I Rebuttal: Pro’s questions in R1, R2, R3. Pro does not ask questions in R4, but I will rebut his R4 following this section I.
R1 Pro’s Questions
1. Now why is there nothing wrong with that? [the resolution]
A: See R1, R2, R3 arguments, inclusive; six in all
R2 Pro’s Questions
2. Why don’t you take the initiative to ask what I mean?
A: See R1, Arg I, inclusive.
3. How does this not define the context of what a slave is in this debate?
A: See R3, Arg III, inclusive
4. Did you read the description?
A: Yes. See R1, R2, R3, inclusive, as each refers to the description & resolution.
5. Are you saying me being a slave owner, you being my slave is wrong because the bible says it's wrong
A: Yes. See R1, Arg II, inclusive, plus R3 Arg IV.a
6. Can you argue on your own what would be wrong with me making choices that allow you to do and not do whatever I decide?
A: See R3, Arg. III, inclusive.
7. What is in your critical thought process that can show otherwise against the topic statement and that the topic statement on its face being outright false?
A: See R1, inclusive, R2, inclusive, R3, Arg. IV, inclusive.
R3 Pro’s Questions
8. Do you see how direct, plain and straightforward my language is to you?
A: See R1, Arg I, inclusive, Arg. III, inclusive, R2, Rebut I, inclusive, R3, Arg IV.c & IV.d
II. Rebuttal: “Yes it's wrong because the law says just like at one point the law said it was not.”
II.a Pro begins the argument by accepting that the resolution is wrong: “Yes, it’s wrong…” I accept Pro’s admission that far, but no further, because Pro further alleges, “…just like at one point the law said it was not.” Unfortunately, Pro misunderstands the history of slavery in the United States because he apparently presumes the language of the Constitution of the United States clearly stipulated that slavery was the law of the land, but never consulted it in order to cite it to prove the allegation. I have, and will disprove Pro’s allegation:
II.a.1 The word “slave,” or any variation of it [such as “slavery”] does not occur in the language of the Constitution at all until the XIII and XIV Amendments to the Constitution in 1865 and 1868, respectively. Until 1865, “The argument that the Constitution is racist suffers from one fatal flaw: the concept of race does not exist in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution—or in the Declaration of Independence, for that matter—are human beings classified according to race, skin color, or ethnicity (nor, one should add, sex, religion, or any other of the left’s favored groupings). Our founding principles are colorblind (although our history, regrettably, has not been).”
The change that occurs to the Constitution in 1865, and 1868 is the clear declaration that slavery is to be abolished.
II.a.2 Many who assume the Constitution is “racist” point to the mention of “The infamous three-fifths clause, which more nonsense has been written than any other clause, does not declare that a black person is worth 60 percent of a white person. It says that for purposes of determining the number of representatives for each state in the House (and direct taxes), the government would count only three-fifths of the slaves, and not all of them, as the Southern states, who wanted to gain more seats, had insisted. The 60,000 or so free blacks in the North and the South were counted on par with whites.”
Enough said on this subject. I, therefore, reject Pro’s claim on it. The U.S. Constitution never said in such words that slavery was legal, as Pro suggests, incorrectly. That it was an accepted social norm, I do not argue; it was, but it was never a matter of legal statute of Constitutional standing. Therefore, Pro’s status as a slave holder, and that there is nothing wrong with the claim, is legally wrong; regardless of Pro’s claim that he can still say so. He has clearly disregarded “said so” arguments, though he has not the right to deny my use of “said so” in this debate, and I call on readers and voters to acknowledge same. I will not, however, stoop to ask pro to concede the debate as I call reference to Pro’s request to me in his R4, §5.
III Rebuttal: “Don't worry about what each person is entitled.”
III.a I appreciate Pro’s generosity to others, but it is summarily denied to me, even though I am one of the “each person” to whom Pro refers. Pro’s denial immediately follows this declaration in his R4, §7: “You don't know what each person wants and is ok with. Many people will decide what is right and wrong.”
Yes, many people will, including Con’s rightful claim to it, without Pro’s insistence that Con, specifically, has not that right because he claims Con’s slave status. Sorry, Pro, I am free and at liberty to deny your claim, and I have been doing so for three rounds, plus this last. Pro seems to like to quote movies. I do, too: “Deny, deny, deny.”
IV Rebuttal: “You're not exploring my position.”
IV.a I declare Pro’s “position” is his own to explore, by way of demonstration of BoP. I’ve my own BoP to declare. I suggest that Pro water his lawn, and I’ll water mine, as I have done by argument and conclusion [specific, concise, and summarized] in each of the previous 3 rounds, as will be this fourth round.
V Rebuttal:“I am your slaver master since birth let's say.”
V.a Let's not, because Pro has discounted “said so,” yet Pro implyies it is still the order of the day. As I have said, since R1 to Pro: let’s see a BoP. To date, and the time has now been spent, there has been no BoP forthcoming from Pro. Just “said so” as if “said so” is sufficient. Since Pro said in his R2, “I'm trying to avoid circular reasoning of the "said so " arguments and or fallacy.” Then let Pro’s word stand as witness against him. If he insists “said so” arguments are “fallacy,” then his BoP, as it stands, is “said so.” So be it. By citation of scholarship other than my own “said so,” I declare the higher ground, simply based on the suggestion in Debate Art Voting Policy: “In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
· Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
· Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
· Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.
V.b Since Pro’s entire four rounds have lacked sourcing, depending entirely on “said so” as his argument justification, the which Pro has personally discounted in his R2, I hereby declare Pro’s failure to sustain a valid and superior argument.
V.c Conversely, I declare Con has not only offered personally-based argument, but has used scholastic sources to bolster said arguments to the degree that an honest, unbiased judgment will conclude Con’s superior argument and sourcing.
VI Rebuttal: “People believe today that freewill isn't real.”
VI.a Since I number Con as “people,” I declare Pro’s commentary from his R4, §25 [I counted so you don’t have to do it], as overly simplistic and exaggerated. There are also “people” who believe that free will is real. I am one of them, so I can make the assertion a valid “said so.”
VII Defense of Con Arguments
VIi.a Con declares that Pro’s four rounds of “said so” rebuttals have not succeeded in dismantling Con’s arguments, at all, but has merely claimed the inferior status of “said so” arguments.
VII.b Con declares that Con arguments have been presented specifically, concisely, and in summary through four rounds, as per Pro’s clear request in R2
VII.b Since Pro first discounted “said so” arguments as “fallacy” in his R2, and then proceeded to use nothing but “said so” argument to present his arguments, and has not succeeded in dismantling Con arguments in any case, I declare Pro’s case as having dismantled itself by his circular arguments: no “said so” by use of “said so.”
VIII Rebuttal: “…owning you is worthless until I put it into action.”
VIII.a Pro is out of time. Time as in: past, present, future. Pro’s resolution is a past event, occurring 4 days ago, but is a declaration of present tense: “Absolutely nothing wrong with my owning you as a slave.” Operative verb “owning” as in a present tense. However, Pro’s R4 argument concludes that the resolution is a future event, being “worthless until I put it into action,” which alludes to a condition not yet present. Pro’s timing confusion dismantles his own resolution.
IX.a I therefore declare my arguments as superior to Pro’s, and that they have met Pro’s request that they be “specific, concise, and summarized,” and that they meet the debate protocol expected by Debate Art. My arguments also successfully dismantle the resolution as false. I ask for your vote, and thank you for your consideration.