Slavery can be justified
Debate Rounds (4)
First round is acceptance. I will attempt to prove that "slavery can be justified". Slavery will be defined as the "Act of owning slaves". A slave will be defined as a " a person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something". I am taking this unpopular position to test an unpopular argument. This debate doesn't reflect my views. It is done for the purpose of discussion and higher understanding. R4 will be a "no round" unless I decide to extend it.
Note: My position wont be based on race or social class slavery (per say).
I accept. I am eagerly awaiting arguments for this odd assertion.
I. Requirements for this debate
I want to remind the audience, that the BOP isn't higher than any other debate. Any statement I make should be affirmed until countered. Or, to clarify, any point I make in a debate is assumed true until it is negated. Even though I'm taking a unpopular and somewhat offensive stance, I should still be judged base on the same criteria as any other affirmative. What I must do for this debate is simple. I must prove that the act of slavery can be justified. For my opponent to negate this point, he must prove that not one of the justifications I make isn't based in reason.
Those are his responcbilities. It may sound tough, but it's the conditions he accepted. He must prove, and quite successfully, that there isn't one reasoned justification for the use of slaves. He has something known as the "Absence of evidence". We'll see if he can live up to it.
II. Clarifying on definitions
I want to remind the audience that there are two current definitions on the table. Slavery, or the act of owning slaves, and slaves, or the state of being dependent or controlled on someone else. This will be the crux of my argument. Remember, my arguments wont be based on race or social status (per say).
III. Examples of Justified Slavery
Following the definition of slave, being "anyone who is dependent or controlled by another", I have devised a contention on why one may justify a different form of slavery. Equalism in mentality is a myth. We are born equal, created equal, but grow unequal. In many cases, two friends may grow up together. One may become an educated CEO, and the other may turn into an uneducated tramp. This isn't a result of race, religion, or social class, but how these people grew and fit into the roles society gives them.
For my first example, I want to reference business relations. If a man, broke and homeless, were to get a job at a Deli shop, he would have to sign a contract. This contract gives him a set of conditions and defines what he will be payed. The man is homeless, and chooses to accept the contract, although the deli shop has a hard work quota, bad conditions, ect. The homeless man takes the job because it's driven by necessity. Even though he is being controlled by someone of a higher status, he is still recieving benefit from such an action. This is known as voluntary slavery. The homeless man works under these conditions because the reward for doing so outweighs the consequences of being subjected.
Let's give it another go. Pretend you are a criminal, and saw a very heinous crime being committed. The people who commited the crime want to kill you. There is nothing to do, but run or turn yourself in. You decide to turn yourself in for protection. The government benefits from getting you off the streets, and you get to retain your life. In the prison system, you're subjected to control and dependence on the federal system for living. This is another example of voluntary slavery being justified.
Building off the prison system theory, we can easily determine that slavery still exists. The USFG operates prisons for the purpose of containing crime. If prisons don't exist, then criminals would roam and commit more offenses. Prisons make certain people a lower social class, and force them to be dependent/controlled by a higher one, or the common man. Prison is an example of neccesary slavery. Here are a couple sites which affirm this contention.
Until my opponent can negate the fact that prisons are a neccesary form of slavery, the contention is affirmed. Even if he can, it was well reasoned, hence, justified.
[P1] Some people would rather be controlled than face alternatives to their predicament
[P2] Many people require "controlled" people to perform beneficial operations
[C1] In some scenarios, slavery is mutually beneficial
IV. Slaves to objects and concepts, and how that correlates to several beneficial circumstances
People aren't always slaves to another human being. Sometimes they can be slaves to an item, such as drug. Or a concept, such as pornography. These items and concepts have been justified by marijuana activists and pornography ethusiasts.
[P1] Only strong people can survive in society
[P2] Being controlled by drugs and self harmful concepts is a form of slavery
[P3] People who break the bondage of drugs and self harmful concepts emerge stronger because of it
[P4] People who don't break the bondage of drugs or self harmful concepts are rooted out from society
[C1] Slavery is a good way of determining and rooting out those not fit for society
Another good contention, involves being a slave to good things. Such as god, a cause, ect.
[P1] People voluntarily become slaves to god or a cause
[P2] People only do things when they're expected to benefit said person (RR law)
[C1] Slavery to religion or a cause has the possibility of benefitting someone
For those of you that read my contentions, you should be well aware that the resolution is affirmed. I have proven that slavery isn't always based in one man owning another, but can also be rooted in mutually beneficial relationships, rotation of society, and the common good. For my opponent to negate the resolution, he must prove that not one of these arguments is based in reason.
Thanks for the debate Con! I will reiterate, this debate isn't about legal "ownership" slavery.
We agreed to tie this debate. Please do not vote
But I would like to point out the definitions are inconsistent. Pro says ""Act of owning slaves". Then he says were are not discussing legal ownership. Well I don't see how you can both own and not own someone. False by law of contradicition.
His examples seem to exemplify codependency and indentured servitude, not slavery.
Also I don't think you can justify owning someone through consequentialism or deontology.
Also, the notion that your right until being proved wrong is false. It's actually that you're wrong until being proved right. Refer to the Noll Hypothesis.
I hope ChosenWolff and I can debate this interesting topic in the future.
Thanks for agreeing to tie the debate. Moving on.......
did you ever debate that syria thing?
It was deleted buy bladerunner. Had 1,500,000 views.
I was looking forward to that debate :(.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.