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. 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. 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. 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. 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. My opponent has provided only one example of how businessmen are enslaved and oppressed in his citing of the 1964 Supreme Court decision of United States vs. Alcoa. Alcoa is currently the world's third largest producer of aluminum. Though I won't get into a debate about the case, 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. Furthermore, Alcoa is neither an individual nor is it as a business representative of all businesses and businessmen, while nearly all African-Americans, and blacks in both North and South America, for that matter, are descendants of African slaves. 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, and it requires that one sympathize with businessmen in order to make the comparison "businessmen are enslaved and oppressed as were the blacks". We are not debating simply whether or not businessmen are enslaved and oppressed to some degree- a preposition which cannot be taken literally, rather, can this comparison rationally be made through figurative reasoning. 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. It 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. 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, but if it were non-essential to "conceptual thought" OR figurative reasoning, he wouldn't make the comparison in the first place. His comparison of stealing a car or wallet from someone uses a clear definition of stealing, and clear consequences based on the degree. 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. Different actions, different degrees, and different situations all contribute to the societal penalties. Every aspect of each situation is considered when making a moral judgment. My opponent asks us to ignore degree, and that makes everything else non-essential. 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. 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. This is a clear difference in degree with race contributing to the degree. Businessmen and African slaves? My opponent admits this in fact does take conceptual thought. In this statement he also attempts to transform the entity being compared. It is no longer businessmen or individuals, rather business itself. 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. No figurative reasoning. No emotional attachment is necessary to rationally state that someone was murdered. Now my opponent states that the Forbes 400 "create" wealth, but don't "control" wealth. This is a philosophical statement, and cannot be rationally made in a literal comparison to African slaves. My opponent's argument would make it seem that the Forbes 400 do not have the freedom to spend the wealth they create, move around the world as they please, establish businesses with this wealth, etc. etc. What freedoms did the slaves control over the wealth they created? None. My opponent claims that it does not matter what the businessmen feel like, and that perceptions do not create reality. Yet it is the perception of slavery that he is trying to attribute to businessmen in the first place, and that is why he is asking for "conceptual thought". If we consider how the slaves felt, and whether or not they "tasted" any bit of freedom, and ask the Forbes 400 to compare themselves so that we may think conceptually of their plight, their feelings would in fact matter. My opponent now claims that his claim is based on initiation of force. He has not given factual examples of mass initiation of force by the government against businessmen. I have provided many sources demonstrating initiation of force against the African slaves. My opponent attempts to engage in witty semantic discourse regarding apartheid and segregation. Wittiness aside, he concedes my point. The rest of my opponent's arguments do not really respond to my 2nd round arguments. Nearly every statement requires "conceptual thought". He then attempts to make the debate about initiation of force, going so far as to compare the bureaucratic whim of government and the criminal innocence of imprisoned criminals to the whims of slaveowners and the "guiltiness" of raped women. He claims that neither "law" is justified and that neither crime is an excuse. The law he claims is not justified in the case of the businessmen put them in jail in the first place. They had the right to not commit the crime that put them in jail. In the context of these statements we are talking about drug traffickers. I don't know how many innocent drug traffickers my opponent has known, but I have known many who contribute to the detriment of many societies. If the societal crime of trafficking cocaine can be compared with the innocence of being an African woman, then my opponent's argument definitely requires conceptual thought. Now, I am known by many to "think outside the box", but this is asking us to completely lose our senses. My opponent then attempts to compare the choices of a businessman with the choices of a slave. He claims that the choice between companies is akin to the choice between which hand to pick cotton with. Again, this requires a ridiculous amount of conceptual thought. Especially when we consider that if the laws in America are so detrimental to businessmen, they have the right to band together in blocs and fight these laws. They can pay off legislators (as many do), and they can even establish businesses in tax sheltering countries (as many also do). What choices did slaves have? Oh, I forgot- they could choose which hand to pick cotton with...