Absolutely nothing wrong with my owning you as a slave.

I.a Ref. U.S. Constitution, amendment 13: “Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”[1]

I.b Pro’s resolution states, “Absolutely nothing wrong with my owning you as a slave.” However, Pro offers no definitions. I will take the initiative to do so because the resolution contains operative words that must have clarity to proceed. As Pro has abdicated that duty, I will take it up. I hereby declare that since Pro has waived the duty of definition of Pro’s terms in either the Definition of the debate, or in R1, Pro cannot now rebut these definitions offered below. He has had two opportunities to do so, and should have, as instigator. These definitions are all from the OED, unabridged, and will be, as a result, difficult to refute or redefine, given the OED’s status as the ultimate dictionary of the English lexicon. This resolution is an absolute, given the first word; 

I.b.1 Absolutely: “To the fullest extent; in the highest degree; entirely, wholly, utterly.”

The statement that follows “Absolutely” is not to be construed as containing exceptions or conditions by virtue of this definition. 

 

I.b.2 Nothing:  “No part, share, or quantity of a thing; no aspect, evidence, or quality of a thing or person.”

This word further carries an absolute from the first word, in context, as alleging to have no contrary matter preventing the balance of the statement from being true as stated, albeit Con’s BoP is to declare the resolution as wrong.

 

I.b.3 Wrong: “Action or conduct which is not just or lawful, and related uses.”

I.b.4  My:  “Of or belonging to me; of or relating to myself; which I have, hold, or possess.”

This word implies Pro as instigator of this debate. 

 

I.b.5 Owning: “The holding of something as one’s own possession.” 

I.b.6 You:“The objective case of the second person singular or second person plural pronoun.”

This word implies Con, as contender of this debate. 

 

I.b.7 Slave: “One who is the property of, and entirely subject to, another person.” 

 

I.c Therefore, dependent on these definitions, Pro’s resolution must accept the following posits:

I.c.1 With Con being the “you” of the resolution, Pro accepts that Con is a United States citizen, residing within the jurisdiction of the United States, regardless of Pro’s country of citizenship and/or residence. Therefore, the quotation in I.a, above, applies to Con, whether or not it also applies to Pro.

 

I.c.2 Pro further accepts that Con’s legal status presently [as of this debate] is a free U.S. citizen uncharged for any crime whatsoever, and is, therefore, not subject to the secondary exception clause of Amendment 13 of the U.S. Constitution, to wit,  I have not been “duly convicted”  of any crime, and, therefore, cannot be conscripted into or punished by servitude of any kind.

 

I.c.3 Therefore, given the conditions of I.c.1 and I.c.2, above, Pro’s resolution is false. Pro is prohibited by law, and it is, therefore, “wrong” to own Con in any manner of servitude such as slavery.

II.a Contrary to common references, such as “How Christian Slaveholders Use the Bible to Justify Slavery,”[2] and “Slavery in the New Testament,[3] while the Bible clearly acknowledges that slavery was an extant condition, that is not saying the same as that slavery was, therefore, condoned.

 

II.b The Bible acknowledges that slavery is a reality of the period of time described in the various texts, just as the United States must acknowledge, and does, that slavery was an extant reality in the Colonies, and when the United States of America was established by Constitution in 1788, but that is merely saying that such conditions existed, but not that they were condoned. In fact, as noted above, I.a, Amendment 13, ratified as of December 6, 1865, amended the Constitution to prohibit slavery.

 

II.c “As an example, on the way to Canaan, God tells his people through Moses that the alien, or foreigner, among them should not be oppressed (Exodus 23:9). The reason given is fascinating: the people of Israel know in their hearts how it feels to be oppressed! —The word translated “alien” is not the same as slave, but the experience of the Israelites in Egypt was certainly that of slaves— Thus, we see the first statement on human rights: the alien was to be treated as a citizen; in fact, he was to be loved as one of their own (Leviticus 19:33-34). Even when Hebrew law and custom shared in the common heritage of the ancient world, there is a unique care in God’s Name for those people who by status were not considered people—something absent from the codes of Babylon and Assyria.”[4]  

 

II.d “The New Testament further gives us a paradigm to interpret Old Testament practices. In one of their notorious fault-finding missions, the Pharisees test Jesus on the subject of divorce (Matthew 19:1-9; Mark 10:2-9). He initially appears to play into their hands, asking what Mosaic Law has to say on the subject. When they gleefully quote the permission of Moses to divorce one’s wife, Jesus lays down a method of interpretation that has to be taken very seriously. He makes it clear that certain Old Testament commandments were to be understood as concessions to the hardness of the human heart rather than as expressions of God’s holy character. He goes on to reference how this was not the state of affairs in the beginning—that is, before the fall.”[5]  

