The Instigator
olle15
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
psynthesizer
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

All apposed to out sourcing must put up or shut up!!!

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 4/3/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 973 times Debate No: 3499
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (7)

 

olle15

Pro

First off I thank whoever accepts this debate and though I would prefer debating someone apposed to outsourcing I will take on anyone who accepts.

Now what I mean by this title is if you are not willing to or able to pay the extra cash needed to make everything in America shut up with the complaining because you are the main cause. And the reasons are:

1.We have become way to interested in having the most and best of everything there was a time when just about every thing was made in America but because of our need for useless stuff companies had to send work overseas just to keep up with supply and demand thus starting outsourcing.
2.And we're cheap we want every thing and we want it at a low price and that's how business like wal-mart came into being every body blames wal-mart for layoffs, factory closings, and mom and pop businesses shutting down but that couldn't be further from the truth. In fact we caused it business men don't just make up a new concept and hope it catches on especially one that they could potentially lose money in because they lowered prices to much. See a need fill a need that's how they work they saw people wanted more for less and they gave it to us they are just doing the will of the people we are the cause.

As you can see we are the real cause and unless you can truthfully answer to yourself that you could pay 40 to 50 percent more on everything you take for granted now you can't complain.

(Clarification: I am not for outsourcing and this debate is not about whether out sourcing is right or wrong.)

Your Turn
psynthesizer

Con

Before I begin, I ask that the voters understand that the Con side is not necessarily representative of my true opinions. Rather, I play the role of Devil's Advocate and urge voters to make a decision based upon debating skill and argumentation rather than your personal opinion.

To begin, I offer this Observation:

The PRO side of this debate has stated that we (consumers, etc.) are the MAIN reason for outsourcing. I, