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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Arguments: Pro
In short, too complex and requiring constitutional changes accepted by the states before it could be attempted.

Sources: Tie
They both appear to have done well on their research.

Legibility: Tie
No issues.

Conduct: Tie
Both stayed professional.

R1:
Pro builds a good case for the constitution prohibiting it ("Ex post facto"), and how muddled it all is anyway with Britain. Additionally to attempt it they would have to change the constitution (very hard).
Con argues that Japanese americans sent to concentration camps were given reparations, as were Alaskan Natives for their maltreatment. He further argues that the supreme court would decide, but makes an appeal that it would be justifiable due to historically suffered disadvantages.

R2:
Pro talks about intergenerational trauma, and ties it into reparations at the cost to the current generation (including immigrants from after slavery) being unwarranted for non-systemic issues. He also rebuts issues of scope creep (even making a point of property returns/replacements to still living people within the cases raised).
Con attacks the Ex post facto as not applying to the type of law to be imposed. And that Bill of Attainder would only play into it if it was individuals being sued. He backtracks his evidence as something to show a theme rather than it being directly comparable.

R3:
Pro defends his opening with a good quote from a similar case "‘Laws made to punish actions done before the existence of such laws, and which have not been declared crimes by preceding laws, are unjust. . . .’" This is slightly pre-defended with talk of the point of reparations not being to punish anyone, but that defense is likewise preempted with the talk of newly naturalized citizens who would then have to pay. Finally pro attacks more on the scope of cases in relation to this issue, and reiterates his main points from earlier.
Con drops (while it makes the decision easy, they were already struggling).