The Instigator
wierdman
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Steve0Yea
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Age discrimination be made illegal in the workplace

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Steve0Yea
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,597 times Debate No: 17856
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

wierdman

Pro

Thank you for accepting the debate.

This argument states that age should indicate productivity and ability of an individual in a workplace.

Opponent will try to prove me wrong by proving that older people are less productive thus age discrimination is reasonable.

The debate will go in the following order:
Round one: Intro
Round two: main round/ Case
Round three: CX
Round four: conclusion.

Thank you ones again and good luck.
Steve0Yea

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this wonderful debate. I intend to prove that age discrimination in the work place should not be illegal.

Once again thank you again, and good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
wierdman

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting.
Please read the comment.

Age discrimination occurs when a decision is made based on an individuals age, these decision could include things such promotion, dismissal as well as hiring and in some cases treatment. This behavior can lead to many implication simply because those of a certain age or above are considered old. These people even though they are more experience are often seen as a too old to work or are unable to perform as well as a younger applicant. Age discrimination should be made illegal for the following reasons.

Contention one: Qualification and law

Age discrimination is unnecessary as the elderly can perform just as well if not better than the younger applicants. Age should not be seen or used as an indication for inferior performance expecially since they are more experienced than the younger workers/applicants. Age discrimination should be seen as an unjust and unreasonable act as it could be linked to race discrimination or even religious discrimination. As a society that is still getting over the horrific age of racial discrimination, it is highly significant that we end this act before it escalates into something as huge as racial discrimination. Age discrimination can also be seen as a violation to ones unalienable rights as it deals with the ones equality rights as well as there rights to happiness. By discriminating an elderly simply due to there age, you are going against the one law that acts as the foundation to our country. In terms of productivity, older people show to be more productive than younger people.

"Older staff are more productive than their younger colleagues, say researchers.
More mature members of staff may be weaker and less agile than their junior counterparts, but they more than compensate with their greater experience, ability to work in teams, and success at coping when things go wrong.
The researchers say: ‘While older workers make more errors, perhaps due to declining physical attributes, they hardly make any severe errors, perhaps due to more experience." {1}

""Younger workers need to realize that promising to learn quickly, to do a great job, or to work hard, is not as powerful as showing," says Caroline Ceniza-Levine, co-founder of career coaching firm SixFigureStart and co-author of How the Fierce Handle Fear: Secrets to Succeeding in Challenging Times (2010, Two Harbors Press). "What older workers have are more years to collect examples to show. So younger workers need to collect examples. These do not need to be from paid work. " {2}

Contention two; Economy:

Like i mentioned earlier, older workers tend to have a better productivity rate than younger workers simply because they are more experienced. Age discrimination reduces the productivity of a company because certain jobs are given to younger workers who might not have any experience what so ever. In an effort to maintain the stability in a work place, one must not hire simply due to age but due to the experience and ability of the applicant/ worker. This same theory applies for the economic status of the company, because refusing to hire older workers might just cost the company a lot of money. The ratings of a company are unlikely to drop i they maintain there active workers no matter how old they might seem.

"From their observations, the scientists realized that older workers made fewer or less severe mistakes, while younger workers tended to make more frequent and drastic mistakes. "It is experience that prevents severe errors," they say, noting that previous productivity studies fail to account for times when an older worker instructs a younger colleague on how to perform a task correctly and efficiently." {3}

"The researchers argue that in sectors where physical strength is less important than in manufacturing, such as in the service sector, it is likely that older workers are even more productive." {4}

In conclusion, older workers are more productive than younger workers and Age should not be an indicator of ones ability and productivity.

SOURCES:
{1} http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
{2}http://www.glassdoor.com...
{3}http://www.thestreet.com...
{4} http://language.globaltimes.cn...
Steve0Yea

Con


I would first of all like to thank my opponent for this debate and suggest to him that he uses a word processor to help him with his spelling and grammatical errors.



Rebuttals:


Qualification and Law:


I am very curious to know what sources you are siting for this information.


“The elderly can perform just as well if not better than younger applicants. Age should not be seen or used as an indication for inferior performance expecially (especially) since they are more experienced than the younger workers/applicants.”


Is an invalid point if the younger applicants have more experience. Just because someone is elderly, or older, does not mean they have an abundance of experience. The same can be said about younger workers, not all young workers lack experience.


