If there was no labor shortage, there would be no market for slaves

Start of the Slave Trade This is pretty shoddy history; he cites the black plague and then just cites the revival of the slave trade as its "result." Did technological advancements play a role? How about political ones? Regardless, it's hardly relevant because the slave trade is thousands of years old and occurred with many rulers and probably for a variety of reasons and with a variety of justifications. Nor does this claim come close to proving that if there were no labor shortage then there would have been no import of slaves to Europe following the black plague. Moreover, what about more local slave trading, within, e.g., Africa or the Middle East where the trading of slaves was probably cheaper for the fact that the slaves wouldn't have to travel overseas? To agree with Pro we're bound to the ridiculous generalization that the ENTIRE demand for slaves, across all cultures and time periods, is due to there being a labor shortage and never for such typical human motivates as the urge to conquer, subjugate, etc. Economics of the Slave Trade: More shoddy generalizations here - Pro says "the labor shortage generates a demand for slave labor." Maybe this is true, but ULTIMATELY the question of demands lies in the minds of individuals who then go along to express that demand and make it heard. Charts do not create demand, individuals do. Say there was a labor shortage in the US today: Would there be a corresponding increase in the demand for slave labor? I think that would be highly unlikely; certainly, while some employers may day-dream or wish they could hold slaves the demand would never come to fruition or really even likely be expressed due to social considerations. The fact remains that to express the want (i.e. the demand) to hold slaves today is considered an abomination in the modern, civilized world. A lack of labor, in and of itself, does not create a demand for slaves. So we consider this statement: "When Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin it increased the demand for slavery" and we must be careful. Surely, the cotton gin made cotton picking production easier and workers more productive, but again, it did not in and of itself create a demand for slavery. We must again consider the social attitudes of the time and the fact that slavery was considered a) a sign of status and b) completely acceptable in the antebellum south. This was all more or less tied to racial attitudes or some interpretation of religious texts - again, the cotton gin in and of itself did not increase demand, it only worked given a large, large background of beliefs among the individuals involved. My opponent cites that slaves were expensive, but I ask: To who? Certainly to the common southern, sure, but we have to remember that some of these landowners were massively rich and $5,000 or even $20,000 is a raindrop in a pond for some of today's rich folks as it would have been for those in the antebellum south. Again, unfortunately, the empirical studies are only so helpful because it doesn't consider the price of slaves in ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, etc. and the fact that many of them could have been quite cheap after, e.g., a large conquest with many PoWs. Even with the evidence he provides slaves were, in a relative manner, still fairly cheap for the rich slave owners of the South who could afford hundreds of slaves. Conclusion: "If not for the labor shortage caused by the Black Death, the slave trade would not have existed" is ultimately just stated. The fact that Pro can provide an economic explanation of the causes does not mean that in the absence of those causes that the slave trade would not have arisen. To disagree is simply a logical fallacy. It's basically saying: A (economic conditions of Black plague/labor shortage) -> B (slavery) therefore not A -> not B. This is clearly fallacious.