The Instigator
PoeJoe
Con (against)
Losing
20 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Pro (for)
Winning
39 Points

A Debate With Logical-Master

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,238 times Debate No: 4729
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (32)
Votes (15)

 

PoeJoe

Con

My last three finished debates have been with forfeiters. Needless to say, I've become bored.

Thus, I've decided to challenge a skill far greater than my own. Logical-Master, choose ANY topic that we disagree on and make an opening statement supporting your position. This will be a three round debate that I'm sure I will have to fight hard to win. However, through this process, Logical-Master will have both the first and last say. Because of this, I will ask Logical-Master to write something random for his last round.

Logical-Master, do you accept the terms of this debate?
Logical-Master

Pro

On second thought, a quick apology to you, Noel, but I've once again changed my mind in the debates which I suggested I was in the mood to debate. I think it is because I don't feel like being the one to make the first round on the aforementioned debates at the moment. That said, the offer to have any of those debates with you is still up.

As for you, PoeJoe, I decided that I would pull up a debate out of my archive of debates; I'll pull up a debate which my opponent forfeited all of his rounds on. I pull it up specifically because this topics interests me just as much as the topics I had listed previously (but not as abstract).

==============================================================================

I strongly NEGATE "Restaurant bill's including automatic gratuity (tip)"

First, the entire idea of tipping is basically an appeal to pity. Many consumer come into the restaurant thinking "Oh, he/she is only getting paid $2.13 per hour, so I think I'll show how good of a person I am by going out of my way to provide him/her with extra money." Unfortunately, the consumer fails to realize that consumers are the very reason tipping has become so mandated within our society. The REASON the employers even pay their employees that much is because they know a majority of the customers are going to fall for that guilt trap (or fall for some other superficial aspect) and pay 115-120% of their meal's price on average. However, if we (as the consumers) were to protest against this guilt trap, restaurants would have no choice but to start paying their employees minimum wage or more.

Furthermore, studies have shown that most customers don't even determine their tips based on the quality of the actual service.

New York Times: "Rather, customers are likely to tip more in response to servers touching them lightly and crouching next to the table to make conversation than to how often their water glass is refilled - in other words, customers tip more when they like the server, not when the service is good. (Mr. Lynn's studies also indicate that male customers increase their tips for female servers while female customers increase their tips for male servers.)" (1)

For the most part, these "workers" aren't really even earning most of their income. By the way, if you further read my cited article, you'll notice that 26 BILLION dollars goes into tipping every YEAR in the United States alone. That's a lot of money for shooting the breeze with customers, flirting, and being well groomed, don't you think? =D

Finally, it is the restaurant employees who CHOOSE to work at restaurants; they come in knowing the gamble they are taking. We (as the consumers) should not be OBLIGATED to fall into the restaurant employer's traps created to swindle the consumers out of their money under the guise of "pity."

If a customer wishes to tip, that is fine. However, based on the information that I've presented, if a customer is FORCED to tip, it is unjust on the restaurants part.

Source:

1) http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 1
PoeJoe

Con

Who said I disagreed with your stance? I do, but you shouldn't assume so quickly.

---COUNTERARGUMENTS---

My opponent's argument is deeply flawed.

He starts off assuming that people tip because of "guilt trips". And continues on by assuming that restaurant owners intentionally pay waiters low because of this tipping complex. However, Logical-Master does not provide the much-needed evidence to state such a controversial claim. In other words, my opponent bears the burden of proof. You, the audience, must not take this argument into consideration. Again, Logical-Master must prove these claims to be true. He has not.

My opponent then goes on to cite a man by the name of William Michael Lynn. However, he has a conflict of interest. Lynn sells rather-pricey online books that tell waiters how to maximize the amount of tips they get.[1] Of course he would state that the actual service is not important! He is in the business of selling such a philosophy. The argument that tips are not based on service must be ignored because the argument is derived from a biased man.

Logical-Master then goes on to state that "26 BILLION dollars goes into tipping every YEAR in the United States alone". Well, what's wrong with that? There are 300 million people that live in the United States. That means on average, each person gives about 87 dollars in tips. And if we take a liberal estimate of a 15% tip, that means that $575 would be spent on dine-in food, and $45 every month. This pretty much checks out. What is the problem?

