Instigator / Pro
1
1500
rating
4
debates
37.5%
won
Topic
#5808
Reparations For Slavery Are Counterproductive And Would Just Be Problematic For Everyone
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
borz_kriffle
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
2
1500
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Description
The creator of this debate, Sunshineboy217, argues that reparations for slavery are antithetical to the idea of equality of the races. He argues that it would cause economic problems and not only take money from innocent hardworking people, but also give black people a quick fix to their problems rather than a long-term economic solution. Overall, it would not be beneficial for anyone.
Round 1
The point of reparations for slavery is to generate more economic prosperity and opportunity for disadvantaged black communities. However, the very idea of reparations is completely antithetical to that cause. First of all, it is unfair to the white people who have to pay, because no white people living today in America are slave-owners or have ever contributed to the system of slavery, so they shouldn't have to pay for the actions of other people, and there are no black people living today in America who have ever been slaves, so it is unfair that they should get to receive money for something they didn't have to deal with (essentially, they're profiting off of slavery). The innocent white people who would have to pay for reparations are just trying to make a decent living for themselves and their families (just like black people, don't pretend that all whites are well-off aristocrats). It only offers a quick fix to the economic issues of black people. Black people would be profiting off of the backs of other hardworking Americans, just like how slave-owners profited off of the backs of other hardworking Americans. If you want to give black communities better economic opportunities and make things more equal between the races (which I am all for), we should do something like entrepreneurial encouragement plans, business investments, and more government investing into the infrastructure of black communities. You know, all the normal economic stimulus programs that governments typically use. You can't make two races more equal by stealing from one and giving to another. It's a racist system, because it assumes that all white people are evil and responsible for actions that actually evil people took over 150 years ago. Some of the victims of reparations might not even be related to slave-owners! Another reason for slavery reparations is that we need to "move forward." Excuse me, how are we going to move forward if we focus on a system that was abolished over 150 years ago? We've already gotten rid of slavery and segregation, so how about we focus on racism in our modern society, not racism from 1850?
It is clear to me that you are taking an emotional angle, so before I get emotional myself, let’s get some things straight:
Reparations consist of 3 main things (as requested by the NAACP): financial payment, land grants, and social services for descendants of slaves. All 3 would simply come from a re-allocation of existing government resources if possible, which could result in no cost to white citizens, and even if taxes happened to be raised to gather funds then it’d happen by tax bracket, not race.
While I fully agree that investing into African-American businesses and infrastructure is a good decision, both are slow and unwieldy solutions that need to be accompanied by the reparations previously requested. Not all black people want to own businesses, and investing in infrastructure typically helps only the lowest rungs, meaning that the middle chunk is left completely un-aided. While the ripples of both of these would eventually help a great deal with uplifting their community, it is far more efficient to provide financial assistance to descendants immediately while working on social services in the background, and the combination may help them flourish for generations to come.
As for moving on, I think that it’s hard to move on when we refuse to recognize the damage we have done to the people who built this country for us. We have to build the base of the pyramid before we place the capstone, so to speak. I believe that is all I wish to say, I hope you can understand where I’m coming from and not be blinded by fear when it comes to financial redistribution. I assure you, you will be fine if reparations are to occur.
Round 2
First of all, I am confused what you mean when you say that I am taking an emotional angle. I am not in any way, shape, or form attempting to be emotional, I am simply trying to take it from a fact-based standpoint. The thing is, you said that the money wouldn't come from other Americans, it would come from the government. Government money = taxpayer money = money from American citizens. Maybe I was incorrect about the fact that it would only be from white people (I should have been more specific when making this debate; I have seen people argue that the money should come from white people), but I still feel like other long-term programs would be helpful. The thing is, giving every black person a few thousand dollars is most likely not going to be a good fix to their problems. Typically, these kind of services should go to the more impoverished, and we have seen time and again that many impoverished people (though I do not mean to be stereotypical) may not be able to save that money up. Maybe they have addictions that have brought them to the low economic status that they are in now. Social services and infrastructure programs are important to build back up black communities. You said that my ideas for programs would only aid the lower rungs, while the middle chunk would be completely unaided. Isn't the point of reparations to help disadvantaged communities? I feel that any aid to black communities should be given to lower-class black communities, not middle-class communities that are already better off and aren't in as much need of aid.