 

II.e Therefore, any biblical reference that may be forthcoming from Pro in later rounds, having not yet levied any argument of biblical justification heretofore, is declared invalid by this pre-emptive argument. To wit,  the Holy Bible, in its various English-language translations, does not condone slavery, even while acknowledging its existence in the era of its composition [from 15th-century B.C.E. to 1st century C.E.], as demonstrated by the quotations and biblical references in II.c and II.d, above. It follows that any argument claiming biblical acceptance of slavery as a condition meeting the resolution’s unconditional language, i.e. an argument that there is biblical justification allowing Pro’s ownership of Con to impose slavery is, as of now, null and void, by definition of terms as offered in I.b.1 through I.b.7, above.

 

 

III.a Pro may, as a “spoiler,” declare that having accepted the debate, Con has entered an ad hoc agreement to be a slave to the conditions of this debate, to wit,that Con is bound and constrained to enter arguments, rebuttals, defenses, conclusions, sources, etc, as conditions of my acceptance of the debate. However, with the exception of possible forfeiture should Con not enter the same in all rounds after this first round, Con is free by choice to do so, or not. Con is not compelled, and Con is not in servitude. Even forfeiture, were that to occur, is by Con’s free choice, and not compelled by Pro.

 

II,a,1 Further, by definition, a “slave” is “...entirely subject to, another person.”  Since Con is not held to the singular activity of this debate, but has, even while actively engaged in it during each round, free time surrounding that limited self-imposed obligation to debate, which time is entirely out of the control and domination of Pro. Therefore, Con is not “entirely subject to” Pro.

 

III.b Therefore, such a “spoiler” fails to enslave Con, by definition of the term.

 

IV.a I declare, by affirmation of meeting the BoP in Pro’s Description, “…to explain why it [the resolution]  would be wrong on its surface as it stands”   with fully two definitive arguments, both of which demonstrate the error of the resolution. “Absolutely[the U.S. Constitution and the Holy Bible, at least, declare that it is]  wrong[for] [Pro] [to own Con] as a slave.” However, there are more Con arguments to be addressed in future rounds.

 

I pass to Pro for R2.

 

 

"I.b Pro’s resolution states, “Absolutely nothing wrong with my owning you as a slave.” However, Pro offers no definitions. I will take the initiative to do so because the resolution contains operative words that must have clarity to proceed. "

Why don't you take the initiative to ask what I mean? Such backward twisted logic. You go to the source that starts you off with information and attempt to get more out of it. The it which is I.

This is why this is put at the end of each description I make :

"For questions or comments, please, tell me you know what to do by now."

Something along those lines is conveyed every challenge like a holiday tradition each year. This is rather needless. It's logical to try and get information when you don't understand something or have a lack thereof.

From the description :

"As you being a slave a mine, I have control and ownership over you. It is my choice which allows what you will or will not do."

How does this not define the context of what a slave is in this debate?

Did you read the description?

"I hereby declare that since Pro has waived the duty of definition of Pro’s terms in either the Definition of the debate, or in R1, Pro cannot now rebut these definitions offered below. "

They're rebutted as the description beat you to it . Rightfully so as we can't have you conjure a strawman . If you did read the description, you either misunderstood it or are being disingenuous.

Now I need a concise , summarized argument so there is a complete focus of the main points or point.

Are you saying me being a slave owner, you being my slave is wrong because the bible says it's wrong ? Is it wrong because the law of the land says it's wrong?

I'm trying to avoid circular reasoning of the "said so " arguments and or fallacy.

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?

The debate is between you and I , not the law. Laws change and we want a universal, fundamental argument that you can argue logically proving what's wrong with you being a slave of mine.

It's directed at you. 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?

No more of the historical and literature segments and passage selections please. Just in a short paragraph, maybe make an analogy with the comparison of property rights or something to briefly demonstrate your case.