Ultimately, all this false information and logic finally culminates in my opponent's final argument. He states that servers know the gamble they are taking when they take the job. However, in these cases, the gamble these servers take, come with the assumption that they will receive tips for their work. Who are we to take money away from these people? And furthermore, in many cases, the servers are in rough periods in their lives. Much of the time, these servers are college students and people down in their luck. They need our help.

---ARGUMENTS---

A mandatory gratuity is necessary because...

1) Often times, African Americans tip too little. Subsequently, waiters have a tendency not to serve blacks as well.[2] Having a mandatory standard in a restaurant would ensure that less racism would occur in customer-server relationships.

2) As mentioned before, servers are often people starting out, or down in their lives. These people are aspiring actors, college students, people who have run into bad luck, aspiring writers, and other such people. These people need help to go on to lead more successful and contributing lives. A mandatory gratuity would help this ideal.

3) An automatic gratuity would alleviate the stress and confusion that comes with tipping. According to Lynn's own study, 63% of blacks and 30% of whites did not understand the standard tip in the United States.[2]

4) In following with the above mentioned statistic, waiters would not be cheated out of their tip.

5) Tipping encourages good. To give someone something of yours of value enhances the human spirit.[3] Not to mention, it will give you a good feeling inside.[4][5]

---REFERENCES---
[1] http://people.cornell.edu...
[2] http://www.npr.org...
[3] http://www.realage.com...
[4] http://brainwaves.corante.com...
[5] http://www.zimmerman-lehman.com...
Logical-Master

Pro

RE "Lack of EVIDENCE is evidence of absence"

First, please note that CON's only problem with my argument concerning motivation is that I have not provided the evidence needed in order to show that this claim is supported. In other words, by CON's logic, if I show evidence, my claim will be fully accepted in this round.

As for evidence, this should be sufficient; see below (1).

RE: "That author from Nytimes ain't credible 'cause I've poisoned his well."

Yes, my opponent resorts to the "poisoning the well" fallacy in attempt to dismiss my highly credible source concerning tipping. If anything though, this argument falls flat on it's face as my opponent has helped me in proving that my source is indeed highly credible through citing someone who he admits as being an authority who is well informed on tipping.

But to directly attack his objection, let us look at an example. A fireman tells you to stop drop and roll when you're on fire (essentially where there's no large water source nearby). Now because the fireman is in the business of stopping unpleasant fires, my opponent would have you believe that his input on this matter is to be ignored without any hesitation. So basically, my opponent is advocating that you distrust any source/individual(s) who dedicates his/her/their time to the subject at hand when it concerns a debate. Which is completely absurd, because by that line of reason, one can dismiss just about ANY source. Got a scientist in favor of the existence of global warming who has written many peer reviewed articles on global warming in the past? Sorry, can't use this scientist because his/her prior studies on the subject make him/her unreliable, according to CON anyway.

RE: "There's something fishy about that 26 billion dollar claim"

First, let me give the direct source for the 26 billion dollar claim (2) (listed at the bottom)

CON attempts to discredit my claim on 26 billion dollars going into tipping every year through pointing out that $575 would be spent on "dine-in' food" for everyone on average every year, and that it would boil down to 45$ being spent on dine-in food per month, however, it is quite clear that CON is making a nonsensical argument. This is simply because attempting to weigh tipping down to every single citizen hardly represents the actual truth which is that restaurant visits by costumers hinge more along the lines of social class of individuals. If we take into consideration that upper class individuals (especially businessmen/businesswomen who use restaurants as a means of business, whether it be through attempts at promotion, settling matters with clients, or making propositions with other companies) fill up a majority of that 26 billion, it makes plenty of sense, given that the other social classes would merely be supporting a fraction of the overall total. In any case, CON is free to do more than offer baseless conjecture in responding to my citation as I have offered him the very source which confirms my claim.

RE: "Who are we to take money from these people"

The answer to this question is quite simple. We are the customers of course. We don't go to the restaurants to serve the servers. We go to these restaurants to be served. So the question makes far more sense in reverse; who are THEY to take money from us? And given how I've shown that often times, it's not really their actual work which is earned the tip, but rather irrelevant factors, this is all the more reason to show that we don't "owe" them anything.

