Instigator / Pro
0
1432
rating
361
debates
42.11%
won
Topic
#5225

We are all enslaved, let alone the prison penal system being slavery.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
None
Contender / Con
0
1774
rating
96
debates
77.6%
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
Pro
#1
Thanks to the opposing side. Before the opposing side starts with the definitions and this wasn't defined and that wasn't defined, I suggest this alternate approach to them.

Just ask what something means specifically that I've said  that is a struggle to comprehend and quote it. 

This is what it comes down to which is just understanding what someone is saying. Questions and answers. Questions and answers. Questions and answers.

The topic of the penal prison system being slavery apparently wasn't controversial so the topic was modified a bit.

Now we can have a back and forth. In the world of commerce, there is a master. That is the dollar bill or currency and currency exchange.

To have slavery, it requires a master and slaves.

****When you're enslaved, you're in bondage, you're obligated to something.****

In the world of commerce, we're all enslaved through just as those in a penal prison system.

We're in monetary prison system. There's this illusion called "financial freedom". You're not free from finances still being bound in a monetary prison system.

Someone will say "financial freedom" is the position of possessing a large amount of assets and funds to be able to choose among many material things to acquire.

These people that are loaded, capitalists, having great wherewithal for living in the monetary prison are just like kingpins in a penal prison system.

In a penal prison system you have big businesses and racquets on the inside. Those big on commissary, big money on the books, collecting services from other inmate prisoners and collecting rent.

Now am I arguing that a person having a job, working for a wage is akin to a person having a prison cell, working in a prison?

Not exactly. There are similarities. 

But the bottomline is because of the monetary system, a debt system, a financial obligatory system, in order to do anything, to live , you are bonded to do a service to support your needs and or bonded to provide monetary supplication.

Name anything you're going to do, getting ready to do, it is not without monetary involvement because you're in a monetary prison.

Name anything you're going to do, will have to do, it is not without penal prison control involvement if you an inmate prisoner in a penal prison.

There are rules, there are laws, there are price tags, there are costs to pay. 

Only those that have managed to be released or broken out of the penal prison for the sake of freedom are likewise to those that have managed to go off the grid in route to the wilderness perhaps.

Those that have haven't necessarily escaped the cost to prepare to take route to the wilderness and one has to be careful of unbeknownst private property.

Do you think you're free because of no physical shackles, chains and cage ?

Just start thinking about from when you wake up , what you're doing through the day until you go back to sleep.

Man has invented this monetary system to be some form of compensation in isolated areas of addressing a need. 

Now it has gone out of control where man is not in dominion of the world but this currency chain is .


Con
#2
Slavery has a very specific meaning. Slavery means that one human being is OWNED by another human being [britannica]. Let us now analyse the resolution.

We are all
  • Since he did not narrow it down any further, this means the resolution is refering to ALL HUMANS TODAY

Enslaved,

  • To be enslaved means to have a master that OWNS you.

 let alone the prison penal system being slavery.
  • I think he is refering to the FORCED LABOUR in American prisons, and he must demonstrate that this is actually SLAVERY



Argument 1: Not all are slaves even in PRO's framework
Even taking PRO's argument at face value, it doesn't check out. For example, Elon Musk is certainly not enslaved. He does not have do any work to survive, he is 100% free to do anything. He could go live in a ranch somewhere without ever lifting a finger. It would be more accurate to call him a master than a slave. I have formulated a logical syllogisms that defeats PRO's entire argument.

P1. There cannot be slaves without masters
P2. Masters are not slaves
C: So it is impossible for everyone to be enslaved

Argument 2: PRO's framework doesn't apply to everyone
PRO is arguing that ALL HUMANS are enslaved just because we have to use the monetary system to convert our labour into supplies necesary for survival, like food and shelter. But that is not at all true. Before the monetary system we used bartering, and before that we lived in tribes were we all shared our resources. Societies that work like this still exist. And of course there are those that live outside of society and social structure alltogether as PRO himself admitted.

