My partner and I are from Reno NV, we had success at our district tournament with these arguments. We didn't lose a single ballot which was weird (a total of 10 ballots half pro half con).

On the con: Ought means a moral obligation, therefore reparations must be feasible because you can't be obligated to do the infeasible. So the argument would be that reparations are infeasible because of monetary restrictions or the moral incapacity of the USFG. Another con argument that reparations exacerbate racism. Eric K. Yamamoto says that, "Reparations lead to an adjustment of individual attitudes towards the historical injustice without giving current consideration to the fundamental realities of power. People feel good about each other for the moment while leaving undisturbed the attendant social realities creating the underlying conflict." So it's basically the idea that reparations lead to a culture and government of complacency which furthers racism. There's also the argument of morality that comes into play in the debate in our con case. Firstly, we argue that reparations are immoral because you can't hold the entirety of the USFG culpable when they are individual moral actors. So basically it's immoral to hold a member of a group responsible for a wrongdoing when they actually acted against that wrongdoing or injustice. It would also apply to holding American citizens responsible for paying for reparations because along the lines of the moral theory we present, you are only culpable if you advocated for the immoral action, which many Americans didn't. Finally on the con we argue that reparations are immoral because the inherently place a value on the sufferings of African Americans throughout US history. The argument basically states that the USFG is simply washing their hands of societies inequities ,by paying reparations as debt, rather than attempting actual discourse.

On the pro: Firstly we argue that the USFG has a moral obligation to pay reparations to African Americans. We cite the Dread Scott Case, 3/5ths compromise, and numerous issues of federal discrimination throughout history and into the current day. We observe before we present the case that since the resolution doesn't explicitly state one type of reparation to be paid, any type of reparation that we prove ought to be paid should count as a reason to vote for the affirmative. Our second argument is basically the link between slavery, jim crow, separate but equal, red-lining, war on drugs, and current discrimination to the sociopolitical and socioeconomic inequalities in the American society today. It's the idea that the vestiges of racist policies are still present and oppressive in today's society. Then we thought it'd be strategic to provide different types of reparations that the USFG could feasibly enact. Firstly, a formal apology for discrimination and racism in America. Secondly, political reform. We especially focus on reenacting some tangent of the VRA similar to section 4. In conjunction we also advocate for the removal of the 1986 controlled substances act which discriminatorily sentences Blacks with possession of cocaine to higher penalties than Whites with possession of cocaine. Finally the last concrete reparations example we give is the funding of inner-city/black majority schools and colleges to address the education gap in America. Of course it's a pretty broad reparations possibility to say "make education for African Americans better", but it has a lot of room for the Affirmative to win.

That's basically the cases for this month regarding reparations. Criticism is welcome.