Your final point was that it is "hard to move on when we refuse to recognize the damage we have done to the people who built this country for us. We have to build the base of the pyramid before we place the capstone, so to speak." First of all, it is thrown around constantly that slaves built this country for us. While I do recognize that slavery was a terrible, terrible system, and the slaves who worked very hard did not deserve any of the violence and cruelty that they faced, I do not believe that slaves necessarily built this country for us. They built and harvested farms that only increased the wealth of the top 20% of the southern population. That's what makes the system of slavery so much worse, that their hard work did nothing but contribute to the wealth of their evil enslavers. However, as far the "base of the pyramid" thing goes, we already have placed the base of the pyramid, and we already have recognized the damage we have done to slaves. I have no idea what you mean when you say that we are "refusing" to recognize the damage we have done. Not only did we go to war with the enslavers and enshrine an abolishment of slavery into our Constitution, but on July 29, 2008, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR. 194, a resolution apologizing for slavery and the subsequent discriminatory laws against African Americans, such as segregation. In closing, I am not, as you say "blinded by fear" (seriously, where are these personal attacks coming from?).
If you would look back on your first argument, you can see that emotional language and arguments were certainly employed. See:
“First of all, it is unfair to the white people who have to pay, because no white people living today in America are slave-owners or have ever contributed to the system of slavery, so they shouldn't have to pay for the actions of other people, and there are no black people living today in America who have ever been slaves, so it is unfair that they should get to receive money for something they didn't have to deal with (essentially, they're profiting off of slavery).”
That said, I recognize you’re moving away from that, so it’s possible you didn’t intend it, and I have no problem with emotional arguments based on facts, which I assume you thought you had. As such, I’ll engage on your level as much as is feasible.
I never stated that the money wouldn’t come from American citizens, I acknowledge that that’s where tax money comes from. I did say, however, that if we allocated properly we could possibly avoid even increasing taxes in the first place, depending on the payments and other benefits given.
I do not disagree that long term programs would be helpful, in fact, multiple long-term programs are part of the reparations proposed by the NAACP. But even if we were to ignore those and focus solely on the financial payments, those too could be a great help. Yes, the addicts and other less financially literate may immediately waste financial assistance, but there’s still many African Americans who could greatly benefit from a couple months of rent being paid, or even just having a buffer in their savings. You say that only the lowest class should be aided, but everyone below the median is suffering from the poor economy at the moment. Reparations are not just about giving the poor a chance at survival, they’re about giving descendants of slaves the same chance at generational wealth that white people had so long ago.
Finally, this is exactly what I’m talking about when it comes to refusal. You refuse to recognize that African Americans are still disadvantaged by the ripples of slavery, and would rather pretend that it stayed in the past. And yes, this country was built on slavery. There is no such thing as these comically evil enslavers you’re proposing, nearly every member of the government when we began owned slaves. Nearly every farm had one. Normal white people enslaved, it wasn’t just these evil maniacs you’re trying to pin everything onto. It was a mistake they almost all made, and it’s time we accepted that our ancestors didn’t do good things and we need to right these wrongs.
Round 3
I agree that we could allocate properly, but once again, I don't think giving a few thousand dollars to the impoverished is a good solution that could really work. If long-term solutions work better, why don't we put more money into those solutions instead of wasting it on money that may be wasted? A few payments for rent or a buffer in their savings won't help them in the long run. Maybe for a year or so, but eventually, they'd be right back in the same spot they were before then.
And hold it, you said that reparations are about "giving descendants of slaves the same chance at generational wealth that white people had so long ago." You act like the whole European-descended race had generational wealth back then, when in reality, most sources agree that less than 30% of the white population owned slaves. This isn't a problem exclusive to black people. How about just giving everyone a chance at the generational wealth that white people had so long ago?
