Slavery and oppression of blacks violates the same moral rules as oppression of businessmen

My opponent claims that he did not state that businessmen were beat and tortured, made to forget their names, or smuggled on slave ships. He claims my stating this is irrelevant to the discussion. I contend it is very relevant to violating "the same moral rules" in either case. The same moral rules could not possibly have been violated if one groups, as he says, suffered to a different degree as well as kind of slavery and oppression, if you can even define his examples as slavery and oppression which I contend you cannot without emotionally sympathizing with businessmen. I will elaborate a little later. He claims that he "never denied that the past slavery of blacks had anything to do with race". The fact is I made the statement that blacks were "systematically enslaved and oppressed BECAUSE of the color of their skin", and his response was "slavery is not defined solely in terms of race". He is either confused about the point I was making, or confused about the point he is making. If one group was systematically enslaved and oppressed because of their race, and the other was not then there can't possibly be a comparison. Businessmen are amongst the most successful men in America. The top five wealthiest Americans, let alone the Forbes 400, are all businessmen/women. (http://www.forbes.com...) Ask these 400 Americans, or the other top 5% of Americans if they feel enslaved and/or oppressed. I am sure you will find a few who would use these terms, but if you ask them if they would, in any way, compare themselves to black slaves, or black citizens up until recently (and to some degree, even today) I am sure you will find very few who would find the question rational. Indeed finding a few, or even a few hundred who make this claim in no way makes this point valid, as the alternative to this comparison is asking millions of slaves and descendants of slaves if they, in any way, identify their plight with that of American businessmen. My opponent claims that whether or not you are offended is irrelevant to the debate. He claims that suffering is not a commodity to be haggled, yet his comparison is one completely based on emotion, and sympathy with businessmen, and not on fact. The term slavery as applied to African slaves in no way is equal or comparable with the term slavery as he uses it with businessmen. You cannot objectively state that American businessmen are slaves. To make this statement is to do so with emotional, financial, or philosophical attachment to businessmen, or from the point of view of a businessman who has had a bad experience. Offense is also based on emotion, but one can also be rationally offended by this comparison. It is also part of my premise, and he knew this prior to acceptance of my debate. It appears my opponent concedes the point that the comparison is, as I stated in my R1 argument, "offensive to the struggles faced by blacks, the battles fought, and the progress reached by America as a whole". I stated that I hoped the readers were "disgusted and offended" by the comparison, and because he is asking you to emotionally sympathize with businessmen rather than looking at the comparison rationally through literal definitions, I am obviously going to ask you to sympathize with African slaves and their descendants. My opponent first claimed that apartheid was non-existent in the US. He said "this is not South Africa". He now defines apartheid as "enforced separation of groups". Rather than simply conceding the point based on my example of Jim Crow laws which "enforced separation of" blacks and whites, he attempts to water it down. The fact is that apartheid was so rampant, so deeply rooted, and so important to whites that when blacks began to fight back they were lynched, murdered, tortured, and millions of whites joined the Ku Klux Klan at one point in support of apartheid. Martin Luther King, JR, one of the men who fought to end apartheid in the US was assassinated due to his defiance of this deeply rooted tradition. The societal arrangements of blacks and whites were hardly as my opponent claims, and in fact, the societal arrangements defied the law- in some cases up until the 20th century. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)- NOTE: I have used a Wikipedia source because it cites multiple sources that I have confirmed. Before you discredit this Wikipedia article, please make sure you verify the veracity of the statements, and the reliability of it's own sources as I have. Thank you. 1. "Business" is not a culture as compared with that of African slaves. The African slaves lost the cultures of their forefathers against their will, and without remedy. The comparison is, again, based on emotional attachment to businessmen, and emotional detachment to African slaves. The stripping of cultures in this case cannot be literally, and therefore not logically, compared. 2. Being imprisoned is not being "robbed" from your home. Many imprisoned businessmen have committed crimes, while African slaves owed no debts to those who robbed them from their homes. Committing a crime indebts you to society, often in the form of a prison sentence. The comparison is illogical and irrational. 3. African slaves had no part in being separated from their children and families. The children of businessmen have not been sold to other families, nor have their spouses. If my opponent intends to claim that "some" businessmen are not guilty of the crimes for which they have been imprioned, he must show how that compares to ALL African slaves being liable to being separated from their children and families without any rights or remedy, and with limited opportunity to ever reunite with their families. (In R1 I posted a source which still seeks to reunite families divided during the slave trade). 4. My opponent claims that being smuggled on slave ships is irrelevant due to when the slave trade ended. In 1860, Timothy Meaher- a businessman, of all things- sent the last American slave ship from Nigeria and Benin to Alabama (http://www.sylvianediouf.com...). Though I don't know what his point is in his timeline, I just wanted to point that out. Many nations around the world have apologized for the effect the slave trade has had on blacks. The method of how they were captured and transported, and it's cruelty and inhumaneness is definitely relevant to a comparison of slavery and oppression between two groups. 5. Businessmen have rights, and slaves do not. Businessmen are afforded every right under the US Constitution, while the Supreme Court once declared blacks as sub-human (please see my R1 reference) though not in those exact words. Also, please see my reference to the Forbes 400. 6. My opponent attempts to justify why African slaves were beat and tortured, and compares this to methods to enhance production in today's business. There is no evidence that beating and torturing slaves enhanced production, and the beatings and torture of blacks has not been limited to slavery. Please see my R1 sources on this issue. 7. My opponent attempts to compare the acts of criminals against criminals with the rape of innocent women. The comparison is irrational. 8. Businessmen have a choice to work for the companies for which they work, and they have a choice to not work at all. The "plight" of the businessman, and his being "numbered" is based on the businessman himself making money. Slaves were made to forget who they were for the sole benefit of their owners- all of which happened to be businessmen/women. My opponent concedes that the comparison is not literal, and only figurative- relying, again, on an emotional attachment to businessmen. 9. To claim that any of the Forbes 400 are dehumanized in any way as African slaves is irrational. I have run out of room, and I await my opponent's response. Thank you.