P1. If anyone has broken free of slavery, or were never under slavery to begin with, they are not enslaved
P2. Some people have never been a part of, or managed to break free of, the systems that PRO calls slavery
C: Even under PRO's framwork, it is not true that we are ALL enslaved

Argument 3: PRO's framework doesn't make sense
As stated before slavery has a very specific meaning. To be a slave it means you have to be owned by someone else. Even the forced labour in prisons is not slavery, because there is nobody that owns you. We can compare it to indentured servitude. You are paying your debt to society for your crimes. And according to the public broadcasting service, Indentured servitude is not slavery [pbs]. If you won the lotto you could pay off your debt and be free, but if you were a slave that would be impossible since all your belongings would automatically go to the master -- you are his property and have no rights unless he grants them to you. So even if prisoners were indentured servants to the warden, it would not constitute slavery, because he would not own them or control what rights they have. 

But beyond that, capitalism, even super exploitative capitalism, is not directly analogous to slavery, and it certainly is not ACTUALLY slavery. And this is coming from me, a critic of capitalism.

Do you think you're free because of no physical shackles, chains and cage ?
  • Yes, that is literally what freedom means.
There is no "master and slave" relationship between you and the monetary system. The central bank does not own you, and neither does your boss or even society at large. You can leave your job, go anywhere, live in the wilderness or get a new job. Start your own business or move to your parrents house. Nobody is going to use violent force to extract labour from you. At most the police will come and kick you out of your appartment since you did not pay rent. If you live in Norway like me the government is even going to pay the cost for my survival for months or years if I get fired from my job, or even if I choose to quit. Not a lot of money, but enough to keep my human dignity and health. So who does PRO think owns me? 


I am free, but I CHOOSE to interact with the monetary system because it benefits me. It is not a slave-master relationship.


Conclusion:
To say that we are all enslaved makes no sense and that makes the resolution false.
Round 2
Pro
#3
"We are all
  • Since he did not narrow it down any further, this means the resolution is refering to ALL HUMANS TODAY"
This individual just has poor reading comprehension skills or something. Maybe it's a deliberate tactic. 

First off you partially quote so that is telling right there.

That's ok I will play the game.

Let me play the reiteration game going back to round 1.

"In the world of commerce, we're all enslaved through just as those in a penal prison system.

We're in monetary prison system. "

Now maybe because the We are in We are enslaved was abbreviated, the opposing side easily missed it.

This is why you have to be sharp and meticulous, paying attention to the details of what you're reading.

So I mentioned a context and that's in the world of commerce. So that's all people in commerce and commercial waves. Not all people period because I'm simply not arguing that in a financial sense.

Perhaps in another sense like being a slave to vices, convictions and values but it's not the topic.

"To be enslaved means to have a master that OWNS you."

The opposing side hasn't asked what I mean by anything so far but I playing a poor working tape recorder.

Yes the enslaved in this commerce world has a master that is the dollar bill or currency to use an international label.

"I think he is refering to the FORCED LABOUR in American prisons, and he must demonstrate that this is actually SLAVERY"

Why is the opposing side afraid to ask what I mean by something?

"I think"

Don't guess your way through this. Know what your opponent is arguing exactly or else you stand charged of exploiting misrepresentation.

"For example, Elon Musk is certainly not enslaved. He does not have do any work to survive, he is 100% free to do anything. He could go live in a ranch somewhere without ever lifting a finger. It would be more accurate to call him a master than a slave. I have formulated a logical syllogisms that defeats PRO's entire argument."

This is a great example of not really paying attention to words being used.

"Elon Musk is certainly not enslaved. He does not have do any work to survive"

If you believe this person doesn't have to do any work, lifting a fork up of food to their mouth, getting out of bed, getting dressed to do an interview with news coverage and media so you can see to know about the success of this person, updates, the latest trending news and this person ultimately going back to bed, if you don't believe all that is work to contribute to this person's business, empire to live off, you have yet to reach the surface wall of that box. Let alone think outside of it.

Of course it requires work to live and survive. What's the matter with you? What are you thinking about?

"he is 100% free to do anything"

Slaves are free to do anything. Anything that they're allowed to do. Do you think this person is so free that can't break a law to go to prison over it?

This term "free" or "freedom" is over utilized.

"He could go live in a ranch somewhere without ever lifting a finger."

If this individual lifted their whole body to move to a place called a ranch, move about on a ranch, ride a horse on a ranch, drive one of their multiple vehicles on and off a ranch, etc., I'm sure it would include"lifting of a finger". 

Unless you can be more specific, you're always at work to live. We're working mobile living creatures and we're under a system that carries dominion and stipulation over living.

