Nope, most of the indentured servants got jack shit, and even the ones who actually got land, did not get it for free they worked for it for 5 to 7 years. The system has never given me a freebie lol.
By the way, I have a PHD in Forensic Anthropology and own 3 businesses. Learn your history so you can perhaps win a debate in the future
By the way, I have a B.A. in Forensic Anthropology and own two businesses.
Caucasians are the biggest welfare case in history because you benefit from a system that gives you freebies. Lol
Learn your history before making stupid comments.
Your ancestors died because the gravy train of free labor was ending. The Irish worked for 5 to 7 years then received free land.
Keyword: Free
One statement obliterates your stupidity.
Dude is asking for reparations because he doesn't want to work. Probably collects welfare also.
My ancestors died to pay for the freedom of slaves, and you think I owe blacks money. What the hell is wrong with you? Also if the Irish weren't slaves why were they treated exactly identical to what the slaves were treated?
And that is why you get the comments that you do. New ideas brought in the mix of things and then you say it is the stupidest comment of the 21st Century. I don't believe it is, in fact it may be very relevant, but then again, may not be at all. What is dumb is your belief that reparations can, and will be paid. They just won't because of all of the reasons your opponent said, and your rebuttals were utter nonsense. Every analogy, was way off base. Even if I believed that reparations could happen, I would still vote against you with your arguments.
My comment wasn't directed at Dr. Franklin.
I read your bio, which I can respect but there is no such thing as a "Jewish Christian." Jew & Jewish are two separate things.
By far the dumbest comment of the 21st century.
Can anybody prove that white people's lives would be worse is there were no slave trade? Yes
Proof: Roanoke, Virginia
your saying Im Satan, YOU have disobeyed Jeuss laws before me many times
.
Dr. Franklin,
YOUR UNGODLY CHILD LIKE QUOTE: "So now your calling me racist. Fuck you man."
You continue to slap Jesus in the face! You will pay upon Judgment Day because you are guilty of the following inspired by Jesus verses below, praise Jesus' revenge upon you!
"But above all, my brothers, DO NOT SWEAR, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation." (James 5:12)
"I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account FOR EVERY CARELESS WORD THEY SPEAK" (Matthew 12:36)
"Let NO CORRUPTING TALK COME OUT OF YOUR MOUTHS, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear." (Ephesians 4:29)
Dr. Franklin, you call yourself a Christian? Surely you jest! As I have shown before, you are a minion of Satan that was sent here to disrupt Jesus' true words within the scriptures.
BE GONE, SATAN!
.
So now your calling me racist. Fuck you man
Can anyone prove that black people's lives would be better now than if there were no slave trade at all? Would most still be in the 3rd world Africa that you all describe below? Is that an argument to be had? Were they better off slaves in America than slaves in Africa might be something to be considered. I don't think it was their choice to come to America to have a better life, they were owned by someone there, then sold and shipped away. I think they have a better life now than they would have had they stayed where ever they came from. Not something that can be proven though, but worth throwing out there.
Struck a nerve didn't I? You can't be mad at me because my genetics aren't recessive.
I can't control any genetic deficiencies that white people have so don't take it out on me.
Can you not answer the question?
I've just told you why African-Americans commit more crimes on average. They are poorer, less educated, and are more likely to be born to a single mother than whites. What other explanation do you need? If this answer is not logical, please explain why. Otherwise, it just seems like you're trying to get me and Dr. Franklin to say that blacks are inferior, which we do not believe.
I have yet to get a logical answer.
I don't understand what your saying are you saying people commit more crime because their White? They were born that way.
You made an analogy. And then I made an analogy. What are the chances that we played basketball together? It's an analogy, it doesn't have to be probable.
I've just explained how it's logical to you. The average black person is poorer, less educated, and is more likely to grow up with one parent than the average white person. Because of these things, the average black person is more likely to commit crimes.
And that type of answer is why this question can't be answered.
