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

"My opponent claims that he did not state that businessmen were beat and tortured, made to forget their names, or smuggled on slave ships. He claims my stating this is irrelevant to the discussion. I contend it is very relevant to violating "the same moral rules" in either case." I cited the relevant rules: they are violated for both businessmen and black slaves regardless of these differences. You're focusing on the nonessential. "The same moral rules could not possibly have been violated if one groups, as he says, suffered to a different degree as well as kind of slavery and oppression, if you can even define his examples as slavery and oppression which I contend you cannot without emotionally sympathizing with businessmen" I did not once ask for emotional sympathy. It is you, by appealing to "offensiveness," who wishes to cloud this discussion with emotion. I ask for conceptual thought. It is entirely possible for the same rules to be violated by different degrees of things, and even different kinds if the difference in kind is nonessential to the definition. Just as it is possible to steal from someone by taking their car or taking their wallet. Same rule, different action :). " He claims that he "never denied that the past slavery of blacks had anything to do with race". The fact is I made the statement that blacks were "systematically enslaved and oppressed BECAUSE of the color of their skin", and his response was "slavery is not defined solely in terms of race"." This is because it isn't. Race is a nonessential aspect of slavery. It was relevant in the slavery of Blacks in early America, but it certainly wasn't relevant, in, say, the Roman institution of slavery-- and it needn't in the case of business. "If one group was systematically enslaved and oppressed because of their race, and the other was not then there can't possibly be a comparison." So if one person gets murdered because they look funny, and another person gets murdered for political reasons, there is no grounds for comparison? Methinks the murder to be a grounds for comparison... or, in our case, the initiation of force :). "Businessmen are amongst the most successful men in America. The top five wealthiest Americans, let alone the Forbes 400, are all businessmen/women. (http://www.forbes.com......)" That measures, more or less the wealth they CREATE , not the wealth they CONTROL. And is therefore an argument for treating them better, not an argument that they aren't enslaved. The top five wealthiest americans in terms of wealth CONTROLLED are all but certainly high-level government employees, due to the sheer amount of wealth controlled by the federal bureaucracy. "Ask these 400 Americans, or the other top 5% of Americans if they feel enslaved and/or oppressed. " It doesn't matter what they "feel" like. Their perceptions do not create reality. " My opponent claims that whether or not you are offended is irrelevant to the debate. He claims that suffering is not a commodity to be haggled, yet his comparison is one completely based on emotion, and sympathy with businessmen, and not on fact." Apparently you haven't read it, it is based on the fact of initiation of force. :). "The fact is that apartheid was so rampant, so deeply rooted, and so important to whites that when blacks began to fight back they were lynched, murdered, tortured, and millions of whites joined the Ku Klux Klan at one point in support of apartheid." If you lynch someone, you can hardly claim to be "separated" from them. The Ku Klux Klan were not consistent segregationists, they were consistent in their seeking of oppression in the context of a mix of both segregation and integration. " 1. "Business" is not a culture as compared with that of African slaves." Culture: Way of life. Everything people do, is a part of a "culture". EVERYTHING. " 2. Being imprisoned is not being "robbed" from your home. Many imprisoned businessmen have committed crimes, while African slaves owed no debts to those who robbed them from their homes. Committing a crime indebts you to society, often in the form of a prison sentence." African slaves committed the "Crimes" of running, resisting, trying to escape, pissing off tribal elders, or just plain being black where it was declared the law by the highest powers that slavery was the punishment for being black and not helping engage other slaves. These laws were, of course, not just, neither are the laws outlawing business practices. Further, "society" is not capable of holding debts. " 3. African slaves had no part in being separated from their children and families. The children of businessmen have not been sold to other families, nor have their spouses." Shares in them usually have, with the exception of stay-at-home spouses :). "The method of how they were captured and transported, and it's cruelty and inhumaneness is definitely relevant to a comparison of slavery and oppression between two groups." It's not relevant when the fundamental question of that comparison is not the degree or cruelty but the applicability of the terms at all. " 5. Businessmen have rights, and slaves do not. Businessmen are afforded every right under the US Constitution, while the Supreme Court once declared blacks as sub-human (please see my R1 reference) though not in those exact words." Laws =/= rights. Rights = life, liberty, and property, those negative obligations toward an innocent one observes to see similar benefits toward themselves. The constitution lists PRIVILEGES the government gives businessmen, much like many slaveowners frequently gave their slaves "privileges" for good service. And by the way, Businessmen are not afforded even every privilege (that the US constitution misleadingly refers to as rights) in the constitution. The protection from ex post facto laws ended in 1890 with the Sherman antitrust act, which is continually redefined and then retroactively applied in court. They are frequently subject to federal government inquiries into non-interstate commerce. Etc. " 6. My opponent attempts to justify why African slaves were beat and tortured, and compares this to methods to enhance production in today's business. There is no evidence that beating and torturing slaves enhanced production" You misunderstood the point. They THOUGHT it enhanced production. The government now knows better, and treats it's slaves accordingly. " 7. My opponent attempts to compare the acts of criminals against criminals with the rape of innocent women." The acts of criminals against those whose "Crime" arose, not out of the violation of the rights of others, but simply a violation of bureaucratic whim. Just as those innocent women were "guilty" of the crime of violating the whims slaveowners had about what race you can be. Neither law is justified, and therefore neither crime is an excuse. " 8. Businessmen have a choice to work for the companies for which they work, and they have a choice to not work at all." And slaveowners had a choice not to work at all too. Both choices results in death. They may have the choice between companies, just as slaves had a choice whether to favor their left hand or their right in picking cotton-- a difference in degree, but since neither choice avoids the taxes which are being discussed, neither choice is relevant to the discussion. "The "plight" of the businessman, and his being "numbered" is based on the businessman himself making money." No, actually, being NUMBERED is based on the government making money off the businessman, it's called the social security number. The government might give back a small portion, just as the slaveowners "gave back" a small portion in the form of food, but neither changes the fact that the takings in the first place were involuntary. It remains beneficial solely to the government and it's allies. The point about the initiation of force, which is fundament