Reparations For Slavery Are Counterproductive And Would Just Be Problematic For Everyone

FYI, your vote needed a bit more detail; even while I see how such a blunder can shift everything. Even just a short analysis of how that was then leveraged would improve things significantly (the debate is already over, so it doesn't matter too much, just thoughts for future votes).

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