The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
ej3467273
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It's time to repeal our antiquated anti-slavery laws

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
brian_eggleston
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2013 Category: Funny
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 627 times Debate No: 42563
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

The free movement of goods and people is essential to maintaining a vibrant free market economy and the state should not hinder wealth creators by imposing draconian laws on them which dictate what personnel they utilize in pursuit of their personal or business interests.

Many laissez-faire capitalist governments in the developing world recognise this and turn a blind eye to the use of indentured labour. [1] This is why these countries have a competitive advantage over most European and North American nations where, ludicrously, the ban on slavery is strictly enforced.

So, while Western countries impose minimum wage requirement on employers, companies and individuals in developing countries are able to buy workers outright to perform menial tasks in the home, on farms or in factories, for less than the cost of a single day's pay in the West.

As the Head of the Thomson Reuters Foundation, Monique Villa, observed "slavery is rampant globally and...people cost as little as 60 Pounds (100 US Dollars) to buy, with some slaves tattooed with the names of their owners" (to prevent people-rustlers from stealing bonded labourers and selling them on the human black market).

Of course, many people in the West still employ slaves. As Monique Villa noted: "Most of us here (at the conference where she was a speaker) today have probably met a modern-day slave without knowing it. It can be on a bus, in a nail salon, in a posh hotel. Anywhere. In London, in New York, in Dubai. They walk among us." [2]

Nevertheless, people who take advantage of indentured labour in the West are often persecuted by the police who show absolutely no respect for slave owners' property rights. [3]

Meanwhile, companies in the developing world are putting firms in the West out of business because European and American firms' labour costs, and therefore selling prices, are so much higher than their slave-employing competitors in Asia and elsewhere.

It's time that businesses in the West were allowed to compete with their rivals abroad on a level playing field by using bonded labour, and busy families were permitted to provide people with food and shelter in exchange for domestic service: in short, it's time to repeal our ridiculously outdated and unduly restrictive anti-slavery laws.

Thank you.

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[2] http://uk.reuters.com...
[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
ej3467273

Con

I accept. Argument will be next round.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thank ej3467273 (snappy username!) for accepting this challenge.

As this is only a two round debate I will simply extend my arguments in the first round and ask my opponent to rebut them in the second (and final) round.

Thank you.
ej3467273

Con

ej3467273 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
I suggest reopening this one.
Posted by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
In a debate with two rounds, you really should have an argument in both rounds.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
brian_egglestonej3467273Tied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: CONDUCT: Forfeit, and attempting to cheat the system by posting his argument only after pro could no longer respond (meaning had he posted, it would have been able to do no more than tie arguments, not shift them to his favor). ARGUMENTS: Con did not have even a single disagreement with pro, so why accept the challenge? SOURCES: Pro used good sources, con used none, nor so much as questioned the validity or interpretation of them.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
brian_egglestonej3467273Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro as not only did Con forfeit, but Pro was polite complimenting on Con's snappy username. Neither side had arguments really, Brian had an introduction and Con had an acceptance, but Sources to Brian as he had some reliable sources in his introduction.