Should African Americans Recieve Reparations For Slavery

Argument I: Financial Aide.Pro's case assumes, again, that there is a debt owed. The only reason the question of Reparations comes into discussion is the belief that black people are, today, still harmed by the actions of long ago. The idea being to make up for the difficulties faced today because of issues long ago. However, as stated, these financial aide programs I pointed out, as well as programs like Affirmative Action (regardless of how unpopular it is) already aids the issues black people today face.The issues faced because of Slavery are the reasons reparations are considered, and if there weren't any issues created by slavery, there wouldn't be a need for reparations. But since each issue faced by black people because of slavery has a corresponding social program to help, reparations are unnecessary. Especially since it's questionable if the problems faced by black people are even related to slavery after 150 or so years.Argument II: Inherited Responsiblity.Pro drops my entire case about how too many people today did not have ancestors in the US at the time of slavery. Therefore they had nothing to do with it.A note on how responsibility works... By pro's case, if the money you earned while working hard was, over a century ago, earned by a slave owner, you are now responsible for slave labor. This is not the case.Rebuttal I: Prior Reparations.By Pro's case, slavery should still exist because a precedence was set a hundred years ago... As should war over diplomacy, and reserving rights only for men. A precedence isn't good enough. Pro must prove why these reparations from Germany to Israel, and from the US to the Native Americas, are appropriate to began with.This is clearly fallacious.P1) Should the US pay Reparations to AAs?P2) The US pays Reparations to NAs.C) The US should pay Reparations to AAs.It assumes that because of P2, the US paying reparations are good... However, it could be that the US paying Native Americans reparations is wrong to began with. Paying Native Americans reparations is highly unpopular (not the Status Quo opinion), so it's on Pro to prove that these reparations are good, and that the precedence sat by them are good.Pro says that it's not important if these Reparations are good... They should still be followed. No, they should be repealed.Rebuttal II: Historical Free Labor.It must also be noted that exports aren't representative of the US economy at a time when only Europe and South America were viable trade partners. Half of US Exports does not imply a large portion of the US economy. And a large portion of the US economy does not imply a large portion of companies. Just because a dollar went through a company with slave labor does not mean every company that the dollar went through has profited from slave labor.By that principle, if I have a dollar that a drug dealer once had, I've profited from drug dealing and should help for the cost of an OD victim's funeral... Obviously this thinking isn't correct. If half of the Economy goes through 5 out of 100 companies, it doesn't imply half of the 100 companies profited, or are responsible for, what the 5 companies did. The companies in the South using slave labor may have made a lot of money, but still only account for less than 10% of all US productivity at the time. I should note that Pro's claims here aren't sourced.This is where Pro's case simply doesn't work. It's based on the idea that earning a dollar means you are responsible for every enterprise that that dollar has gone through. If a dollar is made in slave labor, goes through a restaurant, than a bank, than an IT company, down to you, you are responsible for slave labor? Pro's whole case here is flawed, and only works if you don't look into it. And again, Pro assumes the US only rose because of slave labor... In fact, had the south had to pay for labor, it would still have rose, if not faster. I will repeat myself, since Pro ignored my stats: Slave labor was mostly in Agriculture in the South... The South only accounted for 10% of the US economy (1). Therefore (since Agriculture was not the South's only industry) slave labor accounted for far less than 10% of the economy. And the North produced most of the US's agriculture, so the South wasn't even responsible for our Cotton Trade... The North was. Meaning slave labor helped in near to none of the US economy. Pro's case is based on historical stereotypes of the US Economy.And if his case was right, it still doesn't imply that every company of today is responsible for slave labor just because the dollar they earned, once 150+ years ago, was made off a product made by slaves.[1] http://www.nps.gov...[]Rebuttal III: Current Conditions.Pro's case is red herring. He misrepresents my entire case COMPLETELY to the point that it is questionable if he read my case. My case was using Computers to explain a fallacy...Pro's case about PTSS is copy/pasted from Wikipedia, and flat out cherry-picks the case to leave out that the article also says that the author (yes, the whole theory is based on one author's book, and hardly exists elsewhere) claims the issue of PTSS can only be treated by social change... Financial aid does not treat the issue. What the author implies is that PTSS is based on PTSD, and must be fied by becoming more accepting of black people. Pro's case also assumes that all PTSS are slave related and that, after far over a century, PTSS would still be predominate in black culture because of white people, and not because of black people. If a disorder caused by abuse is carried on to a child, it's an issue... If it carries on for a century's worth of generations, it becomes a blatant victumization and the parents passing down the belief that the child is a victim instead of teaching them to better their lifes and make their future and children's future brighter.That is what Pro isn't getting... To prove his case, he must prove that everything facing Black people today is the result of modern people. Crimes and actions are not genetic or inheritable. I can not inherit my fathers murders, or my grandfathers assault, or my great grandfather's racism... In fact, such a concept (inheriting an ancestor's sins) is opposed by western law. A child can not inherit the sins of his father, and unless Pro proves that we inherit our father's crimes, he can not prove we are responsible for them, and therefore can not prove we should pay for them.Pro's remaining case is about issues found in modern black culture... This case does not prove that it's because of slave labor. After 150 years, the state of one's culture is no longer the fault of the original issue. It becomes the fault of the people in the culture. Pro's case of victimization does not help make things better, and neither would reparations.Also, most of what Pro stats is based on the ghetto culture, which is the result of black people's treatment of their situation, and of the Civil Rights violations in the early and mid-1900's. These attitudes were not caused by slavery, as slavery was largely caused by public opinion of black people, not vice versa. The problem for Pro is that his case must prove slavery was the cause, not the Civil Rights violations, as the Resolution is about slavery.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[]Conclusion: Black People and Civil Rights violations are equally to blame for issues facing black people today. Unless pro prove's that white people today are responsible for slavery, he can not prove that white people today must pay for slavery.