“Age discrimination should be seen as an unjust and unreasonable act as it could be linked to race discrimination or even religious discrimination.”


There have been no studies linking age discrimination to racial or religious discrimination, or at least I cannot find one.


Economy:


“Age discrimination reduces the productivity of a company because certain jobs are given to younger workers who might not have any experience what so ever.”


The reasoning behind this is simple, hire young workers whom you can train, who are already not set in their ways. A younger worker is more likely to stay with a job for five or more years than an older worker who is up for retirement soon. In that regard the company is making the smart decision by hiring someone whom is going to be with them for the long run and therefore making the better investment. The investment may reduce productivity for a small amount of time, during training. However it will increase productivity in the long run because the younger worker will be with you for more than five years where as the older worker is more likely to retire causing you to have to hire someone knew reducing productivity once again during the training process.


“No one is going to believe that they will get five years out of an older worker,” says Bruce Hurwitz, an executive recruiter and career counselor with Hurwitz Strategic Staffing. “It is assumed that the next job for an older worker will probably be their last job before retirement. A younger worker can talk about how he or she wants to make an impact and grow. In this way, the employer knows that they will get the biggest possible return on their investment of time and money in training the new employee.”[1]


That is your own source by the way…


My Argument:


Age discrimination in the work place should not be illegal.



Older Folks:


Because you stated a limit in the comments section before my arguments I will respect it, you put a limit on the age wokers/applicants to 70. Therefor my definition of “Older Folks” will be between 50 years old to 70 years old.


work·place

[wurk-pleys]


noun


1. a person's place of employment.


2. any or all places where people are employed: a bill to set safety standards for the workplace.”[2]



Workplace is defined as a person’s place of employment, now unfortunately we have a lot of jobs that require you to perform certain tasks. These jobs sometimes, if not all the time, are unable to be performed by an older person due to its physical demands. These jobs include, Soldier, Logger, Construction Worker, Oil Rig Worker, Police Officer, Firefighter, Freight Handling.[3] The list can go on for days. Any physically demanding job an old person should not be hired for unless they are physically capable. Unfortunately this is rarely the case.



Kids:


You stated the age cap of 70 but you stated no minimum age, in this section we will assume that all workers/applicants are between the ages of 1-17.



Now it’s very easy to say that none of these applicants should be hired as a soldier, police officer, logger, delivery driver, stenographer, security officer, chief of staff, human resources, or really anything for that matter that’s just common knowledge and sense.[4]



Conclusion:


Older workers are unable to perform some jobs due to physical limitations, and younger workers are unable to perform MOST job functions due to mental and physical limitations. Thus there needs to be age discrimination in the workplace.



Sources:


[1] http://www.glassdoor.com...


[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...


[3] http://wiki.answers.com...


[4] Common sense.


Debate Round No. 2
wierdman

Pro

I would like to apologize for my grammar errors.

Due to the fact that my opponent did not state or provide a proper case, i will however try to answer his questions as well as cross examine the little information he provided.

1. "I am very curious to know what sources you are siting for this information."

i did provide sources as well as studies that proved or helped my case.

"Is an invalid point if the younger applicants have more experience. Just because someone is elderly, or older, does not mean they have an abundance of experience. The same can be said about younger workers, not all young workers lack experience."

I agree that not all young workers are inexperienced; however, the fact still remains that the older/ elderly workers has more experience due to the years of practice and experience. This combination adds up to become an increase in productivity. If my opponent read my cards, then he would have seen various researches that proved this theory to be a fact. A study by University of Mannheim researchers in Germany found that older employees are much more productive than their younger counterparts.

"There have been no studies linking age discrimination to racial or religious discrimination, or at least I cannot find one."

My opponent seems to misunderstand this statement, i did not say that age discrimination is directly linked to racial and religious discrimination. I did state that Age discrimination is as "UNJUST" as racial and religious discrimination.

Economy:

I stated in myt second argument that Age discrimination reduces the productivity of a company, My opponent responded to this statement by stating that "The reasoning behind this is simple, hire young workers whom you can train, who are already not set in their ways.". This statement is the exact reasoning why older workers are the better choice as they are more productive. By hiring only younger applicants who as my opponent stated has "not set their way", the company is most likely to collapse as the younger workers are more likely to make critical mistakes. By hiring experienced older workers as well as younger workers, the older more experienced workers are less likely to make these critical mistakes, and more likely to take over and show the younger workers the correct way to perform the task at hand.

