The Instigator
DanT
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
OMGJustinBieber
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

If there was no labor shortage, there would be no market for slaves

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 5 votes the winner is...
OMGJustinBieber
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,347 times Debate No: 35402
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (46)
Votes (5)

 

DanT

Pro

This is a debate about the economics of slave labor, not about whether slave labor was morally correct. This debate is about why slave labor was implemented, not whether it should have been implemented.

Rules:

1.) No Ad Hominem Attacks
2.) Dismissed arguements will be considered dropped
3.) No appeals to emotion or appeals to morality

Debate Format:
1st round: acceptance only
2nd round: Arguements / no rebuttals
3rd round: Rebuttals / no arguements
4th round: Defense against rebuttals & closing remarks / no new arguements or rebuttals
OMGJustinBieber

Con

Accepted. I take it that BoP is shared.
Debate Round No. 1
DanT

Pro


Start of the Slave trade


Between 1348 and 1351 the black plague killed up to 60% of Europe’s population. [1] As a result of the plague, Europe’s slave trade was revived in 1380. The slaves came from the Middle East, North Africa, and from other European countries. In 1444 Portuguese slave traders from West Africa started the Atlantic Slave trade. [2]


When the American colonies were established, more labor was required to work the fields. The Europeans sent slaves to the colonies in order to meet the growing demand for labor. [3]


As time passed the northern colonies became more industrialized, while the south remained rural. The industrialized north no longer required slave labor because of their growing population and their technological advances. [2]



The Economics of the Slave trade


The Labor Supply is determined by the Marginal Utility of Leisure per Marginal Utility of Income. An increase in income reduces the Marginal Utility of Income, and an increase in Leisure reduces the Marginal Utility of Leisure.


The Labor Demand is determined by the Nominal Marginal Product of Labor.



When there is not enough labor to meet the labor demand, it creates a labor shortage. The labor shortage generates a demand for slave labor.




The Marginal Product of Capital per Labor


When Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin it increased the demand for slavery. Within 2 decades slavery doubled as a result of the cotton gin.[4]


Aggregate output is a factor of capital and labor. According to the law of diminishing returns, you can only increase one factor of production to a certain point, without increasing the other factors.



Prior to the cotton gin, the Marginal Product of Capital already surpassed its potential. Capital includes land, seeds, technology, and other means of production. In order to prevent diminishing returns Plantation owners purchased slaves to work the fields.



The cotton gin increased the potential Marginal Product of Labor thereby increasing the demand for labor.




The slave market


When slave owners purchased slaves, they intended to use those slaves for a specific purpose. Slaves were expensive; in a time when the annual per capital income was only $110, buying a slave cost $400 on average. The average cost of a slave never fell below $200, and by 1858 the average cost of a slave had risen to $800. [5]



When looked at in 2011 dollars; by the mid-19th century the average price of a slave rose to $20,000 from $5,000 at the beginning of the 19th century. [5]



Buying a slave was not a cheap investment. The average price of a single slave cost the same as a house. When compared to the GDP per capital, the cost of a slave in 1850 was equivalent to $175,000 in 2011 dollars. [5]



The initial cost of a slave was not the only cost a slave owner had to pay. The slave owner also had to feed, house, and clothe his slaves. Just as a rancher has an invested interest in keeping his cattle alive, a slave owner had an invested interest in keeping his slaves alive.



Conclusion


If not for the labor shortage caused by the Black Death, the slave trade would not have existed. As the Potential Marginal Product of Labor increased, the demand for labor increased. When the rural labor supply was insufficient, it caused an increase in the demand for slaves. If not for the labor shortage, there would be no market for slaves.


Work Cited


1.)http://facts.randomhistory.com...


2.)https://www.freetheslaves.net...


3.)https://www.boundless.com...


4.)http://www.pbs.org...


5.)http://www.measuringworth.com...


OMGJustinBieber

Con

A few arguments:

a) Demand is not always rational: People sometimes want crazy things, and sometimes do so for no apparent, clear reason. This should be clear from the fact that people are not always rational. If demand is not always rational then there will be some market for that demand assuming there hasn't been some serious external clamp-down and the free market is allowed to run its course. Of course, the demand could be small but it will still be there as long as the costs of acquiring those resources aren't too high.