You can have a minute financial wherewithal or a grand amount of funds. Either way you have the same master. 
Like I say there are kingpins in penal prisons. You have inmates with a large amount of privileges and freedoms versus inmates that are perhaps on 23 hour lockdown or in the hole.

On the outside there is a parallel.

"It would be more accurate to call him a master than a slave."

The dollar bill is still even a wealthy person's master. They're obligated to have it and pay it in order to live. 

A person that actually lives without this obligation or master is a master to themselves.

It's this in the box thinking that have fooled many thinking the more money you have the more free, therefore you have no obligation (enslavement) at all.

Let us pay attention to that closely. The key terms there: the more free.

What do you mean the more free?

You either free or you're not. Saying "more" is indicating a spectrum. A spectrum of what?

You're imprisonment. See a prisoner can have a short leash or chain or a huge slack in their chain. They can be confined to a small space or allowed to roam all over the PRISON yard. 

Small house or big house inside a monetary prison. 

"I have formulated a logical syllogisms that defeats PRO's entire argument."

You have formulated a strawman to defeat. It's easier for you to do that .


The opposing side is just showing how in a box their thinking or their stance is.

"There cannot be slaves without masters
P2. Masters are not slaves
C: So it is impossible for everyone to be enslaved"

In a world of commerce, it's called the monetary prison. Even in racier language, the system of monetary supremacy.

I'm still waiting on the opposing side to name one thing a person can do without being subject to currency. They can't name one, they do indeed concede.

A prisoner is subject to a prison.

"PRO is arguing that ALL HUMANS are enslaved just because we have to use the monetary system to convert our labour into supplies necesary for survival, like food and shelter. But that is not at all true. Before the monetary system we used bartering, and before that we lived in tribes were we all shared our resources. Societies that work like this still exist. And of course there are those that live outside of society and social structure alltogether as PRO himself admitted."

You have my position partially right. To correct you it is we're all enslaved or subject in a world of commerce to currency. In order to do anything, you're are obligated to currency. That is the very nature of enslavement because you're not free to do otherwise without it. See it's just that basic. We don't have to complicate it with labor and jobs. 


That's another topic altogether. The opposing side indirectly just proved my point. As there was a time before this currency system existed we were able to live on this planet. So the currency system is not required essentially to live. It was a so called solution or alternative that eventually spun out of control, made slaves out of people by reducing their freedom on what they can do , where they could go being subject to currency wherewithal.

It wasn't a system needed to live but it did become something that changed the mode of living into an imprisoned one and that's the context I'm talking about.

I'm talking about in the world of commerce. For the opposing side to bring up what was before that is irrelevant. Stick to the subject.

"P1. If anyone has broken free of slavery, or were never under slavery to begin with, they are not enslaved
P2. Some people have never been a part of, or managed to break free of, the systems that PRO calls slavery
C: Even under PRO's framwork, it is not true that we are ALL enslaved"

If you still are not aware of this context of this topic, please ask. I try to help others communicate, ask questions, get an understanding. I'd appreciate the same aid.

"As stated before slavery has a very specific meaning. To be a slave it means you have to be owned by someone else. "

I'm sorry but that's not all that it means in terms of this topic. I understand you weren't prepared for an unconventional topic but I guess it wouldn't be possible in preparation.

"Even the forced labour in prisons is not slavery, because there is nobody that owns you. We can compare it to indentured servitude. You are paying your debt to society for your crimes. And according to the public broadcasting service, Indentured servitude is not slavery [pbs]. "

Still missing the point. The point is freedom reduction or taken away. This went right over the opposing side's head.

"If you won the lotto you could pay off your debt and be free"

How can I be free when I'm obligated to pay another bill?

I would be free if I would never have to be pay another bill. Things would be free. That's why it's called free because there's no obligation.

Debt is currency, currency is debt. There will always be debt while obligation of currency.

"but if you were a slave that would be impossible since all your belongings would automatically go to the master -- you are his property and have no rights unless he grants them to you. "

You see the opposing side just by the omission here "unless he grants them to you", acknowledges that slaves can be granted rights still having them as slaves. So being a slave doesn't necessarily mean you don't have rights , your own possessions and a lot of money.

On top of that, a person can still be enslaved in the mind with a lot of money. Furthermore the master doesn't even have to be a person.

"So even if prisoners were indentured servants to the warden, it would not constitute slavery, because he would not own them or control what rights they have. "

Being imprisoned is enslavement. Whoever taught you imprisonment is freedom was wrong.

