slavery was better than it was worse for Africans (oromagi)
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
no challenging foundations ie kritiking if you are confused then you are silly and should ask for some clarifications
better means of " more excellent or effective type or quality."
the slave we are talking about is the situation which happened in the 16th century. "Beginning in the 16th century and for centuries after, Spanish, Portuguese, French, and Dutch traders systematically purchased large numbers of African people, many of whom had been captured by the traders' African allies in wars or in raids, and transported them to the American colonies for permanent enslavement." I am arguing that this transportation for permanent enslavement is caused better outcomes than if it did not happen.
we are comparing two models - one where the Africans stay indigenous and the one this eventuated from them being slaves. I have to say that the slave model was better, and oromagi has to argue that it was better if the entire event had not happened and they remained as they were.
EVERYTHING in this description is accepted upon acceptance by oromagi