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

"My opponent states that he "cited the relevant rules" for this debate. I contend that the relevant rules are subjective, and the reader must make a decision for his/herself." Whether morality is subjective is not at issue here. My point is that the rules I named are violated by both. Both have initiation of force against them and their property. The situations violate the same rules, regardless of the truth of those rules, the truth and scope of those rules is a matter for another debate :). "Moral rules are either individual, or social, and my opponent's position is a position that cannot be universally taken simply because he says the rules are the same." X violates A and B. Y violates A and B. X and Y violate the same rules, A and B. This is pretty basic logic, it's the same thing that gives us the commutative property in math :). Logic is universal. "To ascribe a definition of slavery and oppression to the status of businessmen in America is a subjective position, and not a universally rational one." If you insert a set of facts into a definition, it is indeed universally the rational choice to state "X meets the definition here" if "x" actually meets the definition. "It is not common sense that businessmen are "enslaved and oppressed" to any degree, yet it is common sense that the African slaves were enslaved, and that their descendants have been oppressed." "Common sense" is a phrase which has no specific meaning, and was never intended to have specific meaning, it simply has the property of hiding the specific meaning "Hello, I am attempting to make an ad populum fallacy, so I will use the words 'common' and 'sense' to pretend that it's not really a fallacy." "My opponent claims I am focusing on the "non-essentials", but they are non-essential to his argument alone because he wishes you to make a comparison. Of course any differences, in his view, are non-essential." Any differences which do not alter whether the rules cited are violated are non-essential to the resolution. :). "I will point out that the disparity caused to blacks in America as a result of slavery is in no way comparable to the success Alcoa (and other businesses) has achieved despite my opponent's perceived enslavement and oppression" The fact that one party is more capable of overcoming oppression than the other is not testament to a difference in treatment, but to a difference in the parties. Whereas the fact that force was initiated against them and their property, the rules in question here, is testament to a similarity in treatment-- the only similarity needed to prove the resolution. "Furthermore, Alcoa is neither an individual nor is it as a business representative of all businesses and businessmen" The case of Alcoa is a US Supreme Court precedent. By this country's standards of jurisprudence, Alcoa is legally representative of the treatment given to ALL businessmen in the United States. "My opponent claims to not have asked for emotional sympathy. I contend that is exactly what he is asking for. My opponent's conclusion is purely political in nature," All evaluations of "slavery" are political in nature. Slavery is a political concept, i.e., a concept relating to the actions of people toward each other (in the philosophical definition of slavery), and one relating to the forcible actions of people towards each other (the refinement from common usage for government purposes, government being the agency which exists for the purpose of being the most powerful force.) None of this, however, requires "emotions" from any voters. "and it requires that one sympathize with businessmen in order to make the comparison "businessmen are enslaved and oppressed as were the blacks"." Incorrect. It is entirely possible to be pro-slavery, many people have been throughout history. Therefore, recognizing that something is slavery does not ipso facto require that one sympathizes with them. It may morally require it, but that is something else entirely, and moral requirements are often ignored. "". We are not debating simply whether or not businessmen are enslaved and oppressed to some degree" We are debating whether the rules that forbid slavery and oppression, the "Same moral rules" of the resolution, are violated by both cases. To any degree but zero, i.e. "some degree." "It is my opponent who first make the comparison. He did not simply state "businessmen are enslaved and oppressed", rather that as blacks were enslaved and oppressed in the past, so are businessmen today. When one takes a visual, or figurative metaphorical cue, or when one is asked to do so, whether or not we have experienced the metaphor being used we are being asked to make an emotional decision based on the picture brought into mind." Metaphors do not require emotion, they require conceptualization. "t is my opponent's view that a similar picture can be painted- only with less prominent colors (less degree). I contend that the picture is not similar at all, and the similarities would be abstract at best" Moral rules are ABSTRACT. ABSTRACT similarities are what is needed. "At best" I've just won. lol. "My opponent admits this in stating that he asks for "conceptual thought". He claims that a difference in kind is non-essential to the definition" A difference in kind OTHER than the "kind" referred to by the definition. You're dropping the proper intellectual context of that statement. "A comparison in this case requires no conceptual thought whatsoever. The claim that it is the "same rule, different action" is irrational at different levels. Legally, stealing a car is grand larceny, while stealing a wallet may range from petty theft or pickpocketing, to assault and robbery." Yet all fall under the concept "theft," all violate the rule "don't steal," derived from the right to property. "Every aspect of each situation is considered when making a moral judgment." Oh? Is the number of rotations per minute of the nearest oxygen atom considered when making the judgment of whether to kill someone two yards from the oxygen atom in question? Obviously, some aspects are considered and some are not. " My opponent claims that race is non-essential to the aspect of slavery. I contend it is not when requiring figurative reasoning and conceptual thought." You contend, in other words, that the Roman slaves were not slaves, the Aztecan slaves were not slaves, etc. This clearly ignores the definition of slavery :). "The same as with the wallet and the car, slavery in Rome can be compared with slavery in America. This does not take conceptual thought for many reasons." Slavery is a concept, as far as creatures at the perceptual level are considered, it does not exist, they can't conceive of "coercion" without first learning to conceive. Comparing two instances of it's application necessarily requires conceptual thought. "This is a clear difference in degree with race contributing to the degree." Difference in degree do not affect whether a moral rule is violated, moral rules refer to kinds of actions in certain contexts, implicitly on the premise of kinds of consequences resulting from taking those actions in those concepts, not knowing how long or how hard those consequences will come. "It is no longer businessmen or individuals, rather business itself. " Business is a sum total of businessmen. The latter only has meaning in terms of the former. "My opponent next makes a comparison of murder. One person is murdered because they look funny, the other for political reasons. Again, no conceptual thinking has to be done. ... to rationally state that someone was murdered." Murder is a concept. Rationality is the ability to process concepts. This should be basic :). TBC