Finally, I honestly do not understand what you are talking about when you say I "refuse to recognize that African-Americans are still disadvantaged by the ripples of slavery." How are they disadvantaged by slavery? I'm really confused right now. Second, what do you mean, there's "no such thing" as these "comically evil" enslavers that I am talking about? There were thousands of evil enslavers, it wasn't just exclusive to the Founding Fathers. Also, how is it comically evil? I also understand that the Founding Fathers owned slaves, which was very wrong, but the slaves didn't build America, the Founding Fathers did. And let's just do a quick fact-check here: most farms did not have slaves. The majority of farms were small farms owned by normal people. You're seemingly claiming that I'm trying to downplay slavery, how about you stop exaggerating its extent? I'm not trying to pin everything onto "evil maniacs." Honestly, what are you talking about? When did I say that slavery is entirely the responsibility of "evil maniacs."
In closing, we already have accepted that our ancestors did wrong things. Once again, as I said in my previous part of the argument, we waged war against the enslavers, we created the 13th Amendment, we formally apologized for slavery, we have tried very hard for over 50 years to eliminate racism, and we passed many, many laws during the Reconstruction period that allowed former slaves to get on their feet and get to enjoy the same privileges that white people did. If anything is "comical," as you said earlier, about this debate, it is the fact that you are pretending that we still haven't accepted how wrong slavery is, especially in this day and age.
Whew, a lot to go over here:
First, you did say that the slave’s work only benefitted their “evil enslavers”, which I assumed meant that you genuinely believed that there was some sort of comically evil cabal of slave owners that were the only people who gained anything off of the slave’s labor. I’m sure we can both agree that’s ridiculous, as a third of the southern white population owned them and all of America got cheap goods from them. Arguably, if it wasn’t for the slaves shouldering the manual labor, we wouldn’t have had such a robust system of governance at all. Imagine if George Washington had to pick cotton for a living and run the government in his spare time?
Apologies for working backwards, but now onto the logical side of things: Success has always hinged on planning for both the short and long term. If you simply plan for the short, you’ll have things like our crumbling Social Security system down the line. But if you only plan for the long, you justify things like the genocide in Gaza, by saying that our relationship with Israel is far more valuable in the long run.
That’s why the suggested reparations include both short and long term plans. Not only do they request an investment in social services and a bequeathment of land, but the financial payment allows for assistance of people suffering right now. It might provide opportunities that people had never had before, such as a chance to explore hobbies that may grow into later careers, or possibly even just get a shower and enough clean clothes to look good for an interview.
Finally, I completely agree that we should strive to give everyone the ability to ensure a comfy life for them and their children. I also think that unicorns should be created and Teddy Roosevelt should be brought back to life for another term. None of these things are feasible given the current state of things. If you wish to change your argument to “Instead of reparations, use that money to make sure nobody is ever poor again”, feel free! But I will need you to provide some sort of plan that costs about the same as reparations and somehow fixes everyone’s lives.
“All Lives Matter” never kept a kid from getting shot. Maybe focus on the people who never got a chance instead of insisting that we can afford to give everyone a retry.
Round 4
I have to say, I do agree with that first paragraph of your response. Well done.
However, regardless of what you say, I simply don't think short-term solutions are real solutions. I also don't understand what you mean about our "long-term solution" for Gaza. I am not condoning anything Israel has done in Gaza, but I just don't see how that's a good explanation for why long-term plans don't work.
I never said that we should spend money to completely end poverty. That's not what I said, stop twisting my words just so you have an excuse to say that you want unicorns to be created and Teddy Roosevelt to be resurrected. I was simply using that phrase "why don't we give all people a chance at generational wealth" to show that your argument that seemed to say "all white people were well off during Antebellum America" was flawed.
