Resolved: A truely capitalistic system would be detrimental to slavery, even if it were permitted t

That response was quicker than I expected. Let's get down to some interesting rebuttals. VIOLATION of RULES! For my third point I will refute some common points made saying that slavery does not increase profits. Last round my opponent offered refutation in his Opening arguments. This is rebuttals as seen in the rules. First Round is Terms and definitions by Pro, Acceptance by Con. Second Round is Constructive Arguments, NO REBUTTALS Third Round is Rebuttals. Fourth Round is Rebuttals and conclusion. Already we can see that my opponent offered rebuttal and it didn't have to be my own argument. He refuted "commonly" argued points, which is still a violation. To further this he even offered a contention on mercantilism. Which outside of refuting my own argument there is no reason that he should have offered that argument? As a result of that all 7 points shall be forfeited by him. I will still continue the debate despite the violation. Contention 1: Slavery throughout history My opponent first claims that slaves would actually do the more deadly jobs; however, this is a false Howard Zinn like statement that history has told. Slaveholders actually didn’t want their slaves to do dangerous jobs on the basis of their value. As shown in my last round, slaves are worth quite a bit of money and if one dies draining a swamp or doing something else, then you just wasted $100s of $1,000s of dollars. Instead slaveholders would use indentured servants or also the most hated free race at the time which was the Irish. (It was the Chinese on the west coast). [1] My opponent then goes on to say that the greatest empires of all time had slaves to do the most dangerous jobs, but once again this is false. Outside of the value of slaves we would actually have to look at many historical examples. The first being the Egyptians. They DID have slaves, except the slaves did not build the pyramids, the Egyptians did. [2] Next are many empires without them. We would have to look to the world’s largest ever empire, the Mongolian Empire. Though they didn’t have slaves, they maintained massive production from their civilization by a different sort of motivation known as “mowing.” Then there was the Austro-Hungry Empire, Russian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Japanese Empire (pre-Korean invasion), etc… The list goes on and on. We can see that no matter what the empires without slaves can still get things done. While the nations with slaves do, but they fret over the loss of their own slaves to the point of not actually having slaves do the most dangerous jobs. My opponent claims that Capitalism would increase slavery, but that is where he’s wrong. For this we would simply have to look England. In England, when they still had slavery there was a massive taxation on Corn (wheat) and soon after their abolition of the Corn Laws years later you saw a major anti-slavery movement in Britton which sprung off the ending of tariffs on Corn. My opponent then goes and makes the case on tobacco and cigarette companies not caring, but this can be easily seen in the alcohol and weed industries. Post World War 1, there was a Constitutional Amendment passed to outlaw it. It was eventually repealed because of the demand for it, though people knew for the longest time that it’s bad for you. The same can be said about weed. There have been many studies done that show that it is bad for you yet people still do it, and want it legalized. (Though that’s a debate for another time) Next, my opponent brings up the Communistic argument of wage slavery. We would have to remember that if this were the case, in order for these other companies to compete there must be a wage of some sort. Even if it were a dollar or so it would still be highly low. Many people during this time argued that it was wage slavery and even Karl Marx recognized this harm. This would have done nothing, but make the issue worse. [4] Not to mention that if this happens millions of jobs would be lost and soon millions would have to sell themselves into slavery in order to live. This wouldn’t occur in a first world society. (Second world society either, but they don’t count since this debate is about capitalism) Contention 2 and 3: Capitalism and Profits. I will be grouping these two arguments together here due to their similarities. My opponent gives one, one, example of a wronging of “morals,” however if we just go and look at simple probability we can theoretically see the same is applicable to the other side. Meaning that in also accordance to the Theory of truly large numbers [5] that we see a large number of companies living “morally.” First, let’s dive into the Foxconn issue, shall we? Many of the allegations revolve around long working conditions, child labor, and even trouble on site. We have to look at simple laws of Microeconomics and see that all humans are rational creatures in their option choices and that they would ALWAYS choice the best option available. So with these bad conditions and terrible jobs we would have to see that the alternative is worse. So even making low wages at long hours is good money for them. We see low wages, but you have to remember that their prices and economic system is way different than that of our own and thus we have to conclude that Apple’s purchasing products from Foxconn is actually a good thing as it helps the average Taiwanese citizen. Not to mention that “morality” is subjective. This is true by simply seeing that despite us out lawing something doesn’t make it wrong everywhere else. This was seen when Obama went to Kenya to talk about Gay Marriage. [6] I’m going to have to mix-up my opponent’s numbers and ABCs in order to get certain things across and addressed as we go here. Firstly, my opponent brings up the example of McDonald’s; they have been the nation’s leader in pushing for a $15 per hour wage. They have been cutting jobs and many reports that many of these jobs would be replaced by machines. Which would also replace a lot of slave labor as well and intern slavery would be driven out of business due to the increase in technology since slave masters rejected their slaves having any sort of knowledge. [7] A huge issue my opponent is overlooking is a key issue that I brought up in my last round. That is Overproduction. Slavery has been known to lead to this. You saw it occur in coastal Virginia with tobacco in the colonial days and then it turned into a near dust bowl in the South after the Civil War from over production and soil depletion. The cost of the slave outweighed the profits and soon in order to stay in business you would have to sell slaves, but if people don’t have the money to buy it then you start to go under and can’t really do much. Businesses on the free market can easily lay off a worker and get back on track quickly. Or they could retool to something else. This is a key thing that free market capitalism is better at than a slave market. In a slave market there is no reason to innovate. I mean why should you get an upgrade for an animal*? The only innovation needed was that of the man who sought the cure to draftamania that was the “disease” of the brain that causes a slave to run away. His methods were brutal and near torture like. [8] There would be no innovation nor motivation, because the slave has no reason to produce more as they have no incentive. Thus it is greatly negated. Since I'm running out of characters I can only define the difference between Capitalism and Mercantilism.Mercantilism- the economic theory that trade generates wealth and is stimulated by the accumulation of profitable balances, which a government should encourage by means of protectionism.also is a system in which a country attempts to amass wealth through trade with other countries, exporting more than it imports and increasing stores of gold and precious metals. It is often considered an outdated system. [9]Capitalism was defined at the beginning of the debate. The key difference is protectionionism.