Instigator / Pro
7
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Topic
#2934

Resolution: The US Congress cannot merely legislate reparations for descendants of slaves

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

fauxlaw
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
12,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1551
rating
26
debates
57.69%
won
Description

Resolution: The US Congress cannot merely legislate reparations for descendants of slaves.

Description: The notion of reparations payments to descendants of slaves in the U.S. has been a political discussion for generations. As initiator, I contend, and my BoP is that Congress cannot enact ordinary law to authorize and mandate such payment. Con will take the opposing view, and BoP, that Congress can enact such legislation.

Definitions:

US Congress: The legislative body of the U.S. government, consisting of the Senate and House of Representatives.

Legislate: The function of US Congress to enact federal law

Reparations: Proposed authorized payment by the U.S. Government in cash or tax credit to descendants of black and indigenous tribal slaves for actions caused by the U.S. Government of obvious mistreatment up to, and including death of ancestors.

Slaves: Any black and indigenous tribal persons sold into slavery by slave traders to U.S. citizens during the 17th to 19th centuries, inclusive, from 1619 and ending by act of Congress by the passage and ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865. Slavery being understood to be the act of imposed labor with no compensation to slaves while profiting slave owners, and which had the added shame of physical, mental, and spiritual abuse of slaves in many cases.

Indigenous: [Relative to the parameters of this debate] People who populated the North American continents before the arrival of European [predominantly] immigrants. I hesitate to use the term “Native American” because that term is not accurately descriptive of the definition “indigenous.” “American,” and "America" are European terms not created by the indigenes.

Tribes: Names of indigenous tribes established by themselves, such as: Cherokee, Iroquois, Crow, Navajo.

Debate protocol

Three-round debate.

R1, R2: Argument, rebuttal, defense

R3: No new argument; rebuttal, defense, conclusion only

All argument, defense, rebuttal, and sourcing will be listed within the context of the debate argument rounds only, except sourcing may also be listed within comments within the debate file to conserve maximum space for argumentation, but only during the argumentation’s three rounds. Neither participant may consult with any person associated with DART to serve as a sourced citation as a feature of participant’s argument.

No waived rounds. No more than one round may be forfeited, or forfeiture of entire debate will result. Concession in any round is a debate loss.

No declaration of victory will be made but in the 3rd round. No declaration of assumption of the opponent’s concession or forfeit in any round. These conditions will be obvious to voters only by either participant’s own declaration.

Arguments, rebuttals, defenses, or conclusions may not address voters directly for voting suggestions beyond statement of validity for arguments, et al, made in all rounds. Participants may encourage voters/readers to read/examine any portion of, or entire rounds.

-->
@Barney

Thank you for voting. Much appreciated

-->
@Barney

Yeah, if anyone bothers to vote. Since I lead the pack, at least in the top ten, in no-vote ties [4 of my 10 - and I wish like hell the last update to voting policy took care of that], I'm not just a little concerned.

At a casual glance, that forfeiture almost certainly seals it.

Pls note that my R2, cited source [8] was deleted, along with its commentary due to word-count restriction, thus the gap between [7] and [9].

Notice: As an effort to improve reader reference to my arguments in this and future rounds of this debate, and in subsequent debates, I am using a continuous running count of argument/rebuttal/defense sections by roman numerals from round to round, to wit: R1 contained arguments I, II. R2 commences with III, IV, and so on, through all succeeding rounds in order avoid repeating numbers in rounds. Formerly, I started each round with I, then II, etc. I'm hoping a continuous run of numbering will help keep consistency and flow of argument.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Correct. CANNOT, as said. Should not does not apply. Will not carries a similar, but not identical weight as cannot, but I chose cannot as the decisive alternative. Yes, I understand there is wiggle room between can and will, or the negation of same, but the wiggle room is not acceptable for this debate. PM for further explanation if you're interested in taking the debate.

-->
@fauxlaw

I just want to be crystal clear - you mean CAN NOT not SHOULD NOT - or WILL NOT - CAN NOT? Because if so I think I have a guess at your aim here - and woo boy - I'm good right now. Perhaps if nobody else accepts the debate I'll give it a shot - we'll see.

-->
@gugigor

It is sufficiently descriptive. Do you want that I give away my arguments? Sorry, no bite on that hook. I will allow that this is not politics, but law. As there is no categorical discretion dedicated to law, politics must serve as the basis of topical discussion.

-->
@fauxlaw

cannot merely? Then what is your plan? Can you give more detail?