Instigator / Pro
0
1395
rating
22
debates
20.45%
won
Topic
#1324
Our Great Founding Fathers Put Slavery on the Road to Extinction
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
mairj23
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
3
1350
rating
29
debates
20.69%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
The fact is the Founding Fathers put slavery on the road to extinction. First they declared that all men were created equal and that all men had God given rights no matter their skin color then they came up with the 3/5ths Clause, Then they ended the slave trade, And lastly they prohibited slavery in the the Territories. Yes, The Founding Fathers realized that slavery was against their belief in liberty and sought to exterminate this great evil in their liberty loving government they had created.
Thanks for the opportunity to debate.
First and foremost, your opening statement is one gigantic contradiction in itself. There isn't anything great about America's founders because they were greedy bigots. The founders did not put slavery on the road to extension because they were the main individuals who benefited from slavery the most.
My opponent, 'the Instigator,' stated that "First they declared that all men were created equal and that all men had God given rights no matter their skin color then they came up with the 3/5ths Clause. My Reply: If all men were created equal, then there would be no need for a 3/5ths clause. If this is true, then someone who's considered to be 3/5ths human isn't equal to someone who's considered as a full individual...
I'd like for my opponent to clearly breakdown the difference between someone who's labelled as 3/5ths vs someone who's labelled as full?
My opponents next mistake is when he says "all men had God given rights no matter their skin color."...My Reply: Ok, so if this is true, then why couldn't Black soldiers benefit from the GI Bill because we know that white soldiers certainly benefited from it. If this is true, then why were Black people discriminated against because of their skin complexion?
The founders did not end slavery...America as a nation ended slavery because the southern territory was a lot stronger than the other territories. The South was basically making the most money and the North wanted a cut in which the South refused...which resulted in conflict. The slave trade may have ended on "the books," but it was still being illegally practiced after the Civil War.
My opponent said "Yes, The Founding Fathers realized that slavery was against their belief in liberty and sought to exterminate this great evil in their liberty loving government they had created. My Reply: If slavery was against their belief in liberty, then they would have never practiced slavery to begin with...Am I correct?
The word liberty is a direct contradiction to the word slavery.
Round 2
Forfeited
Guess he couldn't take the heat...
Round 3
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 4
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 5
Forfeited
Forfeited
they alowed it to continue thats all you need to know they were all criminals
I agree. The way these people think and how they try to rationalize things is unreal.
besides who cares about a bunch of old dead white men
they did no such thing they condoned it they owned slaves
While this is true, most of the Founding Fathers wanted slavery to end, even many of those who held slaves themselves. It is even amazing that the small minority who were pro-slavery agreed with motions that they knew would end slavery.
I am basing it on Madison's record of the debates in the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution and what our Founding Fathers writings.
My thoughts exactly.
I think you should be more specific. Many founders were pro-slavery, so since you didn't specify which ones you're talking about, then con can simply bring up someone like John Rutledge or something.
What historical documents are you basing this on?