I generally just sit back & let guys destroy your own arguments. So, what are the chances that me, of all people, would be a basketball star?
I rest my case.
You would outscore me if you were a star basketball player, which means your chance of scoring is higher. Same thing with African-Americans: they are more likely to commit crime, their chance of scoring is higher. Not because they are somehow inferior to whites, but because they are on average poorer and less educated than the average white.
Also, it doesn't matter whether it's logical to you or not. It's an official government statistic.
Because no one can logically answer the question without sounding illogical.
Example: If you and I play a game of basketball. You shoot the ball 60% of the time while I shoot the ball 14% of the time; do you actually think I'll outscore you?
Why is it logical that whites are commiting more crime, but illogical that blacks are commiting more crime?
I'll say this one more time. Until someone answers the question of (Is It Logical That 14% of The Population Is Committing More Crime Than 60% of The Population)... the topic is basically over.
And no one has been able to come up with any type of logical answer, which proves my point to the highest degree.
Have you taken a good look at America now days? Dope attics, school shooters, mass murderers, crooked politicians, pill poppers etc,.and who makes up the largest percentage of these crimes? Hmmm
By the way, Half of Europe is third-world so what are you talking about?
no,my strat works
If you have a history and I am guessing you are making similar arguments back then and now. Why are you trying to use similar arguments that didn't work in the past?
Just please believe me I have a history with this guy
I won't understand how to make bad arguments? Thanks for that. At least you know your place and mine.
Its a tactic you wont understand unless you have debated this moron before
You fight bad arguments with other bad arguments?
Yes I know tis unfair but im fighting back mairj
No worries it's okay.
>> Even though in reality, this disparity [in crime rates] is caused by poverty, lack of education, and high rates of single mothers, not black people being mentally disturbed or inferior.
Didn't see that for some reason. Cool take. Sorry.
I have already stated why African-Americans commit more crime on average in my previous comments. This is from my discussion with mairj23, when we were discussing if whites commit more crime than blacks:
"Using your logic, I could argue that all black people are mentally disturbed. Even though in reality, this disparity [in crime rates] is caused by poverty, lack of education, and high rates of single mothers, not black people being mentally disturbed or inferior."
I think that quote pretty much proves that I'm not racist.
>>So it's logical that whites commit more crime, but illogical that blacks commit more crime? You have not shown anybody ANY basic facts that prove white people commit more crime than black people. The US government statistics say otherwise: 50% of the crime is committed by 13% of the population.
Do answer why blacks commit more crime to avoid being associated with the term racist. Sure people can still call you racist but it will not be justified if you response clearly makes sure you are not associated with that.
>>Any evidence...blacks commit more crime and tear themselves apart. Look at Africa
Comparing a third world group to a first world group?
Third world group = Less socio-economic advantage, less technology to get to the top, less goods to make their lives better.
First world group= Change less to more with what I said at the top.
Wow nice debating skills.
Any evidence...blacks commit more crime and tear themselves apart. Look at Africa
So it's logical that whites commit more crime, but illogical that blacks commit more crime? You have not shown anybody ANY basic facts that prove white people commit more crime than black people. The US government statistics say otherwise: 50% of the crime is commited by 13% of the population.
Disparity? Ok, so who created this disparity?...which fits in perfectly with the topic of this debate.
I've literally destroyed contestants by showing basic facts that white people commit the most crime. Your track record is proof-positive.
On the other hand, one question always seem to throw a monkey wrench in their game. The question is, "how (logical) is it that 14% of the population is committing more crime than 60% of the population?
Even though in reality, this disparity is caused by poverty, lack of education, and high rates of single mothers, not black people being mentally disturbed or inferior.
Actually, in the US, 13% of the population (African-Americans) commit 50% of the crimes. So I wouldn't be so sure about the "whites commit more crimes" claim. Using your logic, I could argue that all black people are mentally disturbed.