It follows from the idea that demand is not always rational that while we can perhaps take charts about supply and demand as expressing generalities, they should not be viewed as expressing a kind of exact precision. To get that degree of precision would presupposing a kind of uniform rationality in regard to the consumer and producer, which obviously doesn't exist in the real world. Unfortunately, my opponent demands this exact precision -- "there would be NO market for slaves" -- to make this case. Short of believing this standard we must vote Con.

It is also apparent that most slave purchasers have been men, and from what we know about men, would it really be out of the question for a man to want a slave on account of, e.g., her really nice physical features? Such a purchase in the aforementioned case would not be driven by a cost-benefit labor analysis but rather on other, more subjective concerns.

b) Even if there is no labor shortage, slave labor will often be cheaper than wage labor, especially if the people in charge are good at suppressing it. Here's a recent example from NY Daily News:

"Meshael Alayban, 42, is accused of offering five women $1,600 per month to come work in America. When they arrived, she allegedly took their travel documents and made them clean and care for her for $200 per month. [1]"

Luckily, the slaves were able to escape and seek legal protection. Otherwise, the $200/month is well below the market value for an assistant for a butler and by taking slavery she was able to undercut costs.

c) Even if labor was really, really cheap and accessible people might very well still want slaves due to social considerations. For instance, in the Antebellum south holding slaves was a marker of social status. This was also true in ancient Rome, and has been so across history where slavery has occurred. We absolutely must examine the social forces operating to determine whether there would be a demand and can certainly not conclude so just on the basis of there being decent economic conditions for employers.

tl;dr: A narrow focus in terms of what people want and what others are able to supply cannot concern itself solely with the labor market; this would fail to take into account what we know about humans and the human concern with issues outside of the economic sphere.

Meta: Pro has a pretty big BOP, the claim essentially holds an "if X, then Y" structure and implies some kind of logical necessity. I think if we demand logical backing then it would be insurmountable, but this is Pro's problem. Even, however, if he establishes some kind of empirical backing we can still question whether the empirical backing will ALWAYS hold for ALL condition of there being no labor shortage.

[1]http://www.nydailynews.com...
Debate Round No. 2
DanT

Pro


  1. Rationality



Con opens with a circular argument. He claims that the demand is not always rational, because the demand is not always rational; therefore people are not always rational.



Based on the assumption of irrationality, Con concludes that “the demand could be small but it will still be there as long as the costs of acquiring those resources aren't too high.” As I’ve already pointed out in my previous round, the cost of acquiring a single slave was equivalent to purchasing a house. Slaves were not cheap, and they were not something that you would purchase on a whim.



Con also claims that slaves could be purchased for sexual services; which are a service in their own right. Light skinned female Slaves were sometimes purchased for sexual services, but this does not negate from my argument. Prior to the civil war, prostitution was a legal profession. It was not until the 1870’s that the government began regulating prostitution. [1]




  1. Slavery during a labor surplus



Con claims that slavery can exist during a labor surplus, because slave labor is cheaper than wage labor. To support his claim he provided an example of illegal wage labor below the minimum wage, and he falsely labeled the wage labor as slave labor.



Con’s own source says that they were paid a wage of $200 per month. Paying people for their labor is the very definition of wage labor. There is a difference between slave labor and wage labor. Slaves are not paid, because they are considered livestock. A wage below the minimum wage is still a wage.



A minimum wage places the lowest legal wage above the equilibrium, thereby creating a labor surplus. When a worker is paid below minimum wage, it does not make them a slave, it makes them an illegal worker. A slave would be paid below the equilibrium wage, which requires a labor shortage.



The initial cost of a slave was 4 times the annual per capita income. [2] In addition to the initial cost of a slave, the slave owner also had to feed and house their slaves. Because slaves were forced into bondage, runaway slaves were a financial liability for the slave owner; even if the slave was eventually caught.




  1. Lower wages



A labor shortage occurs when the demand for labor is greater than the supply of labor. A labor surplus occurs when the demand for labor is less than the supply of labor. A labor shortage can occur either by a wage cap or by an insufficient labor supply.



