The Instigator
themightyindividual
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Slavery

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 2 votes the winner is...
8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,034 times Debate No: 74718
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)

 

themightyindividual

Con

Debate perimeters: This debate is on the subject of slavery, the act of physically keeping a person in a labor environment he/she does not want to be in. Slavery essentially has nothing to do with wages, only whether or not a person has the decision to leave his work environment.

This debate will be argued using fact and reason, no emotional opinions or subjectively heavy thoughts are used in the debate.

...............................................................................................................................

Slavery is an idea that only works well for one party: the slave owner. In that, it differs from other economic ideas. It is also reliant on the assumption that a human being can become property in the same way that an animal or inanimate object can. This idea is clearly false as it does not demonstrate who can and cannot become a slave without another idea, such as racism.

To support slavery, you must support an idea that discriminates against people based on arbitrary characteristics.

This means that people can become slaves because of their race, national origin, religion, ancestry, or other irrational classification. It does not make sense to support such an idea because it means that individuals are non-important to the equation (i.e. it does not matter a person's efforts, it only matters their parents' class).

The alternative is that anyone can become a slave if they are unable to physically compete with those capturing them. This is the lowest form of slavery, as it nothing higher than the world of the animals. Only cavemen would support such an idea. No civilized society would allow slavery to exist without being extremely ignorant to reason.
8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA

Pro

I am now going to prove to you beyond doubt that slavery is a good system to implement for both the slave and slave owner.

My debate rests on two, simple principles:

1) The more you do/practice something, the better you get at it.

2) The less decisions you have to make before you begin practicing/doing something, the sooner you begin doing it and longer in your life you have left to become better at it.

I will firstly demolish Con's debate before proceeding to present the reasoning behind my own.

Con states that slavery only benefits the slave owner. His explanation of this is that one example of slavery in history has been that of a racially divided one. I would first like to remind him that there have been non-racist slave trades such as the Irish one[1], Asia and Middle Eastern past and present day slavery and many others. I would also like to remind him that there were black masters and slave traders too at the time of black enslavement. Most blacks happened to be poor and have no white friends to back them up and therefore were an easy target at the time, that was all.

Con then mentions that to support slavery, you must support an idea that discriminates against people based on arbitrary characteristics. This is firstly untrue as no slave master would pick a weaker slave over a stronger one if they want them to do manual labor and equally wouldn't pick an illiterate slave over a bilingual one if they want them to both write and translate. Slavery is in fact the only system on Earth where truly the most able to do a job are those who end up doing it.

Con argues that the way master and slave is decided is irrationally decided. Equally it is silly that you get a single cent of inheritance from your parents since it's most likely that not a single shred of their income and legacy was your own doing; rather the opposite. Sure, life is unfair and irrational but that doesn't mean a system isn't suitable to work. there's pretty much no country on Earth where the concept of inheritance is totally ignored.

Con argues that the natural selection form of slavery is the lowest of them all as it is animalistic. This first of all contradicts his attack on the favoritist method of deciding who is slave and owner and furthermore ignores Darwin's theory of evolution entirely; a major branch of scientific theory.[3] If natural selection decided the slaves from the masters, our species would be the best it could possible be in terms of adapting to its environment and survivability. The fact is we are animals and will only stay as the alpha species if we can be better than not only other animals but any alien species that may invade us one day. the best way to achieve this would be to kill off weak genes and pass on strong ones relative to the genepool, generation after generation.[4] Would you rather a world where we killed the weak or let them be useful as slaves?

Now to back my own argument up. It's a common adage that 'practice makes perfect.' and with good reason too.[5] The fact is, the more you do something, the more you do something the easier it transfers from short-term memory to long-term memory according to the multi-store memory model[6] which is highly recognized in psychology.

The second part is basically saying that nothing will motivate you or encourage you to practice on specific task over and over unless you know you had to master it no matter what. This ensures you're at your peak ability at that job at all times.

[1] http://www.globalresearch.ca...
[2] http://libertyasia.org...
[3] http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com...
[4] http://www.biology-online.org...
[5] http://www.brainfacts.org...
[6] http://www.simplypsychology.org...
Debate Round No. 1
themightyindividual

Con

My opponent has pointed out that the more you do something, the better you are at it. However, there are other ways to get at this than through slavery. In fact, the free market is much more efficient at transferring short-term tasks into long-term tasks than any other system.[1] Your idea that the slave owner forcing the slave to do something the slave owner thinks he would be good at for the profit of the slave owner is alike the idea that an individual in a free market will force himself to do something that he thinks he will be good at for his own profit.

