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

" -This is a rather manipulative statement that wouldn't allow for differences in anything anyone stated was not different. " Incorrect, that cannot be rationally derived from what you quoted. "You rely on complete ambiguity. The initiation of force does not equal slavery, and does not equal oppression." That wasn't the claim, the claim was they violate the same rules :). "For example, the Nazis were not guilty of initiation of force against the United States" They were guilty of initiation of force against the Jews. It's the fact that force was initiated that makes a response retaliatory, not the intended target of the force. ", but the government felt the moral imperative to put it's military to good use and initiate force against their tyranny" A definitely false statement. If the decisions of the United States World War II had anything to do with a "moral imperative," they would have been directed against the Soviets too, instead of allied with them, the initial part already having been addressed :)/ "Placing a pedophile guilty of viewing online kiddie porn is an initiation of force." Correct, unless the kiddie porn was produced using force, in which case the pedophile is an accomplice in the matter-- one who willingly participates in an act is guilty of it even if their role in the act is not as it's focus. "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." Robbery is an act of force, but we'd need more context to know whether the "robbery" statement is accurate. " 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." Which is wholly irrelevant to the question of whether each class contains human beings. " 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," It does unless the non-violent criminal still initiated force (fraud and burglary are both nonviolent, but both initiate force against someone's property, the former case having made sure themselves that such thing WOULD be the property of another before stealing it. " D= Initiation of force to prevent someone from cheating, hurting, or exploiting others" In other words, if I murder you, I have prevented all potential crimes you can commit. Note that all your letters are irrelevant, the rule in question was a BLANKET RULE against initiating force. How is that not harmful? If you add in KNOWLEDGE that they intend to harm someone else, then they have already initiated force, just not finished it yet. Retaliation doesn't have to wait until something is a fait accompli, just until it is proven that the initiation occurred. "If my opponent claims that D=C, he must show how this is true." See above. "Logic may be universal in math, but not in morality." Logic is universal for anything which is true. If your form of morality excludes it, then it is untrue. ". If morality itself is subjective, then so are the rules." If all morality is "subjective," with no real elements, then all moral rules are the same, ipso facto, by virtue of nonexistence, and the resolution is proven. "-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." Logic=/= common sense. Logic is a system derived from the law of identity. Common sense is whatever people want it to be, it is an appeal to the ad hominem fallacy without even bothering to prove the populum part. " -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." I think it's clear that my definition of oppression is initiation of force, the two are interchangeable. "Alcoa" and "Black people" are both classes of human beings which do not automatically indicate initiation of force by them, as such, they are both classes in which parties have rights, this is the only relevant form of equality they need. "Disparity is not caused by blacks not overcoming oppression" Disparity is jointly caused by oppression and the failure to overcome it. If they overcome it, obviously, the disparity resulting from it does not exist. Both causal conditions are necessary. "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." What an utterly ambigous collective. There are many, many whites whose wealth was not supplemented by slavery, and many, many blacks who have inherited money. "If "logic is universal", then we must use logic in all cases. My opponent has failed to do so." Which, you have not demonstrated :). " -That is a logical deductive fallacy. What of the businessmen and businesses that benefitted by Alcoa's de-monopolization? " They have not yet violated the edicts given by their masters. And "logical deductive" is not the name of a fallacy. "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." "Massa! Massa! I didn't really do it!--" Does not change the nature of the source of the rules in the first place. " 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?!?!?!" The assertion of ownership by the government that lead to Alcoa having to bow and scrape before a court in the first place, and still leads to Alcoa's continued payment of dividends from the government's ownership share in the life of every last shareholder into the US treasury. " 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." I was not treating them as reified, I was treating them as concepts because ALL DEBATES REQUIRE CONCEPTS. "We can argue semantics all day," ALL DEBATES REQUIRE SEMANTICS, i.e., applying meanings to words. "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," I have repeatedly made that statement, with the exception of the words "unfair and seemingly" because "unfair" has about as much meaning as "common sense" and "seemingly" has bad implications. "rather he has tried to literally compare the enslavement of businessmen." Yes, LITERALLY COMPARE. Because, I don't know, demonstrating that they compare by violating LITERALLY THE SAME moral rules, kind of furthers the resolution don'tcha think?