The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Slavery is Often a Good Thing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,114 times Debate No: 55924
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)




First round is for acceptance. Burden of Proof is on Pro. No semantics, no sexually explicit language or material, no violent threats, no profanity, and no forfeiting. He (or she) who forfeits a round loses automatically. At the very least, post and say "I must forfeit this round." That won't necessarily get you (or me) disqualified.

I look forward to a worthy challenger.


The Idea of slavery being good is the Idea that you would be happy with it if someone came along and took away all of your freedom. When a man is enslaved, there is nothing good because that man's children's children's children will be enslaved, and they will never know what it is like to have real fun. The mere idea of enslaving another person and taking all of their freedoms away, making it so that they belong to you no matter how you abuse them is wrong.

The above website lists a few reasons why slavery is wrong.
Debate Round No. 1


"The Idea of slavery being good for you is the Idea that you would be happy with it if someone came along and took away all of your freedom."
Of course I wouldn't like it. I grew up with freedom. HOWEVER, if I was born a slave and I grew up a slave and was a slave my whole life, I'd be used to it.

"When a man is enslaved, there is nothing good because that man's children's children's children will be enslaved, and they will never know what it is like to have real fun."
Being a slave doesn't automatically mean your life will be miserable. It means that you'll spend your life engaged in difficult labor. Now, this labor would be absolutely miserable for me, but if you spend your whole life doing it, it's not as hard for you.

"The mere idea of enslaving another person and taking all their freedoms away, making it so that they belong to you no matter how you abuse them is wrong."
Actually, there are a few benefits to being someone's slave, which I will list.

My turn.

Contention 1. There are some benefits to being a slave.

A. You are guaranteed a place to sleep.
B. You have something to eat. After all, in almost every culture, slaves were expensive to purchase. Therefore, few slave owners (if any) simply let their expensive property die on them while they're still useful.
C. You don't have to think for yourself. Often it is easier to let somebody else do your thinking for you. Like it or not, people who are not used to freedom can sometimes be afraid of it and feel safer in slavery.

Let's take the Biblical book of Exodus, for example. How many times did the Israelites want to go back to Egypt, where they were slaves? All the time! This is not to suggest that the Bible condones slavery; either way this is a completely different topic. I only brought up the Bible to make a point about human nature.

Contention 2. Civilization has benefited greatly from Slavery

The US Capitol was built by slaves.
The original Great Wall of China was built by forced laborers
The Roman Colosseum was built by forced laborers as well.

Why slaves? Well, you have to pay decent wages to hired workers. Putting slaves to work was that day's equivalent of hiring minimum wage Mexicans. It was cheap, and if projects grew too expensive they might've been scrapped. Also, when there's other work to be found, what free person would be willing to break his back on projects like these? You can't build something so huge if you're running low on workers.
Bottom line: without forced labor there would be no Great Wall of China and no Roman Colosseum. Indeed; the wonders of the Ancient World were built because of slavery.

I await my opponent's rebuttals.


the problem with my opponent's argument is that he simply cannot grasp the concept that it is wrong to hold dominion over another person's life. those ancient wonders were built by slaves that were abused and thought inhuman. The Israelites wanted to go back because they had lost faith in Moses, and they were afraid of the uncertain, back in Egypt their fate was certain, humans are afraid of the unknown.

My opponent is also missing one big problem, what happens to a slave when they do something their master didn't like? Punishment, branding, being denied food, and what is to stop your "master" from hurting you when he is in a bad mood? nothing.

what if you don't get work done on time? you have to stay up all night and do it, if it's not done by morning? More punishment.

Not thinking for yourself? don't get me started, it is impossible for a human being to "not think" for themselves. We are human and therefore have the natural craving to be free, to have justice, it is wrong for a human being to try to completely control another, one may ask why? Because humans are so uncontrollable that when caged, they act like wild animals when they hear of bravery, of strength, they act like wild animals to break free, humans crave freedom because it is natural.

my opponent's argument is mal-informed and on the basis of an Idea that was stricken down long ago.
Debate Round No. 2


First of all, my opponent should keep in mind that I am merely playing Devil's advocate here. By no means do I actually support slavery. That being said, I will begin with my rebuttals.

Yes, the builders of the Ancient wonders were mistreated and considered garbage. However, had they not been slaves, they would've done nothing important with their lives. They would live 25 or 30 years, had children, and died. Their lives would have no significance. However, serving as slaves, each one of them contributed to the construction of something great, something that would last for millennia. Things that rival today's most daring engineering projects. Therefore, by no means was their labor in vain.