Con claims that even if wages were low, that there would be a market for slaves, because slaves would serve as a status of wealth. The status of owning a slave was not inherent in slave ownership. Slaves were a sign of socioeconomic status because slaves were expensive. Just as today a Mansion or a private jet is a sign of one’s socioeconomic status, slave ownership indicated that an individual was wealthy.



The average cost of one slave was equivalent to 4 years of wages. Only the wealthy could afford slaves. People did not buy slaves just for appearances. If someone bought a slave they could not afford, the slave would be repossessed due to the owner’s debt. [2]



Summary



Con’s arguments don’t hold up. His entire argument relies on the assumption of irrationality and fiscal irresponsibility. He equates illegal wage labor with slave labor, and assumes people will spend 4 years of income simply to enhance their image.




1.) http://prostitution.procon.org...


2.) http://www.measuringworth.com...


OMGJustinBieber

Con

Start of the Slave Trade

This is pretty shoddy history; he cites the black plague and then just cites the revival of the slave trade as its "result." Did technological advancements play a role? How about political ones? Regardless, it's hardly relevant because the slave trade is thousands of years old and occurred with many rulers and probably for a variety of reasons and with a variety of justifications.

Nor does this claim come close to proving that if there were no labor shortage then there would have been no import of slaves to Europe following the black plague. Moreover, what about more local slave trading, within, e.g., Africa or the Middle East where the trading of slaves was probably cheaper for the fact that the slaves wouldn't have to travel overseas? To agree with Pro we're bound to the ridiculous generalization that the ENTIRE demand for slaves, across all cultures and time periods, is due to there being a labor shortage and never for such typical human motivates as the urge to conquer, subjugate, etc.

Economics of the Slave Trade:

More shoddy generalizations here - Pro says "the labor shortage generates a demand for slave labor." Maybe this is true, but ULTIMATELY the question of demands lies in the minds of individuals who then go along to express that demand and make it heard. Charts do not create demand, individuals do.

Say there was a labor shortage in the US today: Would there be a corresponding increase in the demand for slave labor? I think that would be highly unlikely; certainly, while some employers may day-dream or wish they could hold slaves the demand would never come to fruition or really even likely be expressed due to social considerations. The fact remains that to express the want (i.e. the demand) to hold slaves today is considered an abomination in the modern, civilized world. A lack of labor, in and of itself, does not create a demand for slaves.

So we consider this statement: "When Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin it increased the demand for slavery" and we must be careful. Surely, the cotton gin made cotton picking production easier and workers more productive, but again, it did not in and of itself create a demand for slavery. We must again consider the social attitudes of the time and the fact that slavery was considered a) a sign of status and b) completely acceptable in the antebellum south. This was all more or less tied to racial attitudes or some interpretation of religious texts - again, the cotton gin in and of itself did not increase demand, it only worked given a large, large background of beliefs among the individuals involved.

My opponent cites that slaves were expensive, but I ask: To who? Certainly to the common southern, sure, but we have to remember that some of these landowners were massively rich and $5,000 or even $20,000 is a raindrop in a pond for some of today's rich folks as it would have been for those in the antebellum south. Again, unfortunately, the empirical studies are only so helpful because it doesn't consider the price of slaves in ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, etc. and the fact that many of them could have been quite cheap after, e.g., a large conquest with many PoWs. Even with the evidence he provides slaves were, in a relative manner, still fairly cheap for the rich slave owners of the South who could afford hundreds of slaves.

Conclusion: "If not for the labor shortage caused by the Black Death, the slave trade would not have existed" is ultimately just stated. The fact that Pro can provide an economic explanation of the causes does not mean that in the absence of those causes that the slave trade would not have arisen. To disagree is simply a logical fallacy. It's basically saying: A (economic conditions of Black plague/labor shortage) -> B (slavery) therefore not A -> not B. This is clearly fallacious.
Debate Round No. 3
DanT

Pro


Start of the Slave Trade


Con does not address my point about the start of slavery. My opponent simply expressed a doubt in my argument, without actually refuting any of my points. Questions are not refutations, and Con’s questions could have been answered if he bothered to read my source. “In the aftermath of the Black Plague, Europe’s slave trade revives in response to the labor shortage.” [1]