Re: "Many times, the servers are college students or people down in their luck"

Hmm, I'm afraid that CON has once again provided me with evidence. If you'll recall above, he demanded that I prove that people tip often due to guilt trips, yet just what is he advocating here in attempt to support his own case? That we should tip out of guilt for the situations the servers are in. Thus, he has negated his OWN argument. Furthermore, as pointed out in the opening round, this is no more than the appeal to pity fallacy, thus, this is not a logical reason to make tipping mandatory. Next, put this argument and its conclusion together, and you can easily conclude that his argument is non sequitur as it in no way negates the fact that these servers know the gamble they are taking

---REBUTAL TO CON's OFFENSE---

1) In no way does this discourage racism. If anything, it ENCOURAGES it (or at very least, leaves it out in the open). Basically, what the servers are saying is that "we won't properly serve African American's until we get the kind of tip we want." So what CON is suggesting is that we give in to the demands of these servers (since apparently, he'd like you to believe that they are RIGHT to have such a racist demand in the first place). Rather than leave racism wide out in the open as CON would like to do, I submit that it be discouraged through these racist servers getting fired. If they are punished rather than rewarded (through mandatory tipping) for their reprehensible behavior, I think it is safe to say that CON's goal (in suppressing racism) is astronomically more likely to occur.

Now before I go on, I'd like to point out that both African Americans and Hispanics often times aren't as financially secure as Caucasians are in our country. So is it really wrong for people who aren't financially secure to have to decline dishing out more money than they wish to spare? Of course not.

2) As mentioned before, this hurts CON's own objection to my argument. I preemptively provided a response to this argument and am waiting on CON to provide an answer.

3) If stress and confusion is a problem, then I have a better idea. Either tipping is outlawed, therefore making restaurants having to go back to the age old standard of providing their servers with minimum wage or restaurants put a big sign on either their menus or walls that dictate "all there is to be known about tipping." This would take care of the confusion or the stress that comes from not knowing how to tip quite easily. Far better than people having to pull money out of their own pockets to pay for something they may just feel is not worth paying for.

4) The term "cheated" would assume that customers "owe" the waiters a tip in the first place. If anything, it is the "employers" who owe the servers their tip (which I've already explained a means as to how they would no longer be "cheated").

5) False. Tipping has the POTENTIAL to encourage good. Likewise, it also has the potential to encourage bad. As my opponent himself has mentioned, it can easily encourage racism. And as for the people who don't wish to tip (which, often times, is because they don't FEEL the server deserves a tip), they certainly won't be feeling any good coming out of their. If anything, they are gonna being feeling anger. And not typical anger, I mean Bruce Banner anger!

Furthermore, CON has yet again unintentionally exposed a problem in his own argument. Giving someone something of their own enhances the human spirit WHEN IT IS OF THEIR OWN CHOICE. However, whey they are FORCED TO GIVE SOMETHING UP (as in, not out of their own choice), well then that "enhancement of the human spirit" simply ceases to exist. After all, you don't feel anything special about paying for a hamburger at McDonalds, do you? You don't feel anything special about having to pay outrageous gas prices to fill up your gas tank, do you?

(1) http://www.nytimes.com...
(2) http://www.sciencedirect.com... (for those interested enough, I regretfully inform you that you'll have to pay a fee to read the article in its entirety).
Debate Round No. 2
PoeJoe

Con

PoeJoe forfeited this round.
Logical-Master

Pro

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT: Extend my entire case to R3. Also note that as dictated for the terms of this debate, this would be my final round (for the sake of fairness). I am not allowed to debate during round four, so I will just go over why you should vote PRO (me).

1) Several of my opponent's points actually serve as evidence for my own (specifically the fact the tipping generally concerns an appeal to pity. Also note that CON suggested there was no evidence for this, yet provided me with evidence during his round.

2) Mandatory tipping can serve as a reward for racist servers, as my opponent himself brought up. Although if you listen to my plan, racist servers will actually be punished instead.

3) On another point which CON contributed, making tipping mandatory would defeat whatever "good feelings that come from giving." SInce "tipping" would be mandatory, it would be the equivalent to paying for a burger at McDonalds or getting your gas tank filled. You would be tipping (or in better terms, PAYING) out of obligation rather than choice.

