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

Now let's begin Contention 4: Mercantilism Now first I would like to state the fact that my opponent has completely dropped my 4th contention that talks about how capitalism is very similar to an economic system that was one of the most oppressive systems in all of history. That system is also responsible for the enslavement of millions, therefore it only makes sense that true capitalism would yield a similar result. Pro completely concedes this and voters should vote on this, because concession is essentially agreement in terms of debate. Therefore, Con should win this debate. Contention 1: Slavery throughout history My opponent claims that slaves were not used for dangerous jobs throughout history. For some parts this is true, but let's look at how it would play out today. Well according to a charity that has closely studied and watch modern slavery about 78% of slaves do manual, dangerous labor. The rest are mostly sex slaves. The average cost of a slave today is much much cheaper than it was in the past, the price is about 90 USD. This makes slaves cheap, disposable and absolutely allows them to profitably work at dangerous and labor intensive jobs. (. http://www.freetheslaves.net...) Considering these facts if slavery was allowed under a truly capitalistic system you can be 100% sure it would thrive. Now let's move on. "The first being the Egyptians. They DID have slaves, except the slaves did not build the pyramids" This is true, but I don't really see how this is relevant. "Next are many empires without them. We would have to look to the world"s largest ever empire, the Mongolian Empire. " The Mongolian Empire became so huge for a very unique reason. They had a very unique and very effective method of warfare which allowed them to become as successful as they were. "Then there was the Austro-Hungry Empire, Russian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Japanese Empire" I don't see your point, because both the Japanese empire and the Ottoman empire had slaves. The empires who didn't have slaves usually didn't for a unique reason and the fact still stands that most of the most sucessful empires were rooted in slavery. "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" This just furthers my initial point that companies will sacrifice morals for profit. "Next, my opponent brings up the Communistic argument of wage slavery. " My argument was not communistic in the slightest. My only argument regarding waged slavery was it replaced slavery when it was outlawed, and will replace it if it is made legal and acceptable again. Pro does not refute this, but instead goes very off topic. " these other companies to compete there must be a wage of some sort" You don't need to compete for employees if they are slaves. My opponent then goes on to talk about how waged slavery is a good thing, because they offer a better situation to the people there. Fair enough, but that doesn't change the fact that these companies are intentionally taking advantage of these people and putting them in conditions that literally strip many of them of the will to live. These corporations are raking billions off the backs of the starving and the desperate. Does it offer them some pay? Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that the practice is immoral in countless ways. Contention 2 and 3: Capitalism and Profits. The first argument my opponent makes is that there is no set "morals" and it is subjective. This actually isn't true. Humans are born with set knowledge of what is right and what is wrong, what is good what is evil. Throughout all cultures and all races babies are born with set knowledge of what is fair and what is not. Ever hear "But I had that seat first! "? It's set knowledge of how the world works and if things are fair. My arguments that some companies are immoral are based on those basic human principles that people will naturally have. Waged slavery and Foxconn violate those basic human principles. As a human being, we know that how the companies abuse and take advantage of them is naturally morally wrong. " They have been cutting jobs and many reports that many of these jobs would be replaced by machines. " The reason I brought up McDonalds was an example of how you can make billions off of low quality profits. "slavery would be driven out of business due to the increase in technology" Well assuming that slaves lose their job to technology, what happens then? Well that's easy, they go to the factories and make those machines. What if that gets replaced? Then go mine the resources to make said machines. My point is no matter how much technology we have there will always be a need for manual labor. "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. " As I have stated before, the issues that arouse from overproduction are easily avoidable. With modern knowledge of economics and agriculture practices can easily be altered to avoid these issues. " 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" With modern knowledge of economics this can easily avoided by crop rotation and diversification. I would like to stress the point that this debate is not about the past, but about a hypothetical present. If I can prove that this would happen today despite it not happening in the past, then I should win the debate. "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. " I am aware that Capitalism and Mercantilism has some differences. My argument is that they are similar in nature and will result in similar outcomes if not regulated. I would also like to stress that my opponent has completely dropped this argument and in terms of debate concession is essentially agreement. Conclusion: My opponent argues that slavery is unprofitable and would not be done today if it was allowed. But let me ask you this. If slavery is unprofitable why would there be 21-36 million slaves in the world today? Many of Pro's arguments are refuted by the simple facts. He claims that slaves would not do the manual labor because they are too expensive, but that just simply isn't true. Estimates say that slaves cost about 90$ and 78% of slaves are used for intense, dangerous, manual labor. This is all done in a world where slavery is seen as illegal and unacceptable, just imagine a world where it's legal. Slavery is profitable. You spent 90$ for a lifetime worker. That is equivalent to paying the federal minimum wage for 12.42 hours. A slave is free labor for years. If you look at minimum wage workers vs. slavery the later is clearly more profitable. Framework As I clarified in the beginning of the debate if I can prove that in a truly capitalist world where slavery is allowed, there would be more slaves then where it is not allowed I should win the debate. I have down that and my opponent has failed to prove that I have not, therefore you should vote Con. . http://www.freetheslaves.net... . http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu... Thomas Nelson, "Slavery in Medieval Japan," Monumenta Nipponica 2004 59(4): 463-492