You also mentioned the relationship between slavery and evolution. This is, just as above, also something demonstrated by capitalism. It is called social Darwinism, and it is something I cam currently debating elsewhere on DDO. But, your theory does not match up with social Darwinism, because it dismisses individuality as unnecessary and supports collectivism. Now, we all know that collectivism is like an anchor on evolution and progress in general.[2] Slavery is a form of collectivism, because it sacrifices the good of the individual for the good of the group (or in this case, the slaver owners).

Slavery has never been based on characteristics of an individual, that is to say, people were never made slaves SOLELY from their own actions. They were born into it, by their ancestors, nation origin, ethnicity, race, or other collectivist ideas.[3]

Also, my opponent said that slavery was actually GOOD for the slave. This is allegedly because he becomes good at his job. But he does not go on to explain why that is a good thing. If he is not working toward some personal goal (i.e. paycheck, salary, retirement) then it is not good for him, only in the same empty feeling of accomplishment that one gets while working under communism.

I must point out that, contrary to my opponent's statement, slavery stunts evolution. This is because the slave has no choice but to work the same job for the same wage for the same slave owner in the same conditions. If a system was to enhance the evolutionary process, it would focus on individual advancement.[4] Proof of this is that species evolve by the efforts of the individuals involved. Anything that stunts this process is stunting progress.

My opponent obviously has no idea how evolution works and how it can relate to human society.

[1] http://www.clemson.edu...
[2] http://psychology.wikia.com...
[3] http://www.newspeakdictionary.com...
[4] https://www3.nd.edu...
8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA

Pro

Con begins stating that there are other solutions to helping people excel at what they do than slavery. I never denied this at all. Instead, I explained that slavery is the only situation whereby everyone is forced to do one thing over and over until they perfect it and not even consider doing anything but that one thing. The slave owner will only become good at owning slaves and driving them to work, the slaves good at cleaning will only be skilled at that so on and so forth. Slaves can be owned form birth so it maximises the time they excel at only that one thing to the greatest imaginable efficiency of one's lifespan. Under a system such as free market economics, everyone only generally begins to try and excel at once thing form 18+ and even then they tend to drift between dream jobs until they buckle down to one career at around 25-27 (generalizing here but you get the picture). In slavery, everyone is already an expert at their division of labor by around the age of 12. That's over half the lifespan and you already have produced and expert at what they do.

Another thing to not here is that people learn fastest while young [1]. My source explains that the age when most people actually begin their careers in a non-slavery system (22-25) is the age where one's ability to intake information and learn new concept actually begins declining. This is why everyone is always most fluent in their mother tongue no matter how many languages they learn to speak. It's true that you can become better at a foreign language than your own and even begin dreaming in the new language after a long time using it but your mother tongue is always the one you can re-remember the fastest once forgotten. It's also true that anyone who speaks to you in mother tongue language will always be able to emotionally affect you more than someone speaking in another[2].

Another thing is that 'natural talent' is a genuine myth and should be ignored for a variety of reasons[3][4]. While a person who has had a certain childhood and upbringing cannot change what their innate talents are, if you can force someone at this age to master one skill, they will become unbelievably good at that skill. Take anyone, be it Einstein or Mozart and observe their childhood and you'll slowly realize they were not geniuses but rather were simple human beings who had a very specialized upbringing geared towards one line of work. They 'self motivation' merely came form realizing how badly they sucked at everything else and so of course they were not all-rounders if the only thing they'd learned to excel at was that one skill they learned to call their 'innate' talent. Slavery helps people who otherwise would be lost or without ingenuity and talent to become geniuses at what they do whether they like it or not and will make the human species overall as excellent as it could possibly be, relative to any and all other political and social systems.


I have no idea why Con attacks social Darwinism and the link between it and slavery when I never once advocated this. Social Darwinism is not what slavery is based on, rather natural selection is so inefficient a system to base politics and society on that any and all Libertarian and/or Free market economies have either totally collapsed (take, Mexico most of Africa and south Asia), or have excelled at the extreme expense of the impoverished (take India or South Africa). On the other hand, and not without coincidence, nations that go against social Darwinism and instead enforce a system whereby everyone is sacrificing for others to a degree are the nations that pretty much run the world economically and socially at this moment in time. I wouldn't be so bold as to call that a lucky coincidence.