And once again, stop pretending that we haven't tried to help black communities! "Maybe focus on the people who never got a chance instead of insisting that we can all afford to give everyone a retry"? Plenty of black people have already been given chances, and plenty of other people of many different ethnicities haven't! I'm not saying that we should spend money to give everyone a try, I'm just saying that instead of only focusing on black people, we can try to find solutions that benefit a wider range of people.
That's all I have to say, because most of what you just said was restating things that we've already gone over.
P.S. What's with that "'All Lives Matter' never kept a kid from getting shot" thing? "Black Lives Matter" didn't, either. I'm not quite sure why you needed to put that part in, as the only conclusion I can draw is that you're inferring that not all lives do matter.
I don’t know what to say to convince you that short term solutions are “real” solutions. You get to define that yourself, I suppose. But the fact of the matter is, if you give a man a fish he’ll ant least eat for a day. Sure, you can fund fishing education, but if he starves in the meantime it ain’t worth much.
And yes, you explicitly said “how about just giving everyone a chance at generational wealth”. If you were being facetious, as you say, then I fail to see how this points out any flaw in my argument. Yes, it would be ridiculous to suggest that everyone get this chance, but it’s doable for the people who deserve it.
Yes, we attempt equity already. No, it’s not enough.
PS: Neither movement technically kept a kid from getting shot, but All Lives Matter was a useless fucking counter movement with no real goals, made just to soothe white egos. I’d bet that whatever you’d propose instead of reparations would be about the same.
Round 5
You are using profanity and accusing me of white supremacy?? You've been reported. I have nothing else to say. I'm disappointed, because I assumed this could be a civilized debate, but I guess not.
hey guys if he flips out and accuses me of calling him a white supremacist do I win?
I'm not against Federal government 'existing.
I'm just wary, and dislike some of it's past decisions and powers.
I never really got the fear of big government tbh. As long as we’re free to change things to better suit the needs of the people, I see nothing wrong with equalizing classes and ensuring protection of citizens. I guess I understand why a school having an armed police officer would seem scary, but it’s a far better idea than just making everyone fish in a barrel, y’know?
No worries on sources,
It just helps one's argument if they having backing to what they claim as policy or statistics.
Though people still argue about 'true statistics or what the statistics 'mean.
I 'was curious about the white descendants,
Seems reasonable enough logic.
Though I still don't like Reparations long after the fact much.
I 'do recognize how some situations, such as freed slaves and their descendants, were not 'fixed after being freed and given 'small reparations.
What with the Jim Crow, KKK, Race Riots, and so on.
. . . Partially I dislike Big Government a bit.
Partially it's my view that it doesn't need to be 'Reparations, to help descendants.
Partially other things, as well I imagine, but I don't like examining myself and my reasons for views, too much, too much of the time.
First off, I apologize for lack of sources, I realized after the first vote that I really shoulda just shared the sites I was looking at. I’m new to debating, so I’m still trying to get acquainted with the format.
Second, you asked a very interesting question I wanted to answer. Yes, white-passing descendants of African American slaves should receive reparations in my opinion, though I’m unsure if the NAACP shares my feelings. The fact is, they also struggled with the effects of American slavery, and likely are more disadvantaged than their peers. As for other types of slaves in America, I believe they should get assistance, though perhaps it’d be better to focus on our first victims and work our way down the list.
(RFV Part 1)
Sunshineboy217 R1
Debate lacks clear definitions or examples of reparations.
Where do reparations come from?
I'm doubtful that American government would only take money from whites, whites descended from earlier America, or descended from slave traders, owners, southerners, people who traded with southerners, so on.
More likely it seems taxes would come from 'everyone.
It's more the 'Government doing Reparations, than purely whites.
Though of course people pay taxes, including American blacks, with no ancestors who were slaves in America. Or blacks who made good, and had ancestors who were slaves in America.
But I assume neither group would receive reparations.
. . . Personally I think they'd be best off just helping the poorest in America, regardless of race, if their intention is to raise the lower class from their situations.
. . . Which as Sunshineboy217 argues, might be more along the line of,
"Entrepreneurial encouragement plans, business investments, and more government investing into the infrastructure of black communities."