My opponent seems to agree with me on the Israelites in the wilderness; they were afraid of the uncertainty that came with freedom. And such has been the case among many slaves in human history, including many Black Americans following their liberation from slavery.

Yes, a slave can be beaten by his or her master. But when that's how they've been treated their whole lives, it's not so bad in their eyes.

Yes, technically speaking, even slaves have their own thoughts. But the most comfortable thing to do is stay entrenched in a mindset that you are used to. Keep in mind that going from being a slave to being free is a very big transition. Frankly, there were slaves who didn't desire the uncertainty of freedom. I apologize if I'm beginning to repeat myself.

As my opponent has the moral high ground in this debate, I am disappointed by his weak and overly cliche arguments.


I am disappointed by my opponent's admitting to being the devil's advocate, and his repetitive arguments.

On subject of the builders of the ancient wonders: were the lives truly theirs or were they just the belongings of the "master"?

with the Israelites, they wanted to go back because their fate was certain back in Egypt, I don't agree that they wanted to go back to being slaves.

What happens when the "master" breaks a bone or inflicts a mortal wound?
The answer is the slave dies a painful death, never truly having experienced an actual life.

Is the transition not a good one?

One big point that I would like to make is that the slave never truly experiences a life, they are just souls trapped in a body, a body controlled by a different man.

My opponent has compromised his argument by admitting that he does not support it.
Debate Round No. 3


First of all, admitting to playing Devil's Advocate is not a cause for losing a debate. It doesn't make my points any less valid.

Now, my opponent's arguments seem to rely on three primary assumptions:
1. That the slave owns himself
2. That a hard life is always an unhappy life
3. That the above two assumptions invalidate his/her opponent's arguments.

First of all, a child technically owns his or her self. But he (or she) is, at the same time, subject to the will of his or her parents. Therefore, there are situations where being subject to someone else's authority is acceptable. But why is this acceptable for a slave?
Here's my answer: what does it hurt a slave to deny him or her this right? Well, if a slave has never experienced slavery, you're doing them no harm to not give them something they've never experienced.
Let's say that 99.9999% of the human population experienced romantic love. Let's say that you are asexual. You've never felt attraction for someone else. You may want to, but: what would be easier, never having experienced love at all or experiencing it and then losing it forever? Which one would bring less pain?
My point is, it's easier to be deprived of something when you've never experienced something. Such is the case with freedom.

As for having a happy life, many poor people are happy in their circumstances. Have you ever heard of the Hedonic Treadmill? It's a way of describing the paradox of people being equally happy despite their circumstances.
A person may be happier than another for a while if he or she has more things, but ultimately he's no happier than the poor man is.

Finally, there's the matter of cost-benefit analysis. Either way, at some point or another slaves will die, even if they're not slaves. But if you're a slave on something like a pyramid or the Great Wall of China, it's worth it, as what that slave built lasted for a VERY VERY VERY long time.

I thank my opponent for this debate and I wait for him to post an argument in the last round.



1. where have I said a slave owns himself, he/she doesn't.

2. I never said that either, I believe an easy life is the life of a coward, a slave owner if you will.

3. I never said this either, stop twisting my words.

It is within human nature to be curious, and so we have technologies such as the computer.

I do not believe in the hedonic treadmill, we are human and therefore greed can be the cause of great unhappiness.

How many of those slaves could have done something bigger with their lives, like creating new technologies or contributing to the greater good?

It is a crime to govern another man entirely, to deny them of freedom, to "own" them. When humans become caged against their will by another human, may the lord have mercy on the captor.

If my opponent believes that slaves are happy when they are slaves, then why, may I ask him, did the slaves in America go so far as to war to be free and treated equally? It is because of the unknown, humans are naturally curious, ergo they will always fight for the new, always fight for the unfamiliar.

May we all choose the right.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by debate_power 2 years ago
I think it's overly cruel and unnecessary to make slaves out of people after taking over their country, even if they poised a threat to your country. I don't believe in exploitation of people after war, just resolving the war and the conflict that caused it.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Haha you're a good debater, but your opponent definitely is a novice as well. A better debater could build up a strong case from morality to override the benefits and negate the resolution.
Posted by Crescendo 2 years ago
If I actually win this one, that means I'm an awesome debater. That or my opponent is a novice.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Lol Bubba, you're doing really good! XD
Posted by inthenameofjustice 2 years ago
but often still means most of the time
Posted by Crescendo 2 years ago
Well I won't say always, or even most of the time.
Posted by doomswatter 2 years ago
Using the word "often" relegates this to a semantic battle.
Posted by Crescendo 2 years ago
Posted by Crescendo 2 years ago
Posted by Crescendo 2 years ago
No votes have been placed for this debate.