While north Korea arguably is doing bad but engages in slavery, what North Korea does wrong is to try and trick its people into a sense of community and harmony. Instead of making people worship the leader like a god and to arrest anyone who dares question this authority and abuse of it, an efficient state based on slavery would openly explain to everyone that they were a slave (even the owners) to the nation itself and that there was no true leader other than the need to excel at whatever socialized skill you were forced to do form birth and that is all you should aim to excel at.

Con attacks me stating that slavery is good for the slaves, I counter him to explain why on earth it wouldn't be. If you are force dot have to decide your own destiny and hand out a hundred CV's and do about 51 interviews before you even can begin to excel at something in this world, you begin pretty late in lie and will probably have about 5-7 career changes, varying form minor to major, in your life. Whether they be direct promotions or department transfers, they hold you back in your ability to be great at that one role and one ability/skill. If you become so effortlessly talented at that one thing that you can practically do it with your eyes closed and one hand behind your back, I'd say your life will be pretty damn enjoyable. It also avoids anyone teasing you for your at work and also removes the stress of you having to worry if you'll have that job tomorrow or even have to search for what you want to do in life. In fact it pretty much eliminates any anxiety or 'lost purpose' feelings one could have which are major factors that lead to suicide[5].

Slavery doesn't stunt evolution at all. The smartest humans will inevitably be good at what they do and attract the fellow slaves who admire skilled workers. Some people are not into skilled/serious people and prefer fun, relaxed people. Less efficient slaves would still have allocated time to have fun and enjoy life and socialize of course. After all, it's not actually fun for the slave owners to always have to keep the slaves in line, sometimes being in charge is a nightmare.

[1] http://education.jhu.edu...
[2] http://www.fountainmagazine.com...
[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[4] http://www.learning-to-see.co.uk...
[5] https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Debate Round No. 2
themightyindividual

Con

My opponent has failed to understand the idea of "individual success". He seems to think it is right for some people (slaves) to sacrifice their entire lives for other people (slave owners). He says that you become good at something under slavery, though I dare not found out. Yet, he has not rebutted my simple statement: it would not be good for the slaves. How is it good for me if I can be a very efficient slave? I am not receiving the benefits of labor that I am so efficient at producing, my slave owner is. There is no point in slavery other than the benefit of the slave owners. The health of the slaves is not good.[1] How do you expect someone to live their entire lives as a sacrifice for other people. That is communism, and it is horrible.

Another odd point you made is that "most of Africa and south Asia, and South Africa" are free market economies? Obviously, my opponent has not idea what a free market economy (capitalism) is. Well, let me give you a clue. There is no slavery. Most of Africa, south Asia, and South Africa is in ruins because it is using the system that you advocate.[2] Much of the political power in those countries is exercised by slave owners (South Africa used to be a mainly slave-based economy).[3] Calling that capitalism is just plain crazy.

Also, Pro brings up North Korea, a bad choice on his part. North Korea tricks its people into being slaves, because that's the only way for them to stay. You say that instead of tricking people into slaves they should tell them that "they were a slave (even the owners) to the nation itself and that there was no true leader other than the need to excel at whatever socialized skill you were forced to do form birth and that is all you should aim to excel at." That's pretty much what they said.

What you need to realize is that their is no point in life other than self-pleasure. And that slaves cannot experience that, and it doesn't matter how much they toil, they are not benefiting from it because they are not free. You are denying that the ends justify the means.

Success is a mix of innate talent and practice[4], but my opponent assumes practice is solely important. This is idiotic because this would mean that a person who's mind is physically more capable of doing complex math problems in their head could do better in a field tilling the ground. It ignores the fundamental truth that some people are better than others at different things. Slavery is not the way to go, as it does not help any one person, it only helps some weird thing you call "society". Though I don't know who that is, he's probably not as important as me, the individual.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://articles.latimes.com...
[3] http://www.sahistory.org.za...
[4] http://www.smithsonianmag.com...
8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA

