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

" 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....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....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." -This is a rather manipulative statement that wouldn't allow for differences in anything anyone stated was not different. You rely on complete ambiguity. The initiation of force does not equal slavery, and does not equal oppression. For example, the Nazis were not guilty of initiation of force against the United States, but the government felt the moral imperative to put it's military to good use and initiate force against their tyranny. Placing a pedophile guilty of viewing online kiddie porn is an initiation of force. When the CEO of Tyco robbed millions from investors and employees, he did not initiate any force onto his employees- one of which I was. When the government "initiated force" against this thief, how is that "similar" to pirates storming huts in Benin and taking entire families of blacks, stacking them into slave ships, and selling them into slavery? My opponent claims his premise is this: Businessmen and free Africans are people. People= A Initiation of force for any reason= B Slavery= C Or A+B=C He claims this is simple logic... however "businessmen" does not equal "people" in the same way "Africans" equals people. Businessman is the description of the function of a person within a society, while "African" is the description of the society a person came from. A businessman cannot come from the continent of "Business", and an African cannot perform the job of "Africa". Therefore "businessmen" cannot equal A, rather some function of A requiring some other equation. On that same note, the initiation of force for any reason cannot be a variable when seaking the conclusion of C. Initiation of force to arrest a non-violent criminal, for example, does not equal slavery, but it doesn't even equal initiation of force for the purpose of enslaving someone, which is what my opponent is trying to claim. He is trying to make the moral argument that the same moral rules are violated in initiation of force for slavery, and the initiation of force absent any veriables. But if we add these very significant variables: A= African people B= Businessmen (African, Norwegian, who cares...) C= Initiation of force to hurt someone D= Initiation of force to prevent someone from cheating, hurting, or exploiting others E= Sending someone to Prison for a crime F= Snatching someone from their homes to enslave them A+C= F, and B+D=E. If my opponent claims that D=C, he must show how this is true. He has not even given examples of how businessmen have been systematic victims of C, rather he has simply stated so. I have shown many examples of how blacks have been victims of C. My opponent has shifted in the definition of B, while A has remained constant. My opponent has even attempted to manipulate the definition of E, but without showing how his hypothesis is systematically true. Logic may be universal in math, but not in morality. If morality itself is subjective, then so are the rules. My opponent tries to manipulate the rules to reflect his view, and I manipulate them to reflect my view. My view is that the same moral rules do not apply. My opponent's view is that the same moral rules DO apply, but as of now he has refused to give us examples of HOW they apply. ""Common sense" is a phrase which has no specific meaning, and was never intended to have specific meaning..." -Now my opponent seems to contradict himself. On the one hand, logic is universal, but on the other hand, "common sense" has no specific meaning. A semantic debate is not necessary for the readers to understand my statement of common sense within the context, even if my opponent would like to distract us all with one. "The fact that one party is more capable of overcoming oppression than the other is not testament to a difference in treatment" -My opponent seems confused, and it is his confusion that leads to these irrational deductions. Alcoa not only does not equal to "black people", but the "oppression" experienced by Alcoa cannot be defined as such- a point you have failed to make through examples, definition, or otherwise, and "overcoming oppression" is subjective. Disparity is not caused by blacks not overcoming oppression, and you must lack all common sense to realize that blacks just recently achieved all the rights in this society (say 1964) that whites had for at least 300 years prior. Add to that the fact that white's weatlh was supplemented by the slavery of blacks (like that of the McCain family), while the blacks who came out of slavery started with nothing. If "logic is universal", then we must use logic in all cases. My opponent has failed to do so. "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" -That is a logical deductive fallacy. What of the businessmen and businesses that benefitted by Alcoa's de-monopolization? Are we not to take "all businessmen" into consideration? Or only those you've sided with? Not only that- Alcoa was never forced into divesture: "In 1947, Alcoa made the argument to the court that there were two effective new entrants into the aluminum market – Reynolds and Kaiser – as a result of demobilization after the war and the government's divestiture of defense plants. In other words, the problem had solved itself and no judicial action would be required. On this basis, the district court judge ruled against divestiture in 1950, but the court retained jurisdiction over the case for five years, so that it could look over Alcoa's shoulder and ensure that there was no re-monopolization." Reynold's became the second largest aluminum company in the United States, and the third largest in the world until it was acquired by Alcoa in 2000. How is this oppression and slavery?!?!?! My opponent then makes some interesting statements. All seeming to attempt to manipulate the readers from thinking logically and rationally. He makes statements such as "murder is a concept", etc. Yes, words are concepts. They do not actually embody the objects or ideas they are meant to represent. We can argue semantics all day, and that is the way of one who feels he is not adequately making his point. What we must remember is that my opponent made the comparison, and he did so with the intent of getting us to "conceptually picture" businessmen enslaved and oppressed by the US Government in the fashion Africans were enslaved and oppressed. If his arguments are true, he would have never made the comparison because he could have simply said "Businessmen have experienced an unfair, and seamingly oppressive initiation of force from the US Government". He did not make that statement, rather he has tried to literally compare the enslavement of businessmen. He has asked us to "think conceptually". He has made several comparisons of what he deems "relevant aspects". He has been contradictory in his comparison, his rules for logic and morality, and even his semantics. Businessmen have not been oppressed. They have not been enslaved. There has been no initiation of force against businessmen. We can have a debate about the fairness of American laws another day, but in the meantime, businessmen have a choice. Blacks had no rights in their slavery and oppression. Thank you