 

I.a Pro alleges that the description, and, by default, the resolution, rebut the definitions I offered in R1. A definition is a standard upon which people can agree in order to make communication effective. Without a standard, communication agreement can be on unstable ground. To wit:  Pro’s key words of the resolution, “Absolutely,” “nothing,” “wrong,” etc. all have multiple meanings. “Nothing,” for example, has the OED offering 14 separate definitions, one of which is: “[colloquial] “yes, certainly, definitely; without a doubt.”[1]  Pro alleges in his R2 that the definitions I offered in my R1 are “rebutted as the description beat you to it,”  which would render Pro’s resolution as saying: “Absolutely, yes, certainly, [it is] wrong with my owning you as  a slave.” I understand this is not Pro’s intended resolution, but, without providing the courtesy of expressed keyword definitions, the sense of a resolution may be misunderstood by some people. In order to clarify Pro’s lack of concise definitions, I offered them. 

 

I.b Pro argues that I offered a straw man argument, which, itself, is a curious charge since Pro then argues in R2 that “a concise, summarized argument” is needed to “focus on the main points.”  A straw man is a designed misdirected argument set up to defeat an opponent by a ruse, or to deflect, by a ruse, an opponent’s argument.[2]  Given Pro’s misdirection of claiming the description adequately defined itself [and yet had to offer potential clarification [?]], I will charge that Pro has given a straw man. Familiarity breeds contempt.

 

I.c I contend that my R1, I & II arguments, inclusive, which were even organized by numbered paragraphs, outlined two specific reasons why Pro’s resolution is false: by legal precedent, and by biblical precedent, and focused on the main point of Pro’s alleged slave master position. Con also offered a third [R1, III] argument pre-supposing a potential Pro rebuttal. They were, therefore, “concise, summarized argument[s],”concluded by my R1, IV smmary. Would that Pro’s R1 met his own standard imposed on Con, which was obviously composed to meet his standard only given flesh [but no architectural bones] in his R2. Aren’t potential voters glad that Con organizes his thoughts by numbered paragraphs such that they can be given brief, specific reference as needed? Concise enough?

 

 

II.a Con has already demonstrated in R1 that the imposition of slavery, specifically on the person of Con by Pro, has been shown to have obstruction by both the Constitution of the United States, and by biblical decree. Con will now show a third obstacle to Pro’s resolution: προαίρεσις;[prohairesis]  variously translated as "moral character", "will", "volition", "choice","intention", or "moral choice."[3]  

II.bThe Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy  translates prohairesisas volition,  or freedom of choice, and further declares that, according to 1stcentury C.E. Greek philosopher, Epictetus, “…it [volition] is the capacity for choice that makes us accountable for our own actions and states.”[4]  Further, it is argued, “The volition, Epictetus argues, is ‘by nature unimpeded,’ and it is for this reason that freedom is for him an inalienable characteristic of the human being. The very notion of a capacity to make one’s own decisions implies as a matter of logical necessity that those decisions are free of external compulsion; otherwise they would not be decisions.”

 

II.c If prohairesis  is a logical necessity for humans, it is more absolute than Pro’s resolution, which not only speaks against the notion of human volition, but applies a double-absolute condition that the resolution imposes “absolutely [no]” prohibition to imposing the antithesis of personal volition: slavery. At the core of Western, if not global philosophy is this notion of personal volition; freedom of personal choice. One might apply a ubiquitous idea, not limited to Western philosophy such as that of Epictetus, and certainly of more ancient thinking than the 1st-century C.E, known colloquially, at least in the U.S., as “The Golden Rule:”

 

II.d The so-called “Golden Rule” is, perhaps one of the foremost moral rules in existence, simply because of its ubiquitous appeal across all major cultures/religions. For example:[5]

 

II.d.1Buddhism: Hurt not others with that which pains yourself.

II.d.2 Christian: All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so unto them.

II.d.3 Confucianism: Do not unto others what you would not they should do unto you.

II.d.4 Hebraism: What is hurtful to yourself do so not to your fellow man.

II.d.5 Hinduism: Do naught to others which if done to thee, would cause thee pain.

II.d.6 Islam: No one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.

II.d.7 Jainism: We should regard all creatures as we regard our own self.

II.d.8 Sikhism: As thou deemest thyself so deem others.

II.d.9 Taoism: Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and regard your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.

II.d.10: Zoroastrianism: That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self.

II.d.11 There are more examples, but this list represents a wide swath of humanity in the world, thus expressing in one universal idea the shared experience of a moral objectivity that cannot be denied.