This is a widely accepted by historians as the cause of the slave trade. Frank Smitha from MacroHistory gave a more elaborate analysis;


“It has been roughly estimated that a third of England died from the Black Death of 1348-49, and perhaps this figure is not far from the losses suffered in other areas of Europe through which the plague passed. Much farm land went into disuse, reducing the output of food. Farm animals died, further diminishing the food supply. With all the deaths and drop in demand for food, the price of food dropped. In Western Europe the demand for labor rose, and, with fewer people around willing to work for less, wages rose. And in Western Europe the shortage of labor brought on by the plague increased the demand for slaves, cutting into the demand for free labor.”[2]



After expressing doubt regarding the legitimacy of my argument, con than claims my argument is irrelevant simply because other cultures practiced slavery. Just because other cultures practiced slavery does not make my example illegitimate.


Instead of providing an example of slavery during a labor surplus, Con shifts the BOP to disprove his assumption. The reason Con could not cite an example of a slave society during a labor surplus is because it is economically implausible; they don’t exist because they can’t exist.


You can conquer a nation without enslaving them. The purpose of enslavement is to provide cheap labor to meet an excessive demand. Slavery flourished in ancient Greece and in Rome, because labor shortages created an environment of cheap slaves and high wages. [3]


Economics of the Slave Trade


Again, Con does not attempt to refute the points I have made. My opponent simply expresses his own doubts, without refuting my claims.


While it is true “Charts do not create demand, individuals do”, this straw man has nothing to do with my claim. The chart is a representation of the individual’s demands. The sum of the individual’s demands is the aggregate demand. The aggregate demand for slaves is a function of the labor shortage.


Con claims that if legal, a labor shortage today would not result in slavery because slavery is considered immortal. This hypothetical assumption has nothing to do with the resolution. Hypothetically opting out of slavery due to moral principles does not prove people would buy slaves during a labor surplus. You cannot draw an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.


Con cedes that the cotton gin increased the marginal product of labor, and the potential for aggregate output. Despite this, con claims that the demand for slavery was based on racial motivations, rather than profit. As I stated before the cotton gin doubled the slave population in the south due to the increased in demand for slaves. The increased demand for slaves was not due to an increase in racism, it was due to the increase in Marginal Product.



Con does not refute my point about slaves being expensive, but instead asserts that “expensive” is a relative term. I agree that “expensive” is relative, but that does not negate from my argument. The average Joe could not afford a slave. Only the wealthy owned slaves and the wealthy didn’t buy slaves simply to own slaves; if they did they would not be wealthy. Slaves were assets, but when a slave-owner bought a slave that they did not need the slaves would become a liability. This is tantamount to buying a jet airplane and then never using it.



Conclusion


Empirical evidence proves slavery depends on a labor shortage. All throughout history slaves were introduced when labor shortages threatened the economy. If not for a labor shortage the slave trade would not exist. Buying slaves you don’t need will act as a financial liability that reduces the marginal product of labor. When capital is introduced it increases the potential marginal product of labor, and therefore the potential output. Con’s entire argument is based on hypotheticals and assumptions. Con assumes that slave owners were irrational, and that they bought slaves without intending to use them. Con’s arguments are illogical, and unsupported.




1.https://www.freetheslaves.net...


2.http://www.fsmitha.com...


3.http://www.princeton.edu...


OMGJustinBieber

Con

Rationality

Pro definitely presents a straw man here: What I argue is that since humans are only sometimes rational (or certainly not always rational, I understand that it varies) that demand (i.e. our wants) we should not expect to be purely rational.

The idea that humans are not a completely rational species I think is entirely evident from our general knowledge of human beings. To fail to grasp this, as Pro has, is to fundamentally misunderstand the human condition. This is really what the debate comes down to: Do people always make purchases according to some completely rational calculation of marginal utility and the ability to factor in every economic condition and essentially nothing else? If this is the case, then Pro is set.

If, however, only one time in history a slave purchaser thought: "Wow, check out the curves on that one....I'll give $150!" then Pro's argument is shot. It is my firm belief - I would call a basic belief - that while sometimes rational, we cannot expect humans to be fully rational in terms of their personal wants.