Though again such is for a specific group.
borz_kriffle R1
Describes Reparations more distinctly than Pro,
But I think it would aid Borz to use a source. Yes they said NAACP, and I can Google that, but direct hyperlinks can be helpful to check sources.
Are reparations considered something infinite? I 'think we have done Reparations before?
Is there some percent of the descendants that must leave the lower class, before the debt is considered paid?
Why not just do government programs for all poor people? It's been a while since slavery, as Pro says in Round 1.
R1 End Thoughts
I lean a bit towards Pro, as I do not see why there is a need to pick out the descendants of American slaves, for reparations.
I don't like the idea of making or allowing others to be an eternal victim class. Though of course I 'realize this is not what Reparations argues for. I think.
Debate may turn, based on Cons ability to clearly define Reparations or argue that American government has not fulfilled it's responsibility.
Or if Pro can argue the time has passed and the descendants situation has greatly changed.
People have come to America with 'nothing, and made something. Have not the descendants had that chance as well?
Some would argue no, that even after the Civil War, society has unfairly targeted them.
(RFV Part 2)
Sunshineboy217 R 2
Hm, is there a difference between Reparations and helping X group of people who are disproportionately lower class in America?
Eh, I think there is, so I won't ding Pro for supporting Reparations of a type, as it can be argued they aren't reparations.
Though I still think America would be better off 'just helping the poorer people in it. Well, if you go for Socialism I mean.
. . . Pro makes arguments that America has addressed it's part in slavery through previous actions.
borz_kriffle R2
Eh, I'm not sure that's an 'emotional argument, so much as a self interest and/or fairness argument. Though the self interest argument would only work for white voters.
Borz makes a fair point, I'm pretty sure America already spends money on various public works and social programs. So one 'could simply cut various programs by X amount, and redirect that spending.
But then they could cut spending and redirect it to 'various causes. Must be hard being in charge of the budget if one is 'trying to help people fairly, so many.
Though I 'still think Borz would be helped by a hyperlink, It 'really helps Cons case that Pro is not objecting to Cons claims of what reparations will or could consist of.
Not that Con is 'wrong, but it is possible there are 'other suggestions as to what reparations could be. If Pro allows Con to always suggest a solution that Pro has argued for themself in earlier rounds,
Then Reparations becomes acceptable by some of Pros own arguments of how government should help lower class descendants.
Con makes decent argument about descendants still being effected by the ripples of slavery.
His argument that nearly all the members of government owned slaves should have a source, but his argument will still hurt Pro unless 'Pro addresses it.
"Of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, about 25 owned slaves. Many of the framers harbored moral qualms about slavery. Some, including Benjamin Franklin (a former slaveholder) and Alexander Hamilton (who was born in a slave colony in the British West Indies) became members of anti-slavery societies."
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/teaching-resource/historical-context-constitution-and-slavery#:~:text=Of%20the%2055%20delegates%20to,members%20of%20anti%2Dslavery%20societies.
But bah I say, slavery existed many places in older days, (Further Rant Redacted)
Still, Pro 'did make arguments that America has already paid prices for slavery.
R2 Thoughts,
I'm starting to lean towards Con, due to Con seeming to have greater control of the definition of Reparations in the debate.
And some of Pros earlier arguments suggesting methods that matched with Con's suggested definitions of Reparations.
Admittedly Pro might not 'call their suggested actions Reparations, but I don't recall them arguing that.
(RFV Part 3)
Sunshineboy217 R3
You would 'Really be helped out here with sources or a definition of Reparations.
Con has given the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People as a source for the definition of Reparations.
By not defining a 'specific Reparations actions, you leave yourself open to 'many types of actions, not just giving descendants all "a few thousand dollars"
Eh, it's true that white people have been poor, then poor, or rich then poor, middle class and either way.
But if Con brings up various ways throughout history that society has discriminated against blacks, then your case is hurt.
Jim Crow as example, is nearer to now than the Civil War, as well as other nearer examples.
Side thought, would people with white skin that are descended from black slaves get reparations if they are poor?
