No one is “middle of the road” on slavery. Either you’re completely and entirely against it, or you’re a piece of shit.

I disagree: anybody that is “in the middle of road” and is holding that “slaves benefited from slavery” is anything other than racist drivel — is lying to you. They are not “in the middle of the road”; instead they are racist assholes that hoping for, at best, an excuse and more likely are just enjoying wasting your time.

These debates aren’t about what’s said but about who “wins” and the person who “won” is dependent on what media outlet is covering it. If you’re so middle of the road that you don’t know who to pick, you’re going to watch a debate?

FYI I upvoted you.

I get your intended idea, but in this case, what is there to debate about slavery = bad?

Anyone “on the fence” about that is just a bit too far gone for common sense, let alone words/a debate to reach.

There is absolutely nothing to debate.

Who is still on the fence about whether slavery was beneficial to the slaves? Who would that debate be for?

if you aren’t sure that slavery was a bad thing, it’s pretty clear what side you’re on.

I’m a lefty that does appreciate debate in certain contexts, which seems to be somewhat unpopular nowadays. There would be no benefit in having a debate here except maybe in a very, very, very, very, very, very contextual, academic forum of a thought experiment (and I’m highly skeptical of even that, as you would have to presuppose some truly monstrous things).
Desantis is not going to be in that forum. He’s going to platform KKK rhetoric used as a justification for slavery for nearly a century after its abolition. His staffers are quite literally Nazis. The ethics of chattel slavery are very clear cut, similarly to how the ethics of sexual abuse are clear cut: for all but an infinitesimal section of people, the only people advocating for them are monstrous, disgusting bigots.

deleted by creator

After that should there be a debate about whether slaughtering babies and raping women might not be pure evil?

That would be a bit redundant since they should be covered as part of the ‘debate’ about whether slavery was beneficial.

That’s how slavery in America was first abolished, right? Well, nvm that it wasn’t really considering the prison industrial complex.

If your mind is in the middle of the road about slavery benefiting the slaves, you should volunteer to be a slave, just to clear that up for you.

Couple of years on a prison chain gang ought to do it.

We already had the debate over whether or not slavery was good. It happened between 1860 and 1865 and the “wasn’t good” side won.

The “middle of the road” position is that slavery was a centuries-long atrocity. Anyone who thinks otherwise he is too far gone to be worth trying to persuade of anything.

There’s nothing to debate.

And when one party is playing by no rules, there’s no discussion.

Is anyone really undecided about this topic, still?

If so there are far better ways to reach them than pretending both viewpoints are legitimate. You really have to get to the crux of the issue and people have to really grok what life is like if you’re not white, cis, het, etc.

Debate is a game for perverts

It’s depressing as shit. I’m with you on previously thinking that we were making progress.

I detest that this is still happening, and I loathe the people who are still doing it. It might be judgemental, but at least I judge people based on their actions against others instead of what they look like.

MSNBC is not a network of cryptobros is it?

You left out ‘mandated the teaching to children of the ‘good’ elements of slavery.’

Making a scarecrow with that ridiculous straw man? Cmon

Nope. The mere fact that they are intentionally arguing in bad faith is proof of that. Their entire reason for making the offer to “discuss” is to trap you in one of their “gotcha” moments, so they can use it to prove their claim. They will never acknowledge their mistakes and will simply talk in circles. Typical grifter/troll approach to politics.

That’s the dream.

In practice, very no.

I like the anlaogy that debating with a MAGoo is like playing chess with a pigeon. All they’ll do is shit all over the table and then strut around like they won.

The Gish Gallop is an actual technique the Right loves to use. Just pour out an endless stream of lies, half lies, utter fantasies, and nonsense in order to force the opposition to spend time refuting stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

Very unlikely. I think I see where you’re headed.

You might want to check out The Alt Right Playbook video series as it kind of scratches that itch.

Bad faith actors have many tricks up their sleeves. For example, they’ll gish gallop you-- overwhelming you with too many claims to counter. And before you finish discussing one claim they’ll throw a load more at you.

Also their concept of winning is very different from those of a good faith debater.

I think the real answer is to discuss in good faith, in person, with people you know and share mutual respect. Because when people know what the right wing is about and know what the dog whistles are, then they see right through the pathetic tactics of the right wing extremists.

Theoretically, that’s what structured debate and courtroom practice is for. But these days I sincerely doubt anyone, much less a politician, would agree to such a thing, nor would it be easily “television worthy”

In practice no. They’ll just keep bringing out more and more points that are increasingly ridiculous, then they’ll point at the time a Scientist got flustered and had no answer when asked about whatever grift it is this time. But the question is something like “If the Earth is round why haven’t we all fallen off yet?” And there’s no good answer to that.

This is why it’s so hard to tell the difference between the Americas and India. They are blurred by the speed

TD;DR:
Before jumping to conclusions realize that:
1-6: incest ain’t so bad.

Thanks for posting that. I think it sums up the double speak nicely.

Culturally Jewish? Someone who was brought up with Jewish values but does not believe themselves.

I understood what they meant.

You can be ethnically Jewish without being religiously Jewish.

Eh, the shitheads have been arguing that slavery was good for the enslaved since the time of slavery. E.g.

Bishop Stephen Elliott, of Georgia, wrote that critics of slavery should “consider whether, by their interference with this institution, they may not be checking and impeding a work which is manifestly Providential. For nearly a hundred years the English and American Churches have been striving to civilize and Christianize Western Africa, and with what result? Around Sierra Leone, and in the neighborhood of Cape Palmas, a few natives have been made Christians, and some nations have been partially civilized; but what a small number in comparison with the thousands, nay, I may say millions, who have learned the way to Heaven and who have been made to know their Savior through the means of African slavery! At this very moment there are from three to four millions of Africans, educating for earth and for Heaven in the so vilified Southern States—learning the very best lessons for a semi-barbarous people—lessons of self-control, of obedience, of perseverance, of adaptation of means to ends; learning, above all, where their weakness lies, and how they may acquire strength for the battle of life. These considerations satisfy me with their condition, and assure me that it is the best relation they can, for the present, be made to occupy.”

Adapted from The Great Stain: Witnessing American Slavery by Noel Rae. Copyright © 2018 by Noel Rae.

It’s a twisted argument now, just as it was then, but it’s hardly new.