" A younger worker is more likely to stay with a job for five or more years than an older worker who is up for retirement soon."

This statement might be true; however those five to six years does not necessarily equal productivity. These younger workers are less experienced and by allowing them to work for you, they are gaining experience in the specific field; however there lack of experience could resolve in critical mistakes and without older workers who has worked for a long period of time, these workers will continue to make mistakes until they are experienced enough to avoid these mistakes.
The process of gaining experience does not take a short period of time like my opponent suggested, rather it takes a long amount of time, work effort and commitment.

Any physically demanding job an old person should not be hired for unless they are physically capable.

In stating this, my opponent has forfeited the round to me as he is basically saying that if a person is fit for the job, then the person should be giving an equal chance to acquire the job position/ job promotion. Age discrimination states that if an applicant/ worker is over the age of 50, then he/she is old and should not be giving an equal chance for a job/ promotion.

"You stated the age cap of 70 but you stated no minimum age, in this section we will assume that all workers/applicants are between the ages of 1-17."

I should not have to state the minimum age for a job applicant, The minimum age to acquire a job position is obviously 16. I should not have to state this to a United States resident.

Conclusion:

My opponent did not present a valuable case as well as tackle my theory of: Age should not be an indicator of ones ability, instead the employer should examine all of the applicants ability and capability.
Thank you.
Steve0Yea

Con

First of all I would like to thank my opponent for this wonderful debate; it has been a pleasure so far. Since I apparently didn’t make a case in my last segment I will attempt to make a case again. (I am fairly sure I did, but that’s ok.)

My Case, Again:

Ok, let’s take a step back for a moment and look at your original post.

“This argument states that age should indicate productivity and ability of an individual in a workplace.

Opponent will try to prove me wrong by proving that older people are less productive thus age discrimination is reasonable.”

I do not have to prove that older people are less productive; I only have to prove that age does not indicate productivity of an individual in a workplace. And because work ethic is not something that is based on age AT ALL your case is flawed. Work ethic is instilled in you by your parents, teachers, co-workers and bosses. If any or all of these people are not hard workers or did not teach you proper work ethic then you will not work hard (Be productive). The problem you are having is that you think older people work much harder than younger people, which is NOT the case. I have been working for seven years now and I have seen so many cases where the opposite is actually true. There are other factors that play into work ethic as well. If you are a heroin addict your productivity will drop, if you are having problems at home your productivity will drop, if you are having health issues your productivity will drop, these cases all apply for younger people and older alike. I get the feeling you haven’t really worked much... Let’s play around with an example and see if you can grasp the concept a bit better.

Worker-A is 22 years old and has a job as a security guard, work ethics were pounded into him at a very young age by his grandfather and mother, he was always told to work hard and do the best he can do in everything he does. Worker-B is 43 years old and has never really had a steady job, he has lived off his mother all his life and surfed most of the time. Also Worker-B habitually smokes marijuana.

Worker-A and Worker-B are offered a GREAT job in Nevada and the pay is amazing, (doing what doesn’t really matter at this point) whom do you think is more likely to take the job and work hard at it (Be more productive)? Worker-B the middle aged man who’s never worked a day in his life and lives/loves to surf? (There are no beaches in Nevada) or Worker-A the younger worker who loves to work, do the best he can at a job, and wants to get a great job to impress his mother and grandfather? The answer is simple.

Rebuttals:

"The reasoning behind this is simple, hire young workers whom you can train, who are already not set in their ways.". This statement is the exact reasoning why older workers are the better choice as they are more productive. By hiring only younger applicants who as my opponent stated has "not set their way", the company is most likely to collapse as the younger workers are more likely to make critical mistakes. By hiring experienced older workers as well as younger workers, the older more experienced workers are less likely to make these critical mistakes, and more likely to take over and show the younger workers the correct way to perform the task at hand.”

