The USFG ought to pay reparations to African Americans.

PRO CONSTRUCTIVE ONE} The thesis of this case is that justice demands reparations for the government-sanctioned brutality and deprivation visited upon African Americans over the past three centuries. Contrary to the claims of some, the brutality did not end with the civil war, but has continued up to the current generations of African Americans. The affirmative side would like the provide the following definitions to clarify debate: 1. Ought defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary as "used to express obligation , advisability , natural expectation , or logical consequence " 2. Reparation as defined by Oxford Dictionaries as "the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged" Contention 1: AFRICAN AMERICANS HAVE SUFFERED HORIFFIC ABUSE A. SLAVERY IS PROPERLY REGARDED AS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY {Klein, "THE GUARDIAN", 2009} The final Durban Declaration became the first document with international legal standing to state that "slavery and the slave trade are a crime against humanity and should always have been so, especially, the transatlantic slave trade." This language was more than symbolic. When lawyers had sought to win slavery reparations in the US courts, the biggest barrier was always the statute of limitations, which had long since expired. But if slavery was "a crime against humanity", it was not restricted by an statute. {Brooks, "ATONEMENT AND FORGIVENESS: A NEW MODEL FOR BLACK REPARATIONS", 2004} Salves were not only dehumanized, but were typically treated with vicious brutality-- worked from dawn to dusk, whipped at the whim of the overseer B. SLAVERY DESTORYED THE FABRIC OF AFRICAN AMERICAN FAMILIES {Wenger, "LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW", 2010} Slavery and Jim Crow inflicted horrific harms upon Blacks in America. Slaves were subjected to physical injury, mental anguish, loss of property, loss of wages, loss of liberty, and loss of family relationships. The entire system of slavery depended upon a series of massive deprivations of basic human rights. C. "JIM CROW" POLICIES HAVE CONTINUED THE OPPRESSION OF AFRICAN AMERICANS UP TO THE PRESENT GENERATION {Lyons, "BOSTON COLLEGE THRID WORLD LAW JOURNAL", 2004} Reparations claims do not require us to go back in 138 years. We need not go back in time at all, as I'll now explain. American practice of racial subordination did not end with slavery but evolved into the system know as Jim Crow. The system received a veneer of legal legitimacy from new state constitutions and legislation around the turn of the century, every African American knew -- or was in the position to know-- that Jim Crow was built upon the illegal disfranchisement of African Americans as well as fraud, harassment, coercion, and brutal violence, and that it became possible because of an unwillingness in all three branches of the federal government to enforce clear constitutional obligations and legislative mandates that been established after the civil war. Essentially, contention one is the basis for this debate. The brutality the United States Federal Government allowed to happen upon African Americans is atrocious and should* not* go without reparations. It the united states duty to uphold justice, as justice is the first virtue of social institutions. To the citizens are alike that justice is their first concern. Not power, or the GNP, or efficiency or the endless pursuit of private interest but justice is the proper political thought and action as it is the defining characteristic of the good state. Reparations would atone for the wrongs done to African Americans in US history therefore, providing justice for the people as a whole and would be good political action for the Us as well. Contention 2: JUSTICE DEMANDS THAT AFRICAN AMERICANS BE PROVIDED REPARATIONS A. THE QUESTION OF PLAN DETAILS IS WHOLLY SEPERATE FROM THE QUESTION OF WHETHER IT "OUGHT" TO BE PAID {Corlett, "RACE, RACISM, AND REPARATIONS", 2003} If it were the case that no proposed reparations policy to date is plausible for whatever reasons, it would not follow logically that African Americans are not owed reparations of a just nature. to think otherwise would be to fallaciously infer that our supposed inability to work through the problem of how to award reparations logically implies something about African Americans deserve, in this case, as a matter of corrective justice through compensation. We must* not* confuse the question of the moral requirement of reparations to African Americans with the question of how they ought to be awarded, B. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRACTICALITIES OF REPARATIONS ARE RALLY JUST A DELAY TACTIC - AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE JUSTICE OF REPARATIONS SHOULD COME FIRST. {Coates, "THE ATLANTIC", 2014} Broach the topic of reparations today and a barrage of questions inevitably follows: Who will be paid? How much will they be paid? Who will pay? If the practicalities, not the justice, of reparations are true sticking point, there has for some time been the beginnings of a solution. The past 25 years Congressman John Conyers Jr . has marked every session of Congress by introducing a bill calling for a congressional study of slavery and its lingering effects as well as recommendations for "appropriate remedies". A country curious about how reparations might actually work has an easy solution in Conyer's bill. We would support this bill, submit the question to study, and then asses the possible solutions. But we are not interested. Note the resolution asks only whether reparations "ought to be paid" - It does* not* ask to engage in the details of the payment. What contention two is saying is it doesn't matter if we can or can't pay reparations all that matters is that we should or shouldn't pay them. In which all aspects we should due to extreme oppression and brutality faced by African Americans the Federal Government allowed to happen. The plan details do not need to be considered in this debate at all. If impracticalities are really the issue then why has congress for the past 25 years rejected to study a bill that doesn't authorize a red cent to anyone. This implies that problems aren't linked in the practicalities of reparations but something more existential. There is clearly no other vote than, affirmative.