Or white people descended from white slaves?
What about th-(Rant redacted)
Hm, I suppose Jim Crow isn't 'specifically slavery, but it 'is linked to it.
It's like tossing someone in a pit, then helping them out, but they're actually in a bigger pit with walls that you quickly build and oiled after you helped them out of the first pit.
Then you refuse to help them get over the walls, because you only said you would help them get out of the pit. Maybe.
But these are my own weird argument thoughts.
Eh, evil can be an overused word. That ignores context and subjectivity. But evil slaver argument by Pro doesn't factor much into debate anyway. And I don't care to defend slavers right this instant.
Eh, building of America can be a group effort.
But I get that Pro is trying to argue against debt to American slaves, I just don't think he's doing it very well.
Side thought, Ever watch Remember the Titans (2000)?
Time period and racism it depicts is closer than Reconstruction.
. . . But then Reparations 'usually 'does argue about Reparations for 'Slavery, not Reparations for not allowing same race schools during X period.
Though some might argue that parts of American society and Government have 'constantly been doing Reparations for that, by various actions such as same Race schools.
borz_kriffle R 3
SOURCES!
"The confederacy’s 11 states had 316,632 slave owners out of a free population of 5,582,222. This equals 5.67 percent of the free population of the confederacy were slave owners."
“That, however, does not tell us the extent of slave ownership. To better understand the extent of slavery’s impact, we need to realize a slave owner was the one person in a family who legally owned slaves. That person was usually the patriarch. There would be a spouse and sons and daughters who directly benefited from the family’s slave ownership and who stood to inherit enslaved people,” wrote Mackey."
"So, according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery."
https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/8.10.20.pdf
Random source I Googled, I imagine people disagree on the subject.
Con makes argument that focusing on specific lives can address inequality by pointing it out explicitly. Presumably while still believing All Lives Matter, but presumably thinks certain lives should be focused on during some events.
It's not a bad argument.
I'm not really 'invested in the argument about 'Who 'Built America, as I think everyone did.
R3 Thoughts
Heavily leaning towards Con, I think Pro has gotten a bit distracted,
Though I 'personally 'still disagree with modern reparations for the descendants of earlier American slavery.
(RFV Part 4)
Sunshineboy217 R 4
Your problem Pro, is that you've allowed Con to define some long term solutions as being Reparations (I think), not that he's 'wrong about said definition.
But by failing to specifically define Reparations at the start, you allow many types of Reparations. And are better off arguing against Reparations for other reasons.
Such as your arguments about it deepening divides or being long ago.
I think debate would have gone better without Con saying "emotional angle" or "Unicorns"
Not that I think such are highly insulting, but they can be taken that way.
Not really great for Pro either to say opponent is "twisting" their words, again not 'meant as insulting. But people often don't 'think they are twisting their opponents words, and sometimes they are not, sometimes they are. But there are more diplomatic ways to address their takes on your arguments.
. . . Though some people like straight approach, they're not 'wrong. I'm just indirect at times perhaps.
Pro makes argument that the descendants have had time to get out of post slavery conditions.
borz_kriffle Round 4
Con makes arguments about necessity at times of short and long solutions.
. . . Though I might argue earlier reparations 'were the short solution, and longer solutions, such as property given to former slaves, and later on right to vote.
Though personally 'I think (Rant redacted)
Round 4
Not much said here changes my leaning towards voting Con, for reasons I've already said.
Round 5 Just doing both.
I forget if profanity is illegal on this site, I suppose it could be a conduct hit,
But I 'think conduct hits are used more for 'insults.
Profanity is more a matter of 'style, which people like or dislike,
Though 'usually I think people dislike it if it is used too much.
I don't think Con insulted Pro or called him a white supremacist.
I don't think Con 'wins for Pro accusing him of such or reporting him.
But I might add it slightly to the scale of Conduct towards Con winning.
Pro can be upset and make what I think are mistakes in perception.
It's not as big a Conduct hit as if it would be 'if Pro was insulting Con.