WHAT?!?! How did you take that section of my argument and twist it so backasswards?! That is by NO means what I said or meant. The phrase “Not set in their ways” is meaning not hard-headed (As a lot of older people are) Younger people’s minds are more easily molded because they are “Not already set in their ways”. What if an older person has been working at a SPECIFIC job his WHOLE life… let’s say he works at a factory pressing car bumpers. Now, the old procedure was to press down the big button and then lift the bumper out and place it in the stack to be shipped to the car manufacturer. But the factory shuts down because they are going to renovate it and make it more up to date with industry standards. So he found a job and another metal pressing factory. He applies stating he has 20 years’ experience and is most definitely the best qualified for the job. However, THIS factory is up to date with the latest equipment and machines. This factory now is using computers instead of manual labor. His job is now outdated, but because of his many years of experience they still offer him the equivalent job which is now inputting the sizes and amount of bumpers to be pressed into the computer and letting the machine do the work. He accepts the job because, well, it can’t be that hard after all it’s the “Equivalent” job. His first day of work he shows up and someone explains to him how to do the job, but he has never used a computer before. His old job never required it, computers are foreign to him and he doesn’t understand them. Even though it is so simple he is unable to figure it out for a long time.
But it was so simple?! You or I could do that job easily because we now use computers daily. Once again, age is not an indicator of experience. He may have had 20 years’ experience, but any 21 year old (Lowest possible age you’re allowed to work in factories) could have taken that job and done it with MINIMAL training. This man however, because he had no training in computers and had never used one before, struggled and therefor reduced productivity. Also, in this case the older worker is more likely to make the critical mistakes and the younger worker is more likely to take over for him and fix the mistakes. Because he has never used a computer he may input 20000 instead of 200 for quantity or even 2 ½ instead of 212 inches for bumper length. These are all quite possible mistakes for someone whom has never used a computer before in his life.

This of course is just an example; a long one at that. There are no sources for it because it didn’t really happen. But I’m sure our judges and, even you can see how it’s possible and the implications behind it. Age does not indicate productivity in the work place. That explanation turned out to be really long, I apologize for making that way but it was the only way I could get my point across I think. Your case is all speculation you can in no way prove that an older worker is more experienced in any field that is not directly related with age.

“In stating this, my opponent has forfeited the round to me as he is basically saying that if a person is fit for the job, then the person should be giving an equal chance to acquire the job position/ job promotion. Age discrimination states that if an applicant/ worker is over the age of 50, then he/she is old and should not be giving an equal chance for a job/ promotion.”

You misquoted me again, however yes that is what I said. He SHOULD be given “equal opportunity” that in no way is me forfeiting and it in no way hurts my case because that is not the norm. There are always abnormal cases of people excelling at something that other people like them do not… there are some VERY fit older people who could probably outrun me. But they are not the norm, their age is not a deciding factor in them getting hired at a physical job. Once again I have to give an example, (Short one this time) if you owned a bike messenger business. Would your application have age on it for any other reason than to make sure that person is legally allowed to work in the state? No… when someone applied you would see them and see that they are fit and able to perform the duties for the job. If some big buff older guy came in I would GLADLY hire him because he is going to make a great bike messenger. On his application it states he rides ten miles every day. So of course age discrimination is not always the best because there are RARE cases. However, that does not mean it should be made illegal. That’s like making Twinkie’s illegal because someone choked on one.

I think my point has been made, character limitations restricts me from going any further. Thank you.

Debate Round No. 3
wierdman

Pro

I do apologize for my mistake; however, if my opponent read both the first round and the second round of the debate, he would have notice that my position was to prove that age was not an indicator for agility.

"I do not have to prove that older people are less productive; I only have to prove that age does not indicate productivity of an individual in a workplace. "

In stating this, my opponent agrees that age does not serve as an indicator for agility and productivity thus agreeing that t6he act of age discrimination is unnecessary and unjust.

"The problem you are having is that you think older people work much harder than younger people, which is NOT the case.

Never in may case did i say that older people work much harder than younger people, i simply stated that older people tend to be more experienced than younger people. Age discrimination comes into this matter as more employee tend to hire younger workers simply because they are younger without considering there abilities thus age discrimination should be deemed illegal as it goes against the right to equal opportunity. My opponents first point is irrelevant to this debate as it talks of the factors that affects work ethics. This debate is solely centered on Age discrimination been unjust and should be deemed illegal or in my opponents case why it should not be illegal. My opponent have provided absolutely no
reason as to why Age discrimination should not be banned rather he has tried to avoid this issue by stating irrelevant factors or try to state the factors that contributes to ones work ethics. The fact that he is unable to answer the question at hand "Why AGE DISCRIMINATION BE ALLOWED IN WORKPLACE" makes his whole case irrelevant.

His Rebuttal:
Please refrain from using such informal words "backasswards".

I did not twist your words, i simply used your exact wording. My opponent is dismayed by the fact that i used his wording to strengthen my case; however, he failed to realize that he was not specific at all with his wording.

