The USFG ought to pay reparations to African Americans.

I'm not really sure why you felt the need to make a new definition for reparations- the definition that I used was fine and had basically the same advocacy as yours, except that it also has formal apologies. Past abuses should be really really obvious as to what I mean- Jim Crow, slavery, systematic discrimination, that kind of stuff. But oh well, I will take your definition of reparations just to make this debate simpler.1. InjusticeBut, it's not like that, at all. It's like making those who did the crime (the USFG) pay their dues because they broke the law. The USFG exists today just as it did when slavery was present, meaning that they should pay for it. I don't know what you're really trying to get at here - the USFG is as guilty today of endorsing slavery and Jim Crow as it was back then because the crimes were never fixed.2. Opportunity costMy opponent says that if we spend $4 billion on reparations (this is what he says the minimum should be so that will be the topic of debate), then we'd have to raise that money and the government can't do this efficiently because of the huge cost. But as Darrick Hamilton of the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Institute in October 19 2010 writes: “Given the importance of intergenerational transfers of wealth and past and present barriers preventing black wealth accumulation, private action and market forces alone cannot close an unjust racial wealth gap.—public sector intervention is necessary. Does the public sector have the resources to tackle the racial wealth gap? The answer must be a resounding yes. The federal government’s ability to raise $70 billion for TARP, along with an additional $2.5 trillion to aid the ailing financial system by April 2009 ... is indicative of the government’s ability to raise and leverage substantial sums of funds quickly.” This means that we could increase the base that my opponent says is a minimal amount for reparations by 15 times (to be $60 billion) and be completely fine, since the government has a great ability to accumulate large stocks of wealth.Further, my opponent says that we should be putting the money into education instead of giving reparations to African Americans because it benefits everyone equally, and because every dollar invested has an eight dollar return in the economy. Andrew Coulson finds that having an increase in federal spending doesn't actually correlate to better student acheivement - and student acheivement is what allows students to find jobs and go to college, impacting the economy. Further, Coulson finds that through this huge increase in federal spending (inflation adjusted), there is still a huge difference in black and white student scores. My opponent says that if we allocate 4 billion more dollars to education instead of reparations, this would benefit both the black and the white students. This is resoundingly negated: federal spending actually has no correlation with student acheivement.I'd also like to point out that my opponent is actually having a "counterplan" as it is called in the NSDA (National Speech and Debate Association), which I had said is not allowed in the rules that were agreed to. Advocating for spending money on something other than reparations is a counterplan to the resolution, and my opponent should be deducted points in some manner for this.3. BacklashI don't really think that I need to address this argument because it has no impacts linked to it. Because getting mad about something isn't an actual reason to not pay for hundreds of years of oppression and to make American Exceptionalism go away. This argument has no impact and shouldn't even be weighed in the end.4. Blame gameMy opponent says that because the USFG outlawed slavery and ended Jim Crow that slavery wasn't its fault so they shouldn't pay. But really, the USFG was extremely supportive of slavery and actually made laws requiring slaves to be returned to their owners. As Article IV of the Constitution, Section 2 says: "No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due." This means that the USFG held an active role in slavery and states were legally required to send slaves back to their owners. Further, this means that they should be the ones to carry the burden to pay, because they were such a large part of slavery.