4) The servers who rely on tips KNOW the gambles they are taking and CHOOSE to work in restaurants (note that if CON argues anything besides what he argued in the previous round for this point [or any point], you are to dismiss it immediately since it's abusive to provide arguments which I will not be allowed to [again, last round]).

These are the best reasons (I believe) for a PRO vote, although you're free to vote off of any of the other reasons in the round.

With that said, I thank CON for the debate and the audience for reading. Later
Debate Round No. 3
PoeJoe

Con

Oh dammit. My first forfeit; I've become them!

Anyway, I concede this debate. I have clearly been defeated.
Logical-Master

Pro

Many, many years ago when I was 23,
I was married to a wider who was purty as can be.
This wider had a grown-up daughter who had hair of red
My father fell in love with her and soon they two were wed.

This made my dad my son-in-law and changed my very life
For my daughter was my mother cause she was my father's wife
To complicate the matter even though it brought me joy,
I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy.

I'm my own grandpa,
I'm my own grandpa
It sounds funny I know
But it really is so
I'm my own grandpa.

My little baby then became a brother-in-law to dad,
And so became my uncle though it made me very sad.
For, if he was my uncle, then that also made him brother
Of the wider's grown-up daughter who, of course, was my step-mother.

My father's wife then had a son who kept them on the run,
And he became my grandchild for he was my daughter's son.
My wife is now my mother's mother and it makes me blue
Because, although she is my wife, she's my grandmother too.

I'm my own grandpa,
I'm my own grandpa
It sounds funny I know
But it really is so
I'm my own grandpa.

Oh, if my wife is my grandmother, then I'm her grandchild.
And every time I think of it, it nearly drives me wild
For now I have become the strangest case you ever saw
As husband of my own grandmother, I'm my own grandpa.

I'm my own grandpa,
I'm my own grandpa
It sounds funny I know
But it really is so
I'm my own grandpa.
Debate Round No. 4
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
This is wholly ironic. What happens when two people hated by Josh have a debate? A tie!

I deserve to lose, of course, but I find this hilarious nonetheless.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
And HAVE FUN ON THE CRUISE, ya lucky bastid.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
It's cool. Some other time then. If I remember, I'll 'cya' next week :)
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
RE Lwerd: I'm going on vacation this Saturday and it will be hard enough attempting to debate my tournament round while on a cruise, therefore, I will not be able to debate in any other debate until one week from this saturday.

Moggems: See above.
Posted by Mogget 8 years ago
Mogget
That or something mildly philosophical.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Interesting debate. Logical, would you mind debating this topic again? I'm in agreement with you here, but this could be a fun topic to argue from the affirmative. Mind if I challenge you at some point with the resolution: Restaurant bills should automatically include gratuity (tip)?
Posted by numa 8 years ago
numa
my rfd, in short, is that pro brings up good points regarding racism and the bad that tipping can bring, like stress. also, pro explained that compensation should not be given for undeserved service. con did not explain why that compensation was necessary or warranted, either on part of the business or the servers themselves. i also vote based off the resolution, and i only bought into 2 of con's offensive arguments. the rest of them were points for pro, and pro even did a good job trying to make con's valid points look bad (even though they were right). that plus the missed round did NOT help con's case. and i vote pro. sorry for the confusion.
Posted by numa 8 years ago
numa
no i actually did mean pro... i explained that in my last comment but it didn't post because my internet messed up. i got confused because pro posted second or whatever. i think logical master won this debate.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Numa: Your RFD makes me curious, numa. Please elucidate.

Moggy: Hmm, I'm drawing a blank on ideas. How about an anime debate? :D

Xera: heh! As for me, I just heard the song in the film called "The Stupids." I was under the impression that the song was crafted there, but what you've suggested is something I wasn't aware of.

PoeJoe: Good debate, but I don't think you should have given up. In my experience, there is ALWAYS a way out.
Posted by numa 8 years ago
numa
hehe i meant con. 25 characters.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
PoeJoeLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
PoeJoeLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by crazypenguin 8 years ago
crazypenguin
PoeJoeLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
PoeJoeLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
PoeJoeLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by FaustMarx 8 years ago
FaustMarx
PoeJoeLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
PoeJoeLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by LaSalle 8 years ago
LaSalle
PoeJoeLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by numa 8 years ago
numa
PoeJoeLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Biowza 8 years ago
Biowza
PoeJoeLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03