Uncle Tom's Cabin Argumentative Analysis

Let’s begin by recrystallizing my advocacy. I argue that slavery ought be abolished because, first of all, it is net harmful. What Mr. Slaveowner does is try and indict my evidence, but this fails because the reasoning behind it is very logical: nonslaveholding whites are trapped in a cycle of poverty because what could be their jobs ends up becoming slave labor. Next, he tries to claim that Uncle Tom’s Cabin is an exaggeration, but my point still holds true. What I’m saying is that due to their legal status of property slaves can be subject to severe abuse. Something like that need to comes to an end. Mr. Slaveowner tries to dismiss the point about all men being born equal, but it is actually a rather important point. Our laws tell us that ALL people, not

I am not talking about egalitarianism but equality of opportunity. In other words, one’s race should not put one at an arbitrary disadvantage as it does now. If you are born into a slave family you have a zero percent chance at social mobility—a zero percent chance at achieving the American Dream. Abraham Lincoln makes it extremely clear the only through labor can one move up the socioeconomic totem pole. He says, “The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land, for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This, say its advocates, is free labor--the just and generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way for all--gives hope to all, and energy, and progress, and improvement of condition to all.” I want to take the remaining time to discuss my opponent’s points of contention. He began his speech talking about utilitarianism, and it is a very practical moral theory. However, the U.S. government is not by its nature utilitarian. The guiding moral rules of it are delineated in the