"But beyond that, capitalism, even super exploitative capitalism, is not directly analogous to slavery, and it certainly is not ACTUALLY slavery. And this is coming from me, a critic of capitalism."

You're still looking at having a lot of money means you're free from paying it. No the rich person in prison is still imprisoned to finances as much as the poor . All the difference  would be the amount of slack in the chain and shackles .

"Yes, that is literally what freedom means."

This is why people are lost . I believe there is a term called being woke. When you're in the sunken place, you're in illusion of liberty.

Do you not know that PRISONERS in a penal prison move about in the prison without chains and shackles?

They go up to the warden or prison guard and say "hey I have total freedom because I'm not wearing any shackles , chains and handcuffs". 

The master will look at the person and say "sure" while winking at the other massa' or master. Smiling at each other thinking we have this prisoner right where we want. We done took a hold of their body and now we got the mind.

By the logic of the opposing side, slaves working on a plantation were free because they didn't have on chains and shackles.

This topic has successfully confused the opposing side.

"There is no "master and slave" relationship between you and the monetary system."

A couple of questions for you. Is a slave subject to their master?

Any person in the industrial world that has to work for a living for wages, that has bills , debt, receives charges for services and utilities, is that person subject to paying for what something costs in order to acquire it?

"The central bank does not own you, and neither does your boss or even society at large. You can leave your job, go anywhere, live in the wilderness or get a new job."

I never argued that one can't escaped to the wilderness to actually be FREE of the monetary prison. I made that clear back in round one. Go back and review.
That be the only exception . Aside from that to break free, you will be subject to the system of the monetary system.

I don't care if you leave a job, have one, it doesn't matter what you do. In the world of commerce.......in the world of commerce.....you will find yourself subject to currency.

"Start your own business or move to your parrents house. Nobody is going to use violent force to extract labour from you. At most the police will come and kick you out of your appartment since you did not pay rent. If you live in Norway like me the government is even going to pay the cost for my survival for months or years if I get fired from my job, or even if I choose to quit. Not a lot of money, but enough to keep my human dignity and health. So who does PRO think owns me? "

Out of all this what the opposing side has said, you won't find any scenario without it being tied to currency directly or indirectly.

The opposing side has not come up with anything in the world of commerce that anybody can do to live without being subject to currency. 
The opposing side may not like this but it is what it is. Thinking you're free all this time to realize you've been in a monetary prison since birth.

"I am free, but I CHOOSE to interact with the monetary system because it benefits me. It is not a slave-master relationship."

You are free to choose. I'll give you that . You can choose to be enslaved or hustle for that underground railroad to the wilderness so to speak. Which may not even be the most practical.


"Conclusion:
To say that we are all enslaved makes no sense and that makes the resolution false."

Firstly the problem with the opposing side as many others, they can't be open minded, enlightened, broaden their horizons by thinking so conventionally.
That box has to be able to be opened and extended to the scope beyond it .

Otherwise the rationale these individuals think they understand will only be confusing to what they can or will learn beyond it.

On top of all that, the opposing side has to read and comprehend what someone is saying in their position exactly. Not read, reinterpret and add what they think, reading things into a position. Just take what's there alone, all of it though, not parts.

Key takeaway:
The boxed in thinking has to be able to be opened and extend the scope beyond it .

Otherwise the rationale these individuals think they understand will only be confusing to what they can or will learn beyond it.

