Instigator / Pro
0
1432
rating
375
debates
43.07%
won
Topic
#5502
Slavery is not bad(inhumane) immoral/wrong/indecent in nature.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1308
rating
324
debates
39.81%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Round 1
Thank you. Thank you readers.
Slavery as I mentioned in another topic, the 9-5 is modern day slavery, is basically obligation which has an affect over your freedom.
Freedom is not good in nature. It is neutral just as slavery.
Now obligation which has an affect on your freedom you can say is dominating you.
Those are the two awesome components or traits of slavery.
Domination and obligation. Obligating and dominating.
Straightforward enough right.
Now there are circumstances where dominating and obligating something or someone proves to be necessary in order to have a constructive conclusion.
The same is true for the opposite.
One straightforward example is the penal prison system.
It is moral and humane for society to obligate individuals that would otherwise do society wrong if not obligated or forced to be imprisoned dominating their freedom.
The same is true for the opposite.
I know slavery gets a negative connotation so it is outright considered wrong in and of itself.
Slavery is actually neutral but based on how you use the term, a person can see what I mean .
But the average person most likely would not use the term the way it has been in this topic.
So semantics, yes but nevertheless according to what I've said by those terms, they're either consistent or not.
They indeed are as represented here.
This is equal to saying that killing isnt bad in nature because you have to kill killers.
Ideal world is the one without slavery, where no one is a slave.
Thus, slavery is bad, because world without slavery and without other harms is better than world with slavery even if there are no other harms in both worlds.
Perfect world would be a world without anything bad, so slavery would not be present in it, as it is bad.
If all people in such a world are good, then slavery being present in it would obviously be bad.
Prison system is bad for criminals, so prison system is bad, and since prison system is slavery, it follows that such slavery is bad.
So my opponent is stuck in a logical contradiction which goes as follows:
"Bad things arent bad when done to bad people", which is nonsense.
For example, by mere law of consistency, if punishing bad people is good, then we should have as much bad people as possible to punish them, so all people should be bad so that good can be achieved.
Thus, if "punishing bad people is good" is true, then to achieve the most of such good, we need greatest number of bad people. So producing bad people would actually be a good thing, which is nonsense.
Also, some people in prison are innocent. So even if "punishing bad people is good" is true, it doesnt follow that prison system is good, as prison system harms some innocent people, which cant be good, but which is bad.
If slavery isnt bad, then anyone can make anyone a slave.
However, since that contains a contradiction, and fails by categorical imperative, because its not an action which all people can practice or benefit from, it follows that it is bad.
But my burden of proof here anyway isnt to prove that slavery is not bad in all cases.
My opponent is the one who claims
Slavery is not bad.
Word slavery, by mere law of identity, includes all cases of slavery.
So my opponent claims:
"All cases of slavery are not bad"
Thus, if just one case of slavery is bad, then it stands that some cases of slavery are bad.
But even if my opponent would insist that the topic actually is "some cases of slavery arent bad", then he would need to present a case where slavery wasnt bad for the person.
I will disprove that by simply saying that slavery is always bad for a person, even if that person deserved it.
I will also disprove it by representing a case where slavery is bad, for example case where people are slaves. For them, its bad because they lack choices which they need to grow intellectually.
Round 2
I'll say this in general to those bringing up about my saying thanks.
I'm an individual that believes in giving gratitude. To keep that habit going is where it's at. The average conventional individual takes that virtue for granted.
Moving onto the debate.
"This is equal to saying that killing isnt bad in nature because you have to kill killers."
Hey exactly, there you go. Thank you. Hey I said thank you again. See being honest and when logic is so tight , you can't really get around it. This example that probably just came to your mind hits the epicenter.
Only thing I would tweak is , the "killers" part. What kind of killers?
"Thus, slavery is bad, because world without slavery and without other harms is better than world with slavery even if there are no other harms in both worlds."
This is not a succinct statement. But to follow it up with what I believe will be nice and clear for you to agree with, unnecessary harmful slavery is bad.
Just straightforwardly put.
"Perfect world would be a world without anything bad, so slavery would not be present in it, as it is bad."
We're talking about the world we're in comrade. Let's not move the goalpost to hypotheticals. In the previous round I explained what slavery is. So for it to be what it is , it would have to exist as it is now in a world we are in now, not a hypothetical.
Thanks.
"Prison system is bad for criminals, so prison system is bad, and since prison system is slavery, it follows that such slavery is bad."
This doesn't make sense. Please unpack this or explain it.
"So my opponent is stuck in a logical contradiction which goes as follows:
"Bad things arent bad when done to bad people", which is nonsense."
This is a strawman. This is not a quote from me. You commit several fallacies when you debate whether you can help it or not. In this one you've moved the goalpost, built a strawman and you have self refuted with :
"This is equal to saying that killing isnt bad in nature because you have to kill killers."
You're building up your own paradoxical conclusions charging me with them no different than a crooked cop planting articles.
"For example, by mere law of consistency, if punishing bad people is good, then we should have as much bad people as possible to punish them, so all people should be bad so that good can be achieved.
Thus, if "punishing bad people is good" is true, then to achieve the most of such good, we need greatest number of bad people. So producing bad people would actually be a good thing, which is nonsense.
Also, some people in prison are innocent. So even if "punishing bad people is good" is true, it doesnt follow that prison system is good, as prison system harms some innocent people, which cant be good, but which is bad."
I could just bypass this and only address things pertinent to the topic but I will make a response.
All of this is going off topic. None of this is proving that slavery is not neutral. This is filibustering with wild extrapolations getting into good and bad people and all this mess.
I'm not even talking about all that. Please stay on point. When you have no rebuttal for the first round, you derail and go outside into other aspects.
"If slavery isnt bad, then anyone can make anyone a slave.
However, since that contains a contradiction, and fails by categorical imperative, because its not an action which all people can practice or benefit from, it follows that it is bad.
But my burden of proof here anyway isnt to prove that slavery is not bad in all cases.
My opponent is the one who claims
Slavery is not bad.
Word slavery, by mere law of identity, includes all cases of slavery.
So my opponent claims:
"All cases of slavery are not bad"
Thus, if just one case of slavery is bad, then it stands that some cases of slavery are bad.
But even if my opponent would insist that the topic actually is "some cases of slavery arent bad", then he would need to present a case where slavery wasnt bad for the person.
I will disprove that by simply saying that slavery is always bad for a person, even if that person deserved it.
I will also disprove it by representing a case where slavery is bad, for example case where people are slaves. For them, its bad because they lack choices which they need to grow intellectually."
I'm going to make this so simple that this next response can apply to all of this rhetoric.
With all this combined, I can simply ask, do you know what slavery being neutral means?
Let's get a breakdown from you on that.
Thanks.
Forfeited
Round 3
I rest my case.
Forfeited
Round 4
The defense rests .
Forfeited
Round 5
Case closed. The opposing side has been refuted and concedes.
The opposing side can not use the excuse of not having time to respond as the individual has time to participate in the forum topics during this debate session.
I got them on the run.
Yes get out the kitchen when it gets too hot.
Forfeited
Really random, but why do you start arguments by thanking readers?