Pro

In Con's closing statement he fails to understand that the slave masters dedicate their entire lives solely to understanding how to instil fear and discipline into people. It's not actually easy to organize approximately 79 slaves in your grand mansion or wherever you work. It's furthermore difficult to be able to afford to pay the 'bouncers' so to speak (the people who will do the whipping etc for you and guard slaves from being taken by other masters). The Slave masters have a very difficult task too and their lives are not easy. Con tries to attack my point about slavery being the most efficient system to encourage specialization and everyone being as good as is possible to be at the tasks they do. His attempted rebuttal is 'I dare not find out'... I don't find this sufficient enough to even address. con keeps reiterating 'it would not be good for the slaves' but has failed to define good and failed to address my point that it would be brilliant for not just the slaves but society as a whole. While it is true the slave owner reaps the benefits of slavery, what Con forgets is that each and every slaves has to be kept alive and healthy in order for them to achieve their best possible work efficiency for the master. Consequently, it is impossible for a master to not keep his slaves well-fed and nurtured if he/she expects them to have the energy to work as hard as they possibly can. The health of slaves in the past was not good per se, but at present, if a nation wanted to compete with other non-slaving nations of this day and age, slaves would definitely be in good health as the world is richer now than it ever was before with a GDP of 3.5 trillion[1].

Con mentions that slavery is Communism but in the original Marxist Communism there is no division of hierarchy as everyone is equal.[2] Clearly it would be implausible for one to form between Communism and slavery since slavery not only has hierarchy but creates classes within it that are taken as birthright (masters, slaves and 'bouncers'). Communism does not allow classes and therefore stands against a very fundamental concept of slavery.[3]

Con then blatantly lies. Slavery is no practised anywhere on Earth at present apart from North Korea arguably. His source is a severely right-wing article by "Los Angeles Times" that has absolutely no evidence in it. it mentions that slavery illegitimately is occurring in Africa (based purely on speculation) and is not relevant too the legal practise of slavery which is what this debate is regarding. I have no clue why Con thinks South Africa is not capitalist but it is as capitalist as they come so much so that there is an actual Communist party in South Africa with a campaign website dedicated to fighting it.[4]

The North Korea point was irrelevant. North Korea does not admit that it enslaves and therefore is not putting in all the regulations that a legally enslaved nation would.

Con finishes off his attack on my case by stating 'there is no point in life other than self-pleasure'. What an absolutely disgusting outlook to have, let's be thankful that the majority of humanity is not like Con or everyone would be masturbating instead of having sex because they only want self-pleasure and our species would be long gone as would our morals.

Con's fourth source actually contradicts what he says as it says while some researches assume natural/innate talent is the most important factor in success, other researchers negate its importance and instead say it's the timing and quality of one's practice that determine their proficiency[5]. Con then makes an ad hominem attack calling my view idiotic; this is poor conduct. Con then furthers his ad hominem attack calling society weird (as if this is supposed to prove anything). He then trolls saying he doesn't know who society is but society is probably not as important as himself. If everyone thought like Con, then we'd all be as dysfunctional and impoverished as many citizens and the overall economy of the far-right-wing India and Nigeria.

[1] http://knoema.com...
[2] https://www.marxists.org...
[3] http://www.weisbord.org...
[4] https://www.nelsonmandela.org...
[5] http://www.smithsonianmag.com...
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
---RFD (1 of 3)---
---Commentary on debate not posted separate from RFD by debater request---
Conduct (tied): They both mostly behaved, the final round they began slipping, con calling pro's view simply idiotic, and pro then the claiming con's argument was blatantly lying; but neither drifted much off topic or otherwise served to significantly distract from the arguments. The potential straw man masturbation bit, while adding a nice touch of humor, pushed it a little farther (more on this near the end of this RFD).
S&G (firmly tied): A saw a lot of little errors from both.
Arguments (null): As seen in my profile when I was selected as a judge, I have a lot of personal bias on this having been born into slavery (to use an analogy, would you expect a rape victim to vote fairly on a debate titled 'rape?'). Thus I shall assign no points on argument.
Sources (tied): They both had a lot of support for their cases, even if at times it seemed tossed on. Sources only began being challenged in the final round, with sources still being heavily used (a sure sign these debaters needed more rounds to explore their ideas).

Good clear setup, for a decent debate. Con mostly uses some decent pathos appeals in R1 (slavery linked to racism; and yes pathos appeals can be quite valid), which pro counters with talk of the Irish (which actually was tied to racism, as the racial lines drawn today are far better than the ones back then... but con did not catch this or otherwise effectively counter it, therefore that's one contention he lost) and other groups that today would broadly be called one race.

