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

it's time to repeal our antiquated anti-slavery laws.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 573 times Debate No: 43131
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




Greetings debate fans. Tis the season of goodwill to all men, except slaves, of course, for the Good Book does tell us: "Both thy male and female slaves, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy slaves. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your slaves for ever." Leviticus 25:44-46

And, "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ." Ephesians 6:5

The above scriptures were written many years ago but they remain as relevant today as when the ink dried. These days, the unrestricted movement of workers is essential to maintaining a vibrant free market economy and the state should not hinder wealth creators by imposing draconian laws on them that 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 slave-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.



I will find this to be an interesting topic to debate. I am going to offer the following observation; The con concedes the obvious economic benefits by enslaving an entire race but the United States (and every developed western country) value human dignity over economic benefits. Thus by showing that it's morally wrong and that the bible can not be used in the context of this debate I believe a negative ballot is in hand.

I support this stance with the following contentions

1) Slavery is the most immoral thing humanity has perhaps ever done

A) Human Rights Abuses
I will start by citing the entire "UN Declaration of Human Rights" that the United States signed in 1948. We violate literally all 31 articles in the process of enslaving an entire race. Rape, murder, and physical assault on these people will be constant and our country becomes out of touch with humanity. Millions of these abysses will occur on a daily basis, you're a sick bastard for even proposing such a ridiculous topic.

B) Morality>Economy
We, as in the United States, should not value our economy more than the basic human liberties that our country was built off of, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN, were created equally." When those words were written they were in the midst of distress and in danger of losing the lives of not just themselves but the ones they cared about most. Thus it holds infinite more weight than your supposed economic benefits.

2) The Bible

I'm not even going to give a structured response to this because quite frankly you don't understand the first amendment obviously. I'm sure the only one you pay attention to is the second... Nonetheless I know for a fact that it says there is to be a clear separation of church and state. Since you're talking about a policy you can't propose the bible as you're source for affirming slavery.

I believe my opponent is joking because the stance he is taking is so immoral and if he's going to cite the Bible he should probably uphold all of the basic human rights that the bible says we should protect. I took this debate not even to win but to hopefully show my opponent how ridiculous he sounds and that he is plain and simple wrong.

Thus I urge a con ballot in today's debate. Thank You.
Debate Round No. 1


With many thanks to alevan for accepting this debate, I should like to address his rebuttals in turn as follows:

1. Slavery is the most immoral thing humanity has perhaps ever done.

a) Human Rights Abuses

Article 4 of The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights does, indeed, state "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms." However, the Preamble to the Declaration states that "shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures." [1] In other words, the Articles are not legally binding, they are merely suggestions which member states can abide by or not, as they see fit. Indeed, the United States does not currently abide by all the Articles, as we shall see.

b) Morality > Economy

My opponent says that the United States was built on "basic human liberties" and refers to the American Declaration of Independence which stated: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created equally." [2] This document was signed in 1776 but blacks still enslaved in America until President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. Indeed, blacks did attain equal rights with white people until the Civil Rights Act of 1968. [3]

And what about the persecution of the indigenous people of America? The white Americans slaughtered the Indians on a wholesale basis and drove those left off their land. Indeed, these human rights abuses continue until this day: a United Nations committee recently condemned the U.S. government for violating Native Americans' land rights and said Washington had run afoul of an international anti-racism treaty. [4]

So we can see that America was actually built on slavery and the dispossession and discrimination of the native people and what the Declaration of Independence really should have stated was "all white men were created equal".

Finally, with general regard to the issue of morality, if you were hungry and homeless on the freezing streets of New York, Chicago or London, or if you were starving to death in a refugee camp in Africa, wouldn"t you welcome the opportunity to do an honest day"s work in return for a roof over your head and decent meals? Surely there"s nothing immoral in giving these poor unfortunate people a chance to escape death through cold or hunger?

2. The Bible

Although I am not personaly religious, many people, especially in America where 77% of the adult population self identify themselves as Christians [5], consider the Bible to be their moral compass in life, and if the Bible condones slavery then, at least for the pious, it must, therefore, be morally permissible to own slaves.

Relaxing the laws on slave ownership would, as we have seen, be of enourmous economic benefit to Western countries that are currently falling behind their competitors in the developing world, so, please vote Pro to bring back the good old days when employers were allowed to help disadvantaged people by giving them unpaid internships in their homes, factories and farms.

Thank you.



I am incredibly short on time and I apologize so this FF will be brief. What we have to see here is simply that Americans value our moral principles that we uphold today. While the words of the declaration mean something different 200 years ago to people, they yet again mean something different to us as well. Now my opponent says we are doing these people in Africa a favor by bringing them over because we are saving them from the cold nights and hunger but we can see that in no sense is that the case. We saw all last century almost every African country attempting to declare their own independence. Those weren't a small group of people, it was all of them. Currently it's not like we aren't doing much to help those people there as well.
I guess it all depends on the person, but personally and I hope many agree, I would rather die of starvation then live my life getting beaten, watching my mother and sister being raped, and my father killed. I'm sure that over 1 billion Africans would agree with me on that.
The United States and any country for that matter should hold morality above all else. We want to live by each other's happiness not misery, through that life can free and beautiful. But slavery isn't that, it's greed and it poisons our souls. Without kindness and our brotherhood we are nothing. We only imprison these people and we aren't helping them by treating them like they are less than us? I don't know what's worse the fact that we can think so much about our economy and competing with these unnatural countries who hold sweat shops. Men, woman, children being told how to live and think? Through that we feel so little.
Or could it be worse that we can't compete and instead of being a world super economy we are a country who is developed and yet believes in the same morals we were taught as children?

Perhaps that's the question voters really need to decide. Thank you for this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
I lol'd.
Posted by alevan 2 years ago
I look forward to the final round.
Posted by brian_eggleston 2 years ago
I intended the debate to be taken seriously and I will reply in kind.

Even though I may not personally agree with the sentiments expressed in my arguments that doesn't mean other people, the voters, will not agree with them.

For example, on Christmas Day I was at a party and we were playing a parlour game where you had to guess an event in history from various clues. The clue given to one guest (who will remain anonymous) was "You would definitely have opposed it," to which the guest (who was drunk and off his guard) replied "The abolition of slavery." (In fact the event in question was the Suffragettes' campaign for votes for women).

You see, there are a lot people who would like to see the return of slavery, and many of them are politicaly right-wing and devout Christians.

Anyway, thanks for accepting this challenge!
Posted by alevan 2 years ago
While that makes sense it is going to eliminate credibility considering there is a distinct line between church and state. I thought you were being serious and you'll see that in my first round response
Posted by brian_eggleston 2 years ago
I'm playing the devil's advocate for the purpose of this debate!

Politicians, for example, don't always personally believe in the policies they promote.
Posted by alevan 2 years ago
I find it interesting he is atheist yet cites the bible. Showing he doesn't find his main source even credible
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Concade 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and S/G are evenly matched. I give Con points on sources because, while Pro had more of them, Con better used his sources to support his main arguments. More importantly, Con's contentions on the priority of human dignity and morality weren't successfully trumped by the Pro. Pro's point on people preferring a life of slavery over a life of starvation is questionable, as Con rightly points out. Overall, the win goes to Con.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources: Pro had 'em, con didn't. Conduct: conduct in this debate was pretty evenly matched. S/g: spelling/grammar was evenly matched in this debate. Arguments: Pro's arguments were correct. We shouldn't be restrained by silly trivial things such as "human rights", we need to get profit and loads of labour!