Con
#4
The phrase "in the world of commerce" is not found in the title or description of the debate. He also did not define slavery to be this completely different concept. PRO is trying to massively move the goalpost from the very first round which is unacceptable and horrible conduct. I won't even waste time adressing all of his assertions which range from arguable to ridiculous.  His entire case relies on  a gross misunderstanding on what slavery is, so all I need to do is include an excerpt from Britannica on what it means to be enslaved:
There is general agreement among historians, anthropologists, economists, sociologists, and others who study slavery that most of the following characteristics should be present in order to term a person a slave. The slave was a species of property; thus, he belonged to someone else. In some societies slaves were considered movable property, in others immovable property, like real estate. They were objects of the law, not its subjects. Thus, like an ox or an ax, the slave was not ordinarily held responsible for what he did. He was not personally liable for torts or contracts. The slave usually had few rights and always fewer than his owner, but there were not many societies in which he had absolutely none. As there are limits in most societies on the extent to which animals may be abused, so there were limits in most societies on how much a slave could be abused. The slave was removed from lines of natal descent. Legally, and often socially, he had no kin. No relatives could stand up for his rights or get vengeance for him. As an “outsider,” “marginal individual,” or “socially dead person” in the society where he was enslaved, his rights to participate in political decision making and other social activities were fewer than those enjoyed by his owner. The product of a slave’s labour could be claimed by someone else, who also frequently had the right to control his physical reproduction.
Whatever problems with the monetary system PRO believes in, none of them fullfill the criteria of making everyone slaves, and PRO has not even been using the correct vocabulary. The vague idea of "freedom" is not what defines slavery, but rather a range of specific conditions that are imposed on select members of society. Anyone who passed kindergarden should understand this. PRO arguing that everyone is enslave is obvious bullshit that's disrespectfull to anyone who has actually been enslaved. 
Round 3
Pro
#5
"The phrase "in the world of commerce" is not found in the title or description of the debate. "

This doesn't make sense. Are you here to argue my position or aren't you ?

That is my position. 
You're just refusing to argue my position because it can't be refuted.

What the opposing side stated is an excuse. The opposing side knows as well I do that words have meaning. A title is just that, a title. I don't define everything , let alone anything in the title, that's what the debate rounds are for and I don't have to start my arguments in the description. Again that's what the debate rounds are for.

What a ridiculous excuse made by the opposing side.

"He also did not define slavery to be this completely different concept. "

I did. You just ignore what I put in text. If it ain't the way you want it formatted, you dismiss it .

"PRO is trying to massively move the goalpost from the very first round which is unacceptable and horrible conduct. I won't even waste time adressing all of his assertions which range from arguable to ridiculous. His entire case relies on a gross misunderstanding on what slavery is, so all I need to do is include an excerpt from Britannica on what it means to be enslaved:"


This is just the opposing side crying about not being able to refute my position. The opposing side ASSUMED like individuals in debates do that everything I say means exactly what they think in their minds. When you give them something they didn't prepare for to refute, they cry "goalpost moving".

But straight from the beginning I explained what I meant and I never changed the meaning or bounced around the meaning of things from what the opposing side means by words versus by what I mean.

The individual I'm debating is just another example of those that can't argue on their feet and have to have rehearsed points that they know can be argued.

Why do you think some topics appear the way they do ?

You see a topic that appears indefensible and appears easy to refute. When you see a topic like that, you should be more on guard than any other common controversy with familiar talking points.

That is a time where you most have to go impromptu. Now the opposing side could of asked for clarity. Could of asked for more information to be sure.
The individual did none of that. The individual entered in at the individual's own risk fueled on assumption and got burned up with the fuel.


"so all I need to do is include an excerpt from Britannica on what it means to be enslaved:"

So the opposing side moves the goalpost trying to argue something I'm not arguing about.

How are you going to debate someone on something that is not even that someone's position?

You can't hijack the topic to where you want it to go.

Nothing more than just ducking me because my stance is irrefutable.

I don't have to adhere to this excerpt. It's not my position and thereby can be and will be disregarded.

"Whatever problems with the monetary system PRO believes in, none of them fullfill the criteria of making everyone slaves, and PRO has not even been using the correct vocabulary. The vague idea of "freedom" is not what defines slavery, but rather a range of specific conditions that are imposed on select members of society. Anyone who passed kindergarden should understand this. PRO arguing that everyone is enslave is obvious bullshit that's disrespectfull to anyone who has actually been enslaved. "

Notice all those points I made last round. The opposing side came back with not one counterpoint to any of them. They can't be countered. Instead I get this gripe about " no fair, you mean enslavement in a different way". 

Don't even mention kindergarten because what I've said could be understood at a kindergarten level so what's your excuse?

Nevermind, you already gave several poor ones 

The question still remains, are all being involved in, operating under the currency obligated to pay currency in order to live under it?

That is enslavement. See again, people like the opposing side, thinking in a box. Slavery is not just people owning people. Anything that owns you including people has enslaved you where you can't do anything else but yield or be subject to whatever demands or allowances there are.

Simply the loss in freedom. I dare the opposing side to tell me that slaves have freedom. See I think the word "freedom" alone is vague to the opposing side because again, mind in a box, being challenged to go outside it, what's outside confuses you the opposing side.

