The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

All minorities living in America during Jim Crow-era laws should be provided monetary compesnation.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 252 times Debate No: 83382
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Monetary compensation has been provided to Israel by Germany, to the Japanese-American citizens who were interned, and to countless others when the US government was responsible for a hardship. Minorities who were discriminated against prior to the Civil Rights Act that are still living should be provided compensation.


I accept the debate in assuming that the monetary compensation refers to reparations. Good luck
Debate Round No. 1


Throughout most of its history, America was an extremely racist country. American society consisted of a majority white population in which others were considered property or a second-class citizens.
When emancipation truly reached the Southern states, the slave-owners were paid reparations for their "loss of property."
How barbaric is that? When minorities were finally given the opportunity to better themselves, they were left penniless with no education. Despite these shortcomings, a black middle class began to emerge until the introduction of segregation and other forms of disenfranchisement.

Most atrocities committed by America were subsequently compensated through monetary means. The Native Americans were compensated.

The Japanese-Americans were compensated.

Even slave-owners were compensated. (The newly-freed slaves weren't.)

How can anyone rationally argue that African-American's and other minorities aren't entitled to reparations? The long-term effects of segregation can still be seen today. There's is a reason why black American's are disproportionately represented in poverty levels. Denying economic, social, and basic rights to a group of people for 600 years will do that to a race. It is time they are given direct compensation. Not just affirmative-action, race-based scholarships, and their own television network.


kingkd forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2



1. Something only should be done by government if it proves a beneficial effect
2. One should only be punished for something if one is responsible for it

Pro advocates reparations for 37% of the population without realizing the financial costs.

Pro's whole case is the is/ought fallacy. He says reparations have been paid in the past, this does not mean they should be paid NOW. Just because something happened doesn't make it right.

Should in the resolution means advisable. Therefore if reparations would have a largely negative effect vote Con.

The United States Constitution explicitly bans ex post facto.
"Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Art 1, " 9 and Art. 1 " 10. see, e.g. Collins v. Youngblood, 497 US 37 (1990) and California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales, 514 US 499 (1995)."

Reparations would be punishment for white americans for something they never did. defines responsible as "answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management". Obviously, if something is not within one's power one cannot be responsible for it.

Using this moral framework, modern white people should not be forced to pay for crimes of their ancestors. Responsibility is not an inherited concept.

Reparations would also lead to no benefit. Under my moral framework, wasting money and having no benefit is a reason to negate. Note: The source talks about reparations for slavery, but facts are still the same.

"A paper by economists Hoyt Bleakley and Joseph Ferrie traced the results of the Georgia land lottery down the generations. They found that, "one generation after the distribution of the Georgia land, sons of winners have no better adult outcomes (wealth, income, literacy) than the sons of non-winners, and winners" grandchildren do not have higher literacy or school attendance than non-winners" grandchildren.""

""Economists at the University of Kentucky, University of Pittsburgh and Vanderbilt University wanted to answer a public policy question: What happens when individuals in financial trouble are given large lump sums? So they collected data from nearly 35,000 winners of up to $150,000 in Florida's Fantasy 5 lottery from 1993 to 2002, and cross-referenced this information with state bankruptcy records.
Their findings, published last fall in The Review of Economics and Statistics, show that a big lottery score does little to reduce the likelihood of bankruptcy.""

Therefore reparations would force people to pay for something not responsible for that would ultimately be a waste of money.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3


Sdio forfeited this round.


Pro has never refuted my moral framework.
1. Something only should be done by government if it proves a beneficial effect
2. One should only be punished for something if one is responsible for it

I have proven that modern reparations would not have a beneficial effect and would consume billions of dollars while achieving nothing. Giving money leads to the lottery effect, which simply wastes money.

Morally I win also, as modern people are not responsible. Pro's whole case is the is/ought fallacy.

Therefore Vote Con. Both of us had 1 forfeit total, so vote Con on arguments
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by retroz 10 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I personally would have loved to see someone touch on what African-Americans got paid after the Civil War was over... Forfeiture also left Con's arguments unrefuted, thus Con wins this debate