"Not set in their ways" is meaning not hard-headed (As a lot of older people are) Younger people's minds are more easily molded because they are "Not already set in their ways".

By using this statement, my opponent displays a fine example of age discrimination. Rather than giving a full detailed or even a mediocre research to support his judgement, My opponent quickly result to conclusions. This statement also supports my theory earlier which states that younger workers tend to make more mistakes as they are still acquiring experiences that would allow them to better succeed in there field. The fact that young minds are easily molded also means that young people are more curious to learn new techniques that requires practice and mistakes.

My opponent suggest that older workers are incapable of learning new skills as fast as the younger workers due to the fact that younger minds are easily molded; however according to a 1995 research by AARP, " Although the results are mixed, some studies have also concluded that "older workers learn roughly as quickly and effectively as other workers (and, with modest amounts of computer familiarity training, even computer-intensive training requires no additional time)" (AARP, 1995). (lenny.uvm.edu/files/aging/chapter5.doc). MY opponent also failed to realize that every job no matter how advanced started off with simply tools that are stilled used in the same advanced company.

" that does not mean it should be made illegal.That's like making Twinkie's illegal because someone choked on one."

My opponent neglected the fact that unlike one person chocking on Twinkies, the issue of age discrimination is not a single issue but a national problem. My opponent also fails to realize that it violates ones right to equality as well as the economic status of both the company and the United States.

In conclusion, My opponent did not give me a reasonable reason as to why Age discrimination should not be banned whereas i provided the issue that it poses on ones rights but the companies economic status. Finally, i urge that the viewers of this debate vote for me as i have presented a reason why Age discrimination should be banned as well as the effect it has poses on the company. I have also countered every point made by my opponent as well as provide sources to prove my opponent wrong.

Thank you.
Steve0Yea

Con

(For some reason pasting this directly from a word document didnt turn out as well as i had originally hoped, sorry for the diffrent font sizes and spacing.)

You have changed the debate completely; agility is not the same as performance. The fact is both of your points are logic issues. They don’t need to be proven with sources or even personal experience is common knowledge that older people are slower and more brittle. Their bones are less dense and as you get older you lose mental capacity and function.

The real point here is you stated age discrimination should be made illegal. That is not the case, it should NOT be made illegal and I believe I have stated many points proving my case. Also, burden of proof is not on me… it is on you to prove why age discrimination should be illegal and you have not done so.

Because you have changed your definition though I will touch on these points very quickly.


Mental Agility:

“A large body of research, including both cross-sectional studies and longitudinal studies, has investigated changes in cognitive function with aging. Studies have found that working memory declines with aging, as does long-term memory (Siegler et al., 1996), with decrements more apparent in recall than in recognition capacities. Slowing or some loss of other cognitive functions takes place, most notably in information processing, selective attention, and problem-solving ability, yet findings are variable (Siegler et al., 1996). These cognitive changes translate into a slower pace of learning and greater need for repetition of new information.” [1]

The article goes on to say that mental illnesses in the elderly are fairly common. At about 50-80%

The next article is from wiki answers which isn’t known as the most reliable source, but my next article will back it up.

“As you get older your brain actually shrinks in size. Different parts of your brain (particularly the hippocampus which is the memory center in your brain) shrink significantly in size which reduces their effectiveness. There is also a reduced production of neurotransmitters (which are the networked communication links within your brain). The myelin sheaths (which work as protecting sheaths to your neurotransmitters) also get weaker which causes signals in the brain to become slower/mixed up. Lastly the cells in your body have divided so many times they become damaged or exhausted which decreases their ability to work effectively.
also if you have certain forms of dementia plaques and tangles block the transmission of messages in the brain via neurotransmitters.”
[5]

“The [brain] shrinking starts in adulthood and continues at an average rate of 2% per decade. This means that at 80, your brain will be 12% smaller than at 20.

If you do nothing you can expect problems. Memory loss is only the beginning.” [6]

Vision:

Below is a list of MAJOR age-related eye diseases. That’s not all the age related eye diseases I didn’t have enough room. However these are the worst.

“Major Age-Related Eye Diseases

Macular degeneration. Macular degeneration (also called age-related macular degeneration or AMD) is the leading cause of blindness among American seniors.
Despite some age-related vision changes that are inevitable, you may be able to keep your eyes healthy for a lifetime.