In a box, we all may have no freedom but "only some" are actually slaves. But they have no freedom just like we don't.  

So the boxed in thinking looks at freedom in boxes or segments. The non brainwashed truthful reality of being bond or free is demonstrated with those who are slaves. The slaves are bonded or made free(not enslaved). There's no in-between categories of freedom.

No freedom (bondage or enslavement), freedom (bond free).

People in a box that see slavery as not just meaning a lack of freedom is a way to avoid being classified as a slave in some regard. The idea of being a slave is so repugnant I imagine so it's shunned away. Feels much better to think that as long as you have a lot of money, there's a silver lining . That's the escape out of the reality. The reality is, it's makes no difference. But people in a box can't see that, can't understand that, apparently don't want to face that.
It is what it is. Makes no difference. 

For those that never thought about slavery like this, they may reject what is being said here. But if they're open-minded, opening the box, there's a chance for understanding and they say "oh well looking at it that way, it's true".

But if you not even open minded, how can you begin to understand?
You're not open, you're in a closed box , you reject what is being said and calls it wrong.


People in a box that look at slavery and say it doesn't just mean no freedom have to pacify themselves with that delusional reality because if they don't , it will force them to reconsider everything around them (opening up that box) realizing "I'm actually a slave. I'm a different type of slave. I'm not necessarily a physical plantation slave. I don't have physical chains and shackles on. I don't have massa' standing over my shoulder with a whip. I mean I can fold him up , put him into my wallet. The moment I rebell(not paying for anything;unable to pay), I get a whipping of poverty life. I get a slash of possibly living on the street begging for scraps. These are scraps from the massa' table (folks that come along giving me pocket change). So I can get something to eat because I'm still in a system, prison system inescapable. "

This is the broader picture on a grand scale I want others to realize.

People that can't accept slavery just meaning no freedom in short summary is because otherwise they'd be forced with a harsher reality. So it's easier, more comforting to console yourself with "No , slavery isn't just no freedom. It can't be that VAGUE(quote unquote). It can't be just that straightforward. That would mean I be a slave in some fashion and that's too grim. I can't accept that. I won't accept that . Here, here's a definition I agree with , more comfortable with from a book called a dictionary that derived this meaning from others who have the same comfort like me whom reported to more than one lexicographer with."

It's just a cycle and a cycle is a boxed in process . Goes no further than from one side to the other and back around again.

So the opposing side may have gotten heated because that side for sure got burned.

But you debate based on what a person is saying. Not what you expect, what you would like, what you think, what should be or from a consensus. Remember a consensus such as a dictionary is a subjective consensus from people.
So I am of people with a subjective input where we can all agree if we get understanding. That's the main thing, understanding. Now I suppose if we all understand how one another's points are correct, there'd be no debate . But I guess that has a lot to do with why people argue in the first place. One never gets a handle on the other's point.

This individual appears to have yet understand that no freedom in this context is just enslavement. No gray areas, no in-betweens. So because of failing to be open to that, they call it vague.

It's quite clear in simple kindergarten terms, QUITE CLEAR, when someone says to a child ...."this = bad....that = good....slavery = no freedom". 

Period.



Con
#6
PRO has conceeded the debate. He admits he is not arguing that we are slaves in any accepted meaning of the word, but just in his imaginary version of slavery.

People that can't accept slavery just meaning no freedom in short summary is because otherwise they'd be forced with a harsher reality
  • PRO accuses the dictionary, which is an inanimate object, of being motivated by fear. 
  • PRO believes that reality itself becomes harsher if we change how we define slavery. 
  • As if people can't realize the problems with capitalism without calling it literal slavery

PRO has:
  • No sources
  • No definitions
  • Nonsensical framework
  • Moved the goalpost from round 1
  • Terrible arguments that are pure semantics, even though he doesn't even have a defininition to back up his semantics
  • Nonsensical rebuttals, such as considering "living in a ranch your entire life with servants" as being a slave because you have to pay the servants and physically move to eat 
  • Terrible formatting
  • Accuses me of being unfair and calling the use of definitions, reasonable frameworks and sources "excuses" and "whining"
  • Claims I only disagree with him because I am afraid of "a harsher reality"
  • Terrible overall conduct
This is my first time in a debate where I feel like my opponent lost in all for categories. Well maybe not legibility since his argument is still somewhat readable.