Theodora,

I'm speaking to your idea that there is a "debt" and how obvious this is to you.

Debt, in the normal English sense we have used for centuries, is simply not the same as reparations for historical injustice, so you are trying to give the word a new definition to confuse debt with reparations. Then you are trying to use the established legal and moral rules around paying "debts" while ignoring the established legal and moral meaning of the word in standard English.

So you are re-inventing the word debt and insisting we all adopt your new definition, and trying to confuse people by using it both ways (historical injustice and also legal payment after an agreement)

There has never been a "debt" that must legally be paid due to injustices toward someone's ancestors centuries ago. Nothing of the sort has ever happened, so that is clearly not what "debt" means.