 

II.e The point of this Golden Rule diversion is this: At the core of prohairesis  is the idea that as one should not be prohibited from exercising personal freedom of choice, no one else should try to impose such prohibition. Thus is Pro’s resolution dismantled by this third argument. Therefore, we now have the law, religion [both as represented by the Holy Bible, and by the list of religious proposals listed above], and by secular philosophy as evidence that Pro’s resolution is false. 

 

III.a In the 19thcentury, the American Colonies were discussing the nature of a potential Constitution to organize a freely established nation embracing personal liberty as one of its core principles. Observe the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”[6]  Personal liberty, however, had an imposed limitation in that even prominent signers of the Declaration were slave owners, including Thomas Jefferson. The argument over slavery became heated as the Continental Congress was sorely divided over the issue of slavery. Their economies were utterly dependent on slavery as an economic reality that resisted change. Immediate change to abolish slavery would critically harm the Southern state economies, and this might even disrupt the economies of the Northern states. It was a very practical problem to a philosophical discussion, to the extent that 90 years later, the young nation split over the issue, with the slave states unanimously declaring their cessation from the Union [which was, itself, declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Texas v. White [1869],[7]  but was not strictly prohibited at the time of the secession at the outset of the Civil War.

III.b To impose slavery today in the United States, other than being unconstitutional, and unbiblical, would, again wreak havoc on the U.S. economy, and, in fact, any nation’s modern economy. “This article, using a novel dataset, demonstrates that slavery is empirically bad for business. Building upon the work of Robert Smith, our analysis examines the relationship between the prevalence of slavery in a country (in terms of the proportion of the population enslaved) and several economic measures (the United Nation’s Human Development Index, growth domestic product in terms of purchasing power parity, and …access to financial services.  …Slavery is objectively harmful [to]  total economic output and social development.”[8]

III.c Thus, a fourth argument exists, economic, to dismantle Pro’s resolution to render it false.

IV.a In R2, Con has demonstrated two additional concise arguments, one philosophical, and one economic, to add to the Con arguments of R1, legal and religious, dismantling Pro’s resolution that “Absolutely nothing wrong with my owning you as a slave.”  

IV.b The resolution now has four demonstrated reasons for its being false, false, false, and false. In fact, we now have a circle of arguments. A full circle of references, if you will. There’s a clock: 00:00, 03:00, 06:00, 09:00, and we’re just half-way. Are there more? Two more rounds to go, so that is a qualified “yes.”  

I reserve my rebuttal to Pro regarding my “own  [argument of] what would be wrong”  with Pro’s resolution, to my R3, and how that may be concise and summarized. I pass R3 to Pro.

 

 

 

 

 

I.a This was direct and clear: Civilization exists because humans mostly collectively agree to certain ground rules upon which we conduct our society. These ground rules are called, collectively: law, as described in my R1, Arg. I, inclusive. One example of establishing law is a book of historic interaction of people: the Holy Bible, which describes that some law is derived from God; religious, or moral law, if you will [my R1, Arg II, inclusive]. My R1 also included a pre-emptive argument [R1, Arg. III] that by initiating the debate, and my acceptance of it as contender, did not imply that I acknowledge Pro as my master in all other respects of my life, thoughts, and actions. Beyond law and religion, my R2 explained that human philosophy argues that each person is entitled to personal freedom of thought and action without the hindrance of any other person [my R2, Arg II, inclusive]. My R2 also described the damage done to society, and each individual, by restricting economic freedom by virtue of slavery [My R2, Arg III, inclusive].

 

I.b Therefore, my R1 and R2 have established that Pro’s resolution,  “Absolutely nothing wrong with my owning you as a slave” is wrong on four major counts: legal, religious, philosophic, and economic, plus a minor disclaimer that by virtue of acceptance of this debate, I do not surrender my freedom to Pro.

II.a Pro has now spent 3 rounds, in addition to a resolution, declaring: “Absolutely nothing wrong with my owning you as a slave.”  I have, to date through 2 rounds, offered four specific, concise, summarized [Pro’s requirements] reasons [legal, religious, philosophical, and economic] why Pro is wrong to declare my ownership as a slave, and I have offered sourcing to support all four arguments, as suggested necessary by Dart policy. However, Pro has, through 3 rounds, offered zero evidence with zero sourcing to demonstrate his BoP that his resolution is correct. No, instead, he has argued that my five arguments, to date, are simply invalid because they are not my arguments, but the “said so” of others. I contend voters can distinguish between my personal arguments, and the supporting sources of my arguments, because I both italicize the quotes and I cite them; thereby drawing a clear distinction. I freely chose these arguments, outlined the structure [which Pro claims is non-existent, while apparently declaring his arguments as architectured?] and presented them in orderly number for easy reference. Pro, by contrast, lacks any of the precision structure he demands of Con. As it is my natural inclination to structure arguments, Pro has no claim on my method, as if I were a slave to his method. My debate style is mine. Pro will not impose his style on me, particularly by ignoring it in his own method. So be it.

