Slavery is "morally" neutral.

RFV Part 1

Description
Definition of slavery 'might be nice, but maybe Pro intends to argue the existence of various 'Slaveries, that they argue people do not consider evil.

Pro Round 1
What is and is not Freedom or Slavery, looks to be a push here in round 1.
Arguments about various aspects of life such as jobs being slavery.
I'm not sure imprisoning people counts as slavery.
Though when people force them to labor and the imprisoner profit from said labor, it leans towards slavery.
Argues context should be taken into account for each situation of slavery.
Argues reparations and I'd assume taxes as slavery.

Some people see Freedom as an absolute good, situations that people decide Slavery is necessary, is sometimes seen as Necessary or Lesser Evil, but not 'Good. I think.
Slavery often seen as more of a 'forceful situation, than Pro suggests. But Pros point is probably the coercion.

Con Round 1
I don't disagree with that definition of Slavery, but I imagine Pro will argue what 'is having to do what another tells you and having no Freedom?
Basic Utilitarian morality makes me nervous, I don't want to be the one sacrificed for the greater good.
Morally Neutral, not bad, but I think Pro means slavery can be good or bad, depending on context, not that it has no effect good or bad.

I see what Con is saying by Slavery itself still being bad if it cures kids of cancer, but their definition of Moral, included,
"moral if it results in more joy than pain"
Action or Result, the defining characteristic of a policy?

My Thoughts Round 1
Still early, debate being defined, fair arguments on both sides.

Pro Round 2
Pro points out sentence they used in round 1 to define slavery,
I think it could have been a bit more clear Pro was using such as their definition, but I do see it now.
Pro argues Slavery not inherently bad, nor Freedom inherently Good.
Argues people have their Freedoms limited. I assume examples of such would be laws of society or children having limited Freedom, but these are my examples, not Pros. Additionally one might argue that children are less free by their circumstance until they have learned and grown up under parental guidance. But they are less free by their nature, not the parental constraints. But of course people use the word 'Free to speak even of animals such as chickens not being Free to explore beyond the walls of a farm. Problem pops up of defining Freedom (For me).
Pro argues happiness does not make something good.
Pro argues Desire isn't everything. I can see direction Pro is coming from, but then should they not offer some definition or example of Good themselves then?
Pro defines Slavery as,
"Slavery though which is obligation to something, to do with that something you can do no otherwise is neither good or bad ."
I'm not sure that's a 'great definition of Slavery myself, I also find it a bit difficult to parse. A 'problem for Pro though, is that they did not use that definition of Slavery in the description of this debate. Which leaves door open for Con to argue their own definition of slavery.
Still,
By Pros definition, I suppose people in prison would be enslaved to the action of being in prison.
Pro argues Context.

Con Round 2
Eh, one can 'assume Pro is arguing various Ends are Good, such as serial killers being enslaved to prison, results in less dead people.
Though Con 'has brought up the argument that the 'Action itself is still bad.

Eh, some people like the action of work, and will work under an employer, so they have something to do.
Of course, most people don't see jobs as slavery, but some do. Also lot of people don't 'want to work, and are forced unwillingly by circumstance.

I think Pro would be better off insisting their own definitions have equal or greater weight than Pros, by common peoples general use and understanding of the term slavery.

My Thoughts Round 2
Still early, debate being defined, fair arguments on both sides.
I think 'slight edge to Pro, due to their argument of Ends,
It is a bit like saying a sword is not Good or Evil, only the End is preforms.
Course a sword is usually designed for killing people, which is Bad, unless one is killing bad people, then it's Good, except killing anyone even bad people is a bit Bad. Actions vs Ends.

RFV Part 2

Pro Round 3
I think it would be 'better if Pro defined what 'made something Good or Bad.
But one can argue that the Good and Bad don't matter, what matters is that Slavery is being argued to be a Neutral hammer.
. . . Though I still think defining Good and Bad helps one define Neutral.

Eh, people usually have something in 'mind when they describe an action or item.

Con Round 3
I am reminded of the Story of the Chinese Farmer who says maybe.

Guns don't kill people.

Slavery 'is an action though, someone is being enslaved,
Maybe a gun isn't evil, but shooting someone with a gun is often seen as evil.
Slavery cannot rest by itself, it is tied to action, the action of taking away Freedom as Con argues.
Of course Pro argues not all Freedom is good.

Con argues willing slavery would not be slavery.
Con Definition of Slavery, "The condition of not only being able to do what another specific person tells you to do, and having no freedom"
Pro definition of Slavery, "obligation to something, to do with that something you can do no otherwise is neither good or bad ."
Personally I think 'both the definitions read stilted, but by both definitions I 'think a person could 'enter slavery willingly. Some slaveries had exit options, where you could buy your Freedom I think, course lot of times people remove such an option.

So far I think Cons strongest argument is Slavery being a lesser evil.
Though there might still be flaws with that.

Pro agues Context, but I wonder what Pro 'imagines Con could have argued, if they do not accept their lesser evil argument.

Eh, it 'might still be bad to imprison someone, even if they are a killer,
But people I think would commonly say you preformed a good action and end.
Though I 'do appreciate Cons argument of the Action being an Evil.

Pro Round 4
Pro argues Context, and argues not everyone wants Freedom.

Con Round 4
Hm, should one look at definition of Slavery from Consequence or Deontological?
'Can Pro say something is Neutral without Defining Good and Evil?
Pro argues common sense for calling something Good or Evil.

Con argues willing Slavery is no longer Slavery, they may have a point, but this is difficulty of definition not being clearly defined before start of debate.
What Slavery 'is, becomes part of the debate.
Con Definition of Slavery, "The condition of not only being able to do what another specific person tells you to do, and having no freedom"
Does not include whether a Slave 'wants or wants 'not to do what the Slaver wants.

Reason for Vote
Sources, Conduct, Legibility all Neutral for obvious reasons.
I think Con argued well, but I think they tripped up a few times,
I think Pro argued well by keeping to their Context argument, though I think that's a bit cheap, wouldn't such make many or all Xs Neutral? Why not just have a debate that all Xs are neutral until Context is applied.
. . .

Con makes Deontological Argument,
Pro makes Consequence Argument.
. . . But I think Pro does a better job at chipping away at Cons Deontological Argument, by arguing for willing Slavery,
I would have needed Con to better argue and prove their definition of Slavery to always be unwilling to make this a tie or Con Vote.
So my Vote goes to Pro.

This could be very interesting.

It is without a doubt an uphill battle, since slavery is horrible is firmly the status quo.

Still waiting on that definition. Again, it’s my bad for asking this after I’ve already accepted, but I would like one if at all possible.

Sorry, but can I get a definition for slavery? Probably should have asked this before I accepted, my bad.

Truism, since there is context where slavery is considered good and context where slavery is considered bad.