The United States Federal Government ought to pay reparations to African Americans.

Observation 1. Advocating for a plan or for a counterplan (the counterplan being saying that we should NOT pay monetary reparations, or that we must have a legitimate framework in place to give reparations) is BANNED in NSDA [1]. This means that having one of these things in a round would advocate for something that isn't allowed within the scope of the debate, ultimately being voided.Observation 2. Even if counterplans were allowed, then ought within the resolution implies that we have a moral obligation to act; exact measures (such as who gets what) are not part of this debate. Moti Mozrahi explains this in his academic paper, "'Ought' Does Not Imply Can" [2]. This means that even if the con could argue against specific things ("we shouldn't pay African Americans because we can't do it!"), it would ultimately be banned because ought denoted a MORAL obligation to act, not encompassing feasibility.Framework: The team that should win is the team that shows that the USFG has a moral obligation to provide, or not to provide, reparations should win. Again, feasibility is banned.Justification 1.To say that there exists no statistical proof that slavery has had an affect on today is a complete misrepresentation of all of the facts of modern society and culture. The places in which slavery thrived, are the places where people (mostly blacks) face the least amount of economic mobility in the nation, as the Boston Globe points out. They found that a person in the deep south has less than a 5% chance of moving up to the top "quintile" (as they call it) if they start at the bottom quintile - a direct remnant of both slavery and, later, Jim Crow laws [3]. What my opponent is suggesting is that slavery has no modern impact, although there is virtually no economic mobility for those that were directly impacted by slavery; either this is a completely huge coincidence, or the remnants of slavery are still here (Occam's Raisor leads us to believe the later). In any case, my opponent is advocating for denial of slavery's impact on today, and saying that it didn't matter in the end; this round should be for civil discourse, not the denunciation of an entire's people history in this nation, up to and including the present. I hope the judges acknowledge this refusal to see that people are not living dream lives, as my opponent advocates.Justification 2.My opponent is arguing from a shelter of feasability- he is arguing that we don't know who is eligible for reparations. As concluded by my observations, anything that is an advocacy (pro or con) that relies on feasability, or something that requires the defining of ought to have feasability within its bounds, is not a valid argument. Thus, the pro does not see these arguments as valid in this debate round, but we do not concede them; they are simply not allowed within the round and the tabula rasa judge ought (has a moral obligation) to discard these.Justification 3.Same response as justification 2. Ought does not imply can. We do not concede this point, we acknowledge that it is not valid in this debate.Justification 4.What exactly could be worse than having the government deny that you had suffered for hundreds of years, all to the deaf ear of the USFG, who I might add only decided to pay any forms of reparations that the ICTJ recognises (apologising) in 2009 [4]. Basically, you are saying that those who do are not in favor of reparations, would go as so far to start having internal reservations against an entire group of people, without any warrants or reasons why?What I would argue is that people would start to realise that what happened is actually a pretty terrible thing; they would feel pity for the descendants of those that had to face the horrors that truly are slavery. They will not decide to go and kill black people because they get reparations (apologising, etc. NOT monetary reparations specifically), that's nearly as absurd as claiming that people will actually hold moral reservations against reparations.Justification 5.Again, refer to justification 2.Impact analysis.My opponent has two actually legitimate arguments against reparations, and neither of them really deal with a moral reservation: there would be racial tensions, and that there is no proof of any harms left over from slavery (this last one is an argument from defense and should not be admitted into the tabula rasa judge's decision. Basically, there would be some AA's that could get hurt because of tensions, and ???.My impacts are that there is no way for any recognition of AA's in current society due to past and current racism, and that there are wages being "garnished" (in a sense) from Beyonce to pay to other performers, simply because they are of a different race than her.The impact that was provided by con is completely unfounded in fact or reasoning, as I pointed out. The impacts of there being no recognition for anyone and due to HUGE "garnished" wages, far outweigh something that doesn't and cannot exist. The USFG has a moral obligation via utalitarianism to benefit the most amount of people (by happiness), and restoring garnished wages and allowing recognition fulfills this moral obligation. There is not a moral obligation of the USFG to prevent tensions that wouldn't even occur; there might be a feasibility argument (no possibility of racial tensions increases productivity), but once again, this is a debate within the scopes of moral obligations.[1]. https://debate.uvm.edu...[2]. http://www.academia.edu...[3]. https://www.bostonglobe.com...[4]. http://www.nytimes.com...