We Should Have A "Slaveocracy"
Debate Rounds (3)
A government where the people in the society are either masters or slaves, but where the government is run entirely by a representative body elected by the slaves, masters are not given votes.
They are prevented from abolishing their slavery with a Constitution that spells out the rights and duties of the masters and slaves.
This is a good form of government because it involves the best checks and balances.
It prevents the highest class of people in the society from holding undue sway over the government, while at the same time holding back the non-ruling economic class which is given political power by making all of them including the president slaves that have duties to work for and obey their masters.
It's perfect balance and harmony in a slaveocracy.
First off (for clarification): How would it be decided who is a slave and who is a master?
If the "slaves" are in charge of voting for government officials, wouldn't they seek abolition through this power? Moreover, by definition, a "slave" is "one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence."  By giving these so-called "slaves" so much political power, they no longer become enslaved, per se, since they are not completely subservient.
The outline of this society that has been provided by the opponent is vague, but from what I can gather from it, it is very flawed. The "slave" and "master" positions are clearly unstable, since the slaves have so much political power. In a society like this, a role reversal is bound to happen.
1. The Constitution would spell out who is a slave and who is a master. It would also spell out that slavery can not be abolished, and who is a slave and who is a master can not be changed.
2. They are completely subservient to a dominating influence in that they have to perform work for free and can't leave. That's good enough to make them slaves, even if they hold political authority.
1. The Constitution will list the name of everybody in the world and say if each person is slave or not? What would the criteria be for being a slave and for being a master?
The Constitution cannot be changed? Since the so-called "slaves" have the political control, can't they elect people who would make amendments to the Constitution? Who is to say they can't (since they have the political control)? Moreover, who will write the Constitution in the first place?
2. Why would you expect the slaves to not use their political authority to abandon their roles as slaves? Also, they could elect officials who are most lenient to the slaves, to the point at which they are no longer even slaves... and no one in the society would be doing work. What would be the incentive for slaves to even vote other than freedom? And if the slaves are forced to vote by the masters, clearly the opponent's "checks and balances" system isn't very balanced.
MasturDbtor forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate