The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

Slavery is not wrong

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 714 times Debate No: 108262
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Don't get me wrong....i did not say that force someone to become a slave is wrong....i did not say that beating a slave is not wrong....i did not say overworked a slave is not wrong...what i mean is become a slave or having a slave is not wrong as long as it is happen with mutual agreement and not involve violence....


What pro is describing is not slavery, but an indentured servant or JOBS! It is not slavery

History has dictated that slavery is wrong.
Debate Round No. 1


I am describing slavery......

slave by definition is a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another or a bond servant.

it does not say that a slave is person who is forced to be property of other
it does not say that a slave is person who is beaten up everyday
it does not say that a slave is person who must overworked beyond their limit

People find slavery is wrong because slave owner often treat slave less human and the fault is not on the system but on the person....slavery itself like the definition states does not required someone to be badly mistreated....


Morally, slavery is wrong. One person is not another person's property. It is not slavery when tthe slave and the owner come to an agreement that is an indentured servant.

For something to be outlawed in the constitution, it has to be bad.
Debate Round No. 2


indentured servant is one form of slavery....


Yes, man is born free not as someone properties. But if you say so, is it a man right to sell their self as a slave? If you say that slavery is wrong....then if someone willingly sell himself as slave you will say that this man is do something wrong....what is your logical reason for this?

Constitution can outlawed anything either it is morally bad or not. Lets take smoking weed as example some 'constitution' consider it as bad some consider it as if someone ask 'is it smoking weed moraly bad or not?' then you will get confusion which 'constitution' that you will use to gauge moral....


For your information, Pro, the 'constitution' I was referring to was THE US CONSTITUTION.

Pro has stated that man has a right to sell themselves into slavery.
A) That is illegal under the constituion and the universal declaration of Human Rights (, Constitutioncenter)
B) Selling yourself into slavery is an indentured servant, as I stated earlier

Pro uses wikipedia as a source. That source is unreliable

I was not morally judging slavery I was judging based off the fact that THE US CONSTITUTION outlaws slavery.

According to Statista, 99% of Slave owners under the universally accepted definition of slavery whipped their slaves

The 1% is a vast minority and it all is unethical and unmoral.

I have more reliable sources then Pro, therefore, vote for me.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
History has not dictated that slavery is wrong it has dictated a meaning of slavery that is describing a wrong. I do not agree with slavery, however a slave is by history a prisoner of War who is taken or sold privately to pay off the debt incurred during a War they are considered a part of. The issue addresses a point of military order and martial law over a civilian population. The United States Constitution can be used to describe slavery as wrong, and not a right to be upheld by law.

It is the basis of the United States Constitutions right to common defense to insure the general welfare always allowing a nation of people the last chance to defense themselves as a nation may crumble and leave then defenseless. As the argument becomes it is wrong to leave a civilian simply a victim to slavery, looting, rape and murder.

Interesting debate.
Posted by catherine.random 3 years ago
Slavery is not wrong in the way you are describing it. In fact, many people among the BDSM community participate in a master/slave relationship that is 100% consensual. Owning someones being as a whole, I'm sure, is an exhilarating experience, as I'm also sure, that being owned wholly by another person is just as exhilarating, as some people love the thrill of being dominated. slavery should not be biased by race, sex, or any other uncontrollable trait, and should always be consensual. Slavery should also never involve abuse ( unless I guess consensual with a safe word) honestly all that matters in most situations is if both parties are consenting, and as long as they are then it should be okay (In my opinion)
Posted by ButterEater 3 years ago
Dude, are you smoking crack? Literally what you've defined is not slavery.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by David_Debates 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources: I could follow Pro's sources, while Con's sources required more legwork (had to put in the sources to find them). Still, Con's were actually used in his argument, while Pro was only clarifying definitions. Giving sources to Con. That said, Con's arguments fall flat immediately. Pro states that slavery is not wrong if it is voluntarily entered. Con then argues that Pro's view of slavery is not "true slavery," and therefore he ought to win. Pro clarifies his definition with an article, demonstrating that the type of slavery he speaks of is indeed slavery, because the person is becoming the property of another. Con even describes the "property" as a slave in R2, showing double standards. Con's claims are completely unsubstantiated except in the final round, denying Pro the ability to refute them, which is a violation of conduct. To counter Con's argument as to "born free," Pro states one can give away that right. Con argues definition again. Message me if you want more detail.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.