The USFG ought to pay reparations to African Americans.

My opponent cites a source that says that most people in the US don't believe that the US is something that is superior to other nations in the world, and because of this, American Exceptionalism is not something that is widespread in the American mindset. But by doing this, he cites Pew, which actually speaks differently to this. Pew says: "Few Americans (12%) say there are other countries in the world “that are better than the U. S. ”" And the rest (88%) say that the US is the best or is tied for being the best nation in the world. Obviously, there is still American Exceptionalism - my opponent is just taking data completely out of context. Having trust in your government is different than thinking that the nation as a whole is the best in the world. I can think that there is an inherent problem with how the government is set up (maybe I don't like Obama, something along those lines, something that impedes my ability to trust the government) - but I still think that the US is something that is great because of its inherent meanings - democracy, giving people the right to voice their opinions, federalism, etc. Having trust in a current government doesn't mean that the core structures of the government aren't trustable. This ultimately means that American Exceptionalism is still something that is pervasive in the American mindset and is something that is prevalent throughout the people of the nation. This means that my framework is left intact from my opponent's attack on the framework itself. My opponent goes on to say that my sources are fallacious appeals to authority, and that I didn't even say that they are authoritative. Professors of Princeton and colleges throughout the nation; journalists that write pieces on the deep mindset of people in the US; journalists from reputable sources - these are all authoritative authors on their subjects. It's not a fallacious appeal to authority if you cite someone saying something if they have the credentials to actually have an expert opinion on something, like professors in universities do; the only way that you can see that something is a fallacious appeal to authority is if someone that is authoritative in nature but is not authoritative on the material itself. For example, President Obama talking about marine biology and how algae blooms impact ecosystems - that is a fallacious appeal to authority, citing a professor on how American Exceptionalism is still a widespread issue is not a fallacious appeal to authority. I did prove that American Exceptionalism is a very harmful thing. Again, as Stephen Walt writes, American Exceptionalism downplays social issues: "it’s unsurprising that they find the idea of their own exceptionalism comforting — and that their aspiring political leaders have been proclaiming it with increasing fervor" My opponent never attacks what is actually being said, he just attacks who it came from and if he thinks that what they are saying is valid or not; not actually saying why it is invalid. He says that everything can be explained by governmental incompetency, but the authors of these texts explicitly say that American Exceptionalism is the cause of all of these blunders. Con further doesn't refute the message, just who the messager is; he says that reparations won't cause us to rethink American Exceptionalism because . .. . there is no reason given, just that we need to look at his refuted arguments. This isn't a valid refutation at all; thus, my argument should be held at full weight. All of my arguments should be held at full weight because my opponent never attacks the actual arguments themselves. This means that I win this debate because my arguments fulfill the BoP completely when held at their weight given; my opponent's when scrutinised do not (and they hold no weight if they were accepted as fact). Con, remember to pass the next round.