 

II.b Pro says in R3, “With all the technical language and no concise structure, it's hard to pinpoint a conclusion.”  I point the reader to my rebuttal alone concerning my structure, and to my R2, IV Conclusion, and I will simply let you determine if I have pinpointed a conclusion. I would ask, in rebuttal, where, in three rounds, Pro has offered a single argument to support his resolution, rather than merely combating my arguments, claiming they are “said-so,”[so what?] and apparently, too “technical,” and, “hard to pinpoint a conclusion.”   I challenge Pro by saying, “Offer burdens of proof that the previous arguments are invalid, and convince voters of a positive BoP that your resolution is correct.

 

 

III.a One of Pro’s very first arguments is: “I have control and ownership over you. It is my choice which allows what you will or will not do.”  This was stated in the description. It is, as Pro said in his R2, a “said so” argument, isn’t it? It intends to be subtle. Yeah, like a thirty-pound sledge hammer. In R2, Pro expanded: “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?” As Pro said it, I will proceed to demonstrate a de facto dismantling of what Pro has declared; that Pro is a master slave owner.

 

 III.b My argument, on my own: When I was a little boy, I began to draw things surrounding me. Later, I realized I did not need to see a thing to draw it. I could imagine, and draw from imagination on paper in pencil, crayon, then chalk, then paint, then ink. I chose to draw things that pleased me. Later, I heard of a drawing method Leonardo DaVinci called, Sapere Vedera, or, knowing how to see. It taught me to observe and draw rotting grapes, misformed objects from human anatomy to human products, and even natural objects out of sorts with their natures, and to recognize beauty, even in things that others may find ugly and revolting. I once drew my vomit, just to see if I could make it look appealing to the eye, even while my nose protested. Sapere vedera.   It’s an enlightening philosophy of seeing the world and rendering it graphically. Eventually, I found that others appreciated my artwork sufficient to trade their money for my work. It has been a profession for at least fifty years. I sold my first oil painting when I was 16 for $700. By the time I was 21, my personal wealth was in excess of five figures, all on my personal initiative. My life since, by artistic and written expression, both advanced to professional status, and from that personal growth of wealth, afforded my ability to invest my increase in the market and real property, advanced to the point that I am now independently of means sufficient that I do not have to work any longer, and my needs of life are met, yet I continue to work because I enjoy what I do. If this is slavery, my personal economic freedom is surely a curious example of it, since my net worth is likely the superior of my opponent.

 

III.c My pointed summary in this proof against Pro’s claim is that Pro had naught to do with the “control and ownership” of these personal memories and accomplishments. They are personal [it’s my story], concise [300 words], structured [levels of skills and materials outlined, growing to the point of achieving professional status and economic independence], and summarized [only 75 words], as well as to demonstrate the point that I am not Pro’s slave just on his “said so.”

 

 III.d I further claim that this testimony is of my own will and purpose to say so, and that it is entirely by my choice and will, and from no other, though hell, itself, gape open the maw of its unholy ignorance against me. I will not be silenced. I will not be enslaved.

 

 

IV.a To review, my R1 gave us three arguments against Pro’s resolution that “Absolutely nothing wrong with my owning you as a slave.”  They are, in succession, the law, religion, and the narrow window of this debate. 

 

IV.b My R2 gave us two more arguments that declare Pro’s resolution is wrong: philosophy, and economy. R3 has given us still more: personal experience. Pro’s resolution of “Absolutely nothing” has conveniently skipped six very practical, ordinary challenges when a single “merely something” would suffice to challenge the resolution. They do. Overwhelmingly, absolutely, absolutely, absolutely, absolutely, absolutely, and absolutely.

