Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Is slavery justifiable under any circumstance

KassianaElyse
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 8:13:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am doing a Lincoln-Douglas debate this week and would like to get some feedback on the resolution (both affirmative and negative).
Affirmative Resolution: Slavery is justifiable.
Negative: Slavery is not justifiable.

I would like to see if anyone has any valid arguments for both sides of the debate that might assist me, particularly for the Affirmative. The way I thought I might lay out my affirmative is to talk about how slavery may have been justifiable in the past as opposed to stating how it would be justified today. I also am not referring to slavery just during the Civil War, but all slavery; slavery being defined as: "Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property. Often slaves can be bought and sold. Slaves can be held from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation." I personally do not believe that slavery is justifiable in modern times, but I do believe it still exists. A leading example would be "welfare" free housing, medical support, food, clothing, and money all in exchange for control from the government. I would love to hear all thoughts and arguments that you all have. Also, Lincoln-Douglas debates are value debates that focus on one particular value for the base of their arguments. I would like to hear your arguments for affirmative/negative with a said value.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 9:33:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
First off, define slavery. There are some that may try to take it to some metaphysical level (like we are all slaves to the laws of nature and so that is one case where it is justifiable). Remember, since you are saying "any" circumstance con only needs to argue for one, not all.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
KassianaElyse
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 9:42:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 9:33:06 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
First off, define slavery. There are some that may try to take it to some metaphysical level (like we are all slaves to the laws of nature and so that is one case where it is justifiable). Remember, since you are saying "any" circumstance con only needs to argue for one, not all.

I did define slavery: "Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property. Often slaves can be bought and sold. Slaves can be held from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation."

Should I include a more broad definition for slavery? Do you think that might lighten the case and make it easier to argue for the affirmative?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 10:38:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 8:13:17 AM, KassianaElyse wrote:
I am doing a Lincoln-Douglas debate this week and would like to get some feedback on the resolution (both affirmative and negative).
Affirmative Resolution: Slavery is justifiable.
Negative: Slavery is not justifiable.

I would like to see if anyone has any valid arguments for both sides of the debate that might assist me, particularly for the Affirmative. The way I thought I might lay out my affirmative is to talk about how slavery may have been justifiable in the past as opposed to stating how it would be justified today. I also am not referring to slavery just during the Civil War, but all slavery; slavery being defined as: "Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property. Often slaves can be bought and sold. Slaves can be held from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation." I personally do not believe that slavery is justifiable in modern times, but I do believe it still exists. A leading example would be "welfare" free housing, medical support, food, clothing, and money all in exchange for control from the government. I would love to hear all thoughts and arguments that you all have. Also, Lincoln-Douglas debates are value debates that focus on one particular value for the base of their arguments. I would like to hear your arguments for affirmative/negative with a said value.

On the underlined, people who get welfare are not property of the government and are thus not slaves by your definition. People are also free to get off welfare, food stamps, social security, etc...

You could probably add to your definition that the killing of a slave is not considered murder but rather destruction of property, which would make arguing CON more difficult.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?