Well, my Reasons for Vote should be clear enough. I think.
I’ll never be able to understand how people don’t see history as the cause to today’s effect, and the present as the cause to tomorrow’s. Looking back is the first step forward.
But hey, no accounting for intelligence on a public forum I suppose.
I don’t believe that paying someone money, granting them land, and providing social services based on something that happened 100-200 years ago, that no one today has anything to do with is a good idea. Your argument certainly did not persuade me that it is.
Would you mind explaining your vote further? It confuses me, because it just takes a factual statement and decides that I lost the debate because of it. Any elaboration would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your feedback.
For all of those who would say con didn’t accuse me of white supremacy, it reads loud and clear, “All Lives Matter was a useless f###ing counter movement with no real goals, made just to soothe white egos. I’d bet that whatever you’d propose instead of reparations would be about the same.” Con clearly said that what I’d propose instead of reparations would be similar to All Lives Matter, which con clearly expressed as a “useless f###ing counter movement with no real goals, made just to soothe white egos.” I have no idea where that profanity came from. I was just trying to have a good debate, and I’m sorry if I came off as a “douche bag” as the one guy who has voted called me, but I’m not meaning anything wrong. I think profanity is wrong by itself for a civilized debate. borz_kriffle, seeing as how no admins have responded, I’d just like to move on, and I hope we can agree to disagree.
Initial start to a RFD write-up
I do use the 7 point voting paradigm. Conduct is worth 1 point, and can override other allotments, but is not guaranteed to do so.
Legibility:
When conversing online, break stuff into separate lines. Wall of text is horrible, even when not lengthy.
Double line breaks are rarely a bad option (this would have done well with a single).
Arguments:
"profiting off of slavery" this point from pro was actually well executed in R1, even while the subtlety of it would go over the heads of most.
"entrepreneurial encouragement plans" was interesting. It borders on a kritik, but is good to toss in there that there would be more effective ways to uplift people. Con's counter "infrastructure typically helps only the lowest rungs, meaning that the middle chunk is left completely un-aided" this is self defating, since it's the lowest which are in need of help.
"on July 29, 2008, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR. 194, a resolution apologizing for slavery and the subsequent discriminatory laws against African Americans"
Not quite sure how that fixes anything, and it's weirdly recent if all the problems went away 150 years ago.
Pro's overall theme is that reparations would be giving in to the very racism it's supposed to be counteracting
Con gets off to a bad start with accusing pro of being emotional. Way too much time gets wasted on this. And pathos appeals are still appeals.
But we swiftly gets into how it could be done in a done racist manner by taxing everyone (that needs to be built out more)... This: "We have to build the base of the pyramid before we place the capstone, so to speak." with a couple sources added would have done it perfectly.
"You refuse to recognize that African Americans are still disadvantaged by the ripples of slavery" a link on generational wealth would have carried the day.
"I also think that unicorns should be created and Teddy Roosevelt should be brought back to life for another term." My favorite line of the debate. Teddy Roosevelt in particular (my favorite shirt brant is RSVLTS).
...
Both argued over who were the real slave owners... Either the very wealthy and evil elite, or the founding fathers and other very wealthy elites (plus every farm owner... which again, I keep saying give links because certain claims are pretty doubtful; slaves were expensive for starters). Con does well here near the end with the reminder of slavery laying the groundwork for this country: "as a third of the southern white population owned them and all of America got cheap goods from them"
Good point.
Government pays = American citizen pays.
Wylted, I'm not sure what you mean. If someone's only argument is that they would personally benefit, they wouldn't do very well in the debate.
I really agree with this guy
Best.Korea, the idea of slavery reparations isn't that the government pays them, it's that other American citizens (whites who are apparently responsible for slavery) have to pay them.
So Pro argues that government shouldnt help at all to people who are harmed, not even few dollars to them.
Good luck.
You may want to alter the debate a bit.
While I know "anybody" Is mostly hyperbolic, if your opponent is pedantic they may argue that they personally would benefit