Additionally, I have mentioned that slaves essentially could be purchased on a whim for the wealthy in the antebellum south. More importantly, Pro's statistics do not cover, and could not possibly cover, all the instances of slavery throughout history which almost certainly varied to a considerable extent in price.

If a slave owner chooses to buy a slave on the basis of her curves, that's not necessarily for sexual services. Pro, once again, is unable to grasp the idea that people likely purchased slaves for reasons that extended outside of economic concerns.

Slavery during a labor surplus

Pro is confused on the definition of slavery. According to Merriam-Webster, slavery is a "condition in which one human being is owned by another" [1]. It is not a necessary condition of slavery that the slave is not paid; what counts is whether the slave can leave. In the situation that I cited in my article, the slaves did not have the freedom to leave and had to escape their owner's house to call attention to their injustice. If we take Pro's definition, a slave who was given enough for a piece of candy here and there would not "really" be a slave, but this is of course ridiculous.

To get a grasp of how warped Pro's conception of economics is, consider this paragraph:

"A minimum wage places the lowest legal wage above the equilibrium, thereby creating a labor surplus. When a worker is paid below minimum wage, it does not make them a slave, it makes them an illegal worker. A slave would be paid below the equilibrium wage, which requires a labor shortage."

It is apparent that the first sentence, while possibly true, is only that - possibly. The minimum wage could easily be well below the equilibrium wage. This would clearly be apparent in e.g. high-paying professions, and really even most professions in general. The second sentence is fine. The third sentence just doesn't follow and isn't supported. Slaves, generally (but not always) are non-paid labor and this is so regardless of whether there's a labor shortage or not. One can cut costs by paying for slaves.

Lower Wages

"Con claims that even if wages were low, that there would be a market for slaves, because slaves would serve as a status of wealth."

This is obviously a straw man. I said slaves owning *could* be socially desirable and that the purchase of slaves likely held other purposes outside of the purely economic one. I did mention that slaves could be even cheaper workers, but does Pro rebut this? No.

"The status of owning a slave was not inherent in slave ownership."

I can't make heads or tails of this claim.

Summary:

We need to refocus the debate back to the thesis since it's become way off track. My case boils down to the fundamental implausibility of Pro's argument. He says "if there was no labor shortage, there would be no market for slaves." For this to be true, this must always be the case. There cannot be even a singular exception, and probably if I cared a little more - and in retrospect, perhaps I should have - dug into economic history. In any case, I consider Pro's case extremely implausibly on the basis on simple introspection, and given this I frankly had to look no further.

Pro's case fails because all it takes for there to be a market are producers and suppliers, and the demand for slaves as mentioned can be based on social, racial, or cultural considerations. Pro's evidence is nowhere near adequate since we're talking about slavery over history and this encompasses the slavery of the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, etc. While we both lack adequate labor statistics, it seems extremely obvious that - especially when slavery was cheap - that there would be a market for slaves even when the general labor market is in some equilibrium state or if there is a surplus. In any case, it's likely that the Roman or Greek slave purchaser or oligarch may not have given two shrugs to the labor market of peasants especially in the case of a new shipment of prisoners of war about to be sold off.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 4
46 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
Dan, you lost the debate because you made a resolution that was nearly impossible to prove. Despite your claims that others are doing so, I think the one operating under a false resolution is you. Re read my last comment...which parts of it do you disagree with? I was trying to explain why this debate would be so hard for anyone as Pro.
Posted by DanT 3 years ago
DanT
I think I will just refrain from debating these types of things in the future. They are too politicized. I thought I would not have an issue with political bias, because I was siding with mainstream economists and common knowledge.