 

IV.c Pro’s resolution is wrong six times over. In response, Pro waves a magic hand to dismiss these arguments, but a miss is as good as a mile. Close only counts in horseshoes, and, even then, it’s questionable. At least in horseshoes, each combatant throws horseshoes. I’ve thrown six of them. Pro has attempted to throw dirt on them to hide them, but throwing dirt on a combatant’s arguments has not covered them, and does not remove them. You are able to read them, and that’s the ultimate point; you have my arguments, my BoP, by simple reading and analysis. I challenge the reader to have that facility to see and read Pro’s BoP beyond his claims and hurling dirt on my arguments. 

 

IV.d My three rounds rebut Pro’s entire stand as a would-be slave owner of my will, having offered evidence from my own heart and soul and from no other source, just to demonstrate that try as Pro might, throw the weight of Pro’s convictions as shatter-shards against the rock of my personal free will, Pro fails. Not to mention that I’ve also demonstrated that Pro’s “reality” of being a slave owner is a figment of his imagination, alone. As Richard Bach once said: “Argue for your limitations; they’re yours.”[1]

 

IV.e Pro challenged in his R3 that “[Pro is] also not trying to plug in anything into what you're attempting to convey. As shown last round, I directed questions towards which I didn't see an answer for.”  My response to this challenge has been the subject of my R3, and will be subject of my R4.

 

 

I pass the final round to Pro. To quote Edward R. Murrow’s [famous CBS anchor of the 1950s, on whom I grew up learning of the world through TV journalism, when it actually had something to say] illustrative sign-off, “Good night, and good luck.”[2]

 

 

 

 

 

"Civilization exists because humans mostly collectively agree to certain ground rules upon which we conduct our society. These ground rules are called, collectively: law,"

Yes it's wrong because the law says just like at one point the law said it was not.

The debate title is that there's nothing wrong with my owning **you**, the one taking the debate , as a slave.

You have to show why you say or think it's wrong. Now if you say it is due to the law, you have to show why the law says it's wrong or the ones who put forth the law. Which I guess is the people, which includes you so it's circular.

Go ahead and concede you don't know why it's wrong outside of what the law says.

"explained that human philosophy argues that each person is entitled to personal freedom of thought and action without the hindrance of any other person "

Is this your philosophy? Don't worry about what each person is entitled. You don't know what each person wants and is ok with. Many people will decide what is right and wrong for them. You have yet to explain by your own thinking of you being a slave to me being bad.

I haven't even broken down the terms of enslavement to me and what it means. You're not exploring my position. You quoting laws and the scriptures.

" also described the damage done to society, and each individual, by restricting economic freedom by virtue of slavery"

What is the damage to you? The topic isn't on me owning society as a batch of slaves.

You have not verified what wrong or damage can come from me deciding for you what you will or will not do. You are not exploring this .

"I do not surrender my freedom to Pro."

You don't even know what this means .

Clearly you see having freedom is right and having none is wrong. It's not wrong for the imprisoned criminal and it isn't for a minor in a sense.

The point is getting context.

"Pro is a master slave owner."

What does this mean?

See looking through all the verbosity you've put, I don't really see anything going in further to my position.

Now because I don't care to repeat the main point over and over, there's only one explanation that has to be said only one time that could justify the topic statement true.

Now I read over about your life story, whatever , the art, interests , career aspiration and what not. You had freedom to do all those things and up until to date and that's how you felt.

So therefore nothing was wrong there. I am your slaver master since birth let's say. I allowed from birth what you did and didn't do since. I was just a covert , hidden , central intelligence level type of slave owner unknown , kind of like the robot intelligence in the "Matrix" films.

That's all the meaning of me being your slave master is . Whether you know it or not.

That's why I stated precisely, what is wrong with me deciding ***what you will or not do?*****

So the question is not about you actually having freedom but what is the actual things you're doing. If you're free to do wrong things, it's wrong,nevermind the freedom. If you're enslaved to do right things, it's right, nevermind the freedom.

If you've ever seen the movie "Robocop", particularly the 2014 version, they mentioned about the illusion of freewill.

People believe today that freewill isn't real.

In any event, regardless to the controversy, the ability to choice is not the basis for what's wrong, it's actually choosing the wrong thing that makes the basis.

This is why I focused so much on why something is wrong. It's about what makes it wrong. See thinking deeply into what is being said like a riddle is key. Not just looking at the conventional, status quo with laws and freedoms, amendments, constitutions and religion, what is wrong? Why is it wrong?

When I said " what you will or not do", the thing to look at is the "do" part, not the "freedom" part. Simply owning you is worthless until I put it into action.

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.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).”[1]  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.”[2]  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.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.”[3]

 

 

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.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

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.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.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.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.