The inheritance argument was well executed by pro, since negatives and positives have the same weight when emotions are not factored (inheriting money, inheriting debt).
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
---RFD (2 of 3)---
"practice makes perfect" favoring slavery con countered with the free market (neither caught the fact that slavery was at times a part of the free market, which makes me think of arguments against mandated equal pay for women, since left alone apparently the free market would have given them equal pay even faster... yes, people actually said that without laughing). Con did a good job with this, in particular with that source (a couple quotes from it would have been nice), which con's counter was a reminder that a slave might be in their permanent job by age 12, an age they are better suited for acquiring skills, thus become more specialized at it. There was disagreement between them on if slaves are assigned their job solely based on their merit at said role.

The slavery leads to less suicides due to "lost purpose" bit was well executed, however I am unsure how the source was intended to support it. Both seem to agree that its communism (pro even described his dream nation, where literally everyone is openly just a slave to the needs of the country" he of course insisted later that communism is anti-slavery, which was just a little odd given the earlier statements).

Con's assertion "that their is no point in life other than self-pleasure" would have been much better spelled out so clearly early in the debate, since it seems to be the core principle on which his case is build, but so late it could not be discussed back and forth adequately.

They also went back and forth on if natural talent exists. I think the math wiz example set that in con's favor (yet it could have done with hammering it home, like name Stephen Hawking being forced to work that field instead of improving the world with his mind" as it was, the contention fell in con's favor, but not to a debate winning degree).

Playing dumb with calling society a person, was pretty needless.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
---RFD (3 of 3)---
Near the end pro makes the statement: "the legal practise of slavery which is what this debate is regarding." And insists things are not slavery if the masters don't openly admit that's what it is. Con of course did use uses talking about the illegal slave trade in places, which gives this some justification, in spite of the resolution being slavery in general ("the act of physically keeping a person in a labor environment he/she does not want to be in. Slavery essentially has nothing to do with wages, only whether or not a person has the decision to leave his work environment."). In future please be very careful with what could be perceived as moving the goalpost.

Overall a well done debate by both people. Were this open voting, I suspect most votes would boil down to a gut reaction, or over balancing against said gut reaction. Given the selection of judges, I doubt this will be a problem.
Posted by 8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA 1 year ago
8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA
together
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
So far I'm enjoying reading this. As you've selected me as a judge, would you guys like my commentary and RFD together, or separated?
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Sources go to Pro for having way more sources and Pro has ".orgs" sources increasing the viability of the arguments that they are being sourced to. Also some of Con's own sources actually contradict what he is trying to say. Conduct is a tie as it was fair on each side. Grammar goes to Pro due to Con having multiple Dependent clauses and fragments in his cause and these errors are something that cannot be correct with Spell check on word or DDO. I recommend proof reading before you hit submit. Arguments I'm going to have to give it to Pro due to two main key points that prevails and wins the case. One being GDP and profit margins. He showed how profitable it is while all Con was able to do is show how that's terrible and gave us the example of North Korea. I do suggest that if Con wants to learn more on how bad this is that he views/reads the Shock Doctrine. The whole Social Darwinism is the second key area of argumentation and this part I have no choice, but to give it to Pro as well. This is due to Pro revelling how it's just simply human nature for this to happen and really hits the point home. If Pro would have used something like the works of Thomas Hobbes to show how bad human nature is I think that would have really amplified his argument and really rendered what Con had to say utterly useless.

If you have a problem with this RFD please feel free to PM me about it.
Posted by themightyindividual 1 year ago
themightyindividual
To drag0vien: You have got to be kidding me. Why would people want to live in a place that doesn't have freedom OR television. That doesn't make sense. Why would people want to live in a world where there is only toil, this is utopia compared to THAT! Society has advanced to a point in which no more than 8 hours need be used for work each day, and out of those eight hours we are able to pay for things medieval people could never dream of. Cars, TV, computers, 2,000 square foot homes, refrigerators, light bulbs, and all the other useful things we have. How could people have invented those in the system you describe? How would they even be allowed to? Read Anthem.
Posted by Bogcha 1 year ago
Bogcha
"In that, it differs from other economic ideas. It is also reliant on the assumption that a human being can become property in the same way that an animal or inanimate object can. "

For con: the above is in fact incorrect. We are all slaves of the state. We are used as collateral.
Example: Birth Certificate. (the government owns it therefore it owns you)
Just because you are not chained it does not matter than you are free. Look around and you will see. I hope Pro will see this.

http://www.joe-burd.newsvine.com...

https://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.com...

http://org.law.rutgers.edu...
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
FYI, the judges for this are " lannan13, thett3, Blade-of-Truth, Wylted, Ragnar "
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
themightyindividual8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJATied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments...
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
themightyindividual8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJATied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.