It still amazes me how someone can win a debate without citing a single source, and by only purely hypothetical arguments, while the losing side cites credible sources (.edu, .gov) while using math and historical facts to support their claims.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Better definitions may be needed, if you relaunch this debate at another time (which I'd suggest in a few weeks). Without standard definitions set, each voter has a different opinion on what a slave is. Heck historically there's plenty of times when the groups called "slaves" could own money, get married, etc.. Granted they were still considered property of the upper class.
Posted by DanT 3 years ago
DanT
No, that was not slavery that was an illegal wage.
Posted by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
That's ridiculous. Con showed slavery to exist today for as little as $200 a month, and even if it was truly very expensive in order to be certain there was no demand, we would have to be certain that there are no wealthy people willing to purchase nonsense for stupid reasons. That's demonstrably false, we know people of all classes often buy things irrationally.
Posted by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
That's ridiculous. Con showed slavery to exist today for as little as $200 a month, and even if it was truly very expensive in order to be certain there was no demand, we would have to be certain that there are no wealthy people willing to purchase nonsense for stupid reasons. That's demonstrably false, we know people of all classes often buy things irrationally.
Posted by DanT 3 years ago
DanT
@thett3

But I proved that the cost of slaves made it impossible for the irrational buyers to afford slaves. If they cannot afford them, than there is no market.
Posted by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
Dan, the resolution isn't "If there was no labor shortage, demand for slavery would be irrational" not is it "If there was no labor shortage, slavery would be uneconomical". Your burden was to prove that there would be *no* demand. I think this is the major issue you're having when it comes to understanding why others voted the way they did. Not only did Con show that people are not always rational which blows a giant hole in your argument, and Con filled it by showing a bunch of stupid reasons someone cold want a slave (e.g. Sex, to show off, or any reason). There are many, many reasons someone may want something even if it's uneconomical. Hence, a demand even if slight which necessities a vote for Con
Posted by DanT 3 years ago
DanT
@Ragnar

Yeah.

I also know that if 3 people vote on a fake resolution, than other voters would assume that the fake resolution is the correct one. People who don't actually read the debates might even be tempted to copy and reword the existing voter's RFD.

That is why I felt I had to correct wrichcirw's mischaracterization of the resolution.

So far all the votes are vote bombs, which left unchecked will breed additional vote bombs.

The resolution is "If there was no labor shortage, there would be no market for slaves"

In other words "There is a market for slaves IF AND ONLY IF there is a labor shortage"

Please do not vote based on the existing 3 vote bombs. Please read the debate, and vote based on the real resolution.

That is all I have to say on the matter.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
You all do realize that this much drama over low score votes, scares away voters?

Imabench's vote could be countered on the grounds of inadequate RFD when giving pro sources, "but sources to the pro" being weak justification. Yet since source votes are referred to as evidence in the DDO standards, I assume pictures count toward source votes, and I am not going to argue against pro having better sources when he put such work into those graphs.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
DanTOMGJustinBieberTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Clear con win, even clearer due to (sorry, no easy way to say this) a really dumb resolution. I can vote con without any question at all based on the sex slave argument (pros rebuttal on prostitution being legal doesnt refute the point at all). Con also demonstrates how Pros economic arguments aren't inherently true due to irrationality so common among humans although there really isn't much weight to this argument and I feel that Pro could've overcome it with the proper responses, however the fact that people will buy things for dumb reasons and that slavery still exists today (cons definition is more in line with conventional understanding of slavery, ownership of a person) according to con pretty much destroys any impact pro still had. Bottom line: that slavery would've been greatly lessened/different without the Black Death is a plausible historical hypothesis. To say there would be *no* demand however is absurd.
Vote Placed by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
DanTOMGJustinBieberTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter gordonjames. You can't lose conduct for rightly pointing out a logical fallacy. Also, he gives no justification as to why he gave arguments to con.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
DanTOMGJustinBieberTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: "Say there was a labor shortage in the US today: Would there be a corresponding increase in the demand for slave labor? I think that would be highly unlikely" <---- Thats what sold the debate really. Pro gave himself a monster of a BoP to meet in order to win this debate and he simply fell short since con pointed out that demand for slavery depends on more then just abundance/shortage of labor. Arguments to the con along with conduct since pro's claim that con's point was circular was way off, but sources to the pro
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
DanTOMGJustinBieberTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro loses conduct for claiming circular argument by Con. Pro had a high BOP and failed to meet it.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
DanTOMGJustinBieberTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments. This debate was won before it began...the resolution is too difficult to prove. I did not realize it until CON mentioned it...very well-made point.