According to the National Eye Institute (NEI), macular degeneration affects more than 1.75 million people in the United States. The U.S. population is aging rapidly, and this number will increase to almost three million by 2020.

Glaucoma. Your risk of developing glaucoma increases with each decade after age 40, from around 1 percent in your 40s to up to 12 percent in your 80s. The number of Americans with glaucoma will increase by 50 percent (to 3.6 million) by 2020.

Diabetic retinopathy. According to the NEI, approximately 10.2 million Americans over age 40 are known to have diabetes. Many experts believe that up to 30 percent of people who have diabetes have not yet been diagnosed.

Among known diabetics over age 40, NEI estimates that 40 percent have some degree of diabetic retinopathy, and one of every 12 people with diabetes in this age group has advanced, vision-threatening retinopathy.” [2]

Physical Agility:

With this article there was a picture please visit my [3] source and take a look, it shows how age effects response time… a 70 year old has about the response time of a 5 year old

“Factors influencing response time

Response time is the sum of reaction time plus movement time. Factors that may influence the performer's response are (Davis 2000)

  • Gender and age (see figure opposite)
  • Stage of learning
  • Psychological state
  • Level of fitness
  • Number of possible responses
  • Time available
  • Intensity of the stimuli
  • Anticipation
  • Experience
  • Health
  • Body Temperature - colder the slower
  • Personality - extroverts react quicker
  • State of alertness
  • Length of neural pathways “ [4]

Conclusion:

My case has been stated clearly and cleanly, I have shown how an elderly worker is less agile and I have shown how an elderly worker is no more productive than a young worker (17-30). I have not changed definitions to help my case and I have not misquoted my opponent in any way. I chose not to rebut in this last round because I feel my case is strong enough as-is. The fact that my opponent wants to make something illegal that there is no reason to make illegal is the biggest point I can make. He countered my Twinkie argument with “Well that’s only one person” and I can say the same back to him about age discrimination, especially since no cases of age discrimination were provided. Not one. He has provided no evidence that Age Discrimination is rampant in the work place and is affecting people’s lives in a negative way. I have stated my case pretty clearly I think, and rebutted his arguments to the best of my abilities. My sources are pretty reliable (minus one) and I have used as many as I possibly can to state my case. I apologize for any harsh language I may have used in this debate, my last post I got a little irritated that my opponent was changing his definitions and wording, and also stating things without providing sources. Thank you for reading this debate and I also thank my opponent for hosting such an interesting debate. I wish my opponent luck in the voting rounds.

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.surgeongeneral.gov...

[2] http://www.allaboutvision.com...

[3] http://www.brianmac.co.uk...

[4] http://www.brianmac.co.uk...

[5]http://wiki.answers.com...

[6] http://www.alsearsmd.com...

Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Steve0Yea 6 years ago
Steve0Yea
Thank you, It was a great debate, i enjoyed it very much.
Posted by wierdman 6 years ago
wierdman
Thank you, i enjoyed the debate as well.
Posted by willyxiao 6 years ago
willyxiao
I would like to thank both participants for such a wonderful debate.
Posted by wierdman 6 years ago
wierdman
to my opponent, a 70 year limit be placed on applicants/ workers due to physical conditions and deteriorating health.
Posted by wierdman 6 years ago
wierdman
Thank you, i will work on that immediately.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
might want to specify, I can easily prove that a 4 year old is going to be less productive in many jobs than a 25 year old, based on physical limitations of human growth patterns. Likewise, I can do the same about a 35 year old vs a 95 year old for certain jobs based on how the human body is effected by age (namely in the muscles and brain).
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
wierdmanSteve0YeaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Darkhearth's multi-account vote.
Vote Placed by darkhearth 6 years ago
darkhearth
wierdmanSteve0YeaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: i thought Pro made a much more convincing argument than Con.
Vote Placed by randolph7 6 years ago
randolph7
wierdmanSteve0YeaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con as wierdman did seem to twist con's words. Con's sources were more reliable as wierdman's were fewer and sourced from blogs and tabloid journals. Con's argument that all experience is not equal is convincing. While older workers may have more experience it is relevant experience that matters. Since Pro's whole case is based on productivity, it would seem experience relative to the job would be more important than generalized experience.
Vote Placed by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
wierdmanSteve0YeaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con sorta screwed himself in his first speechand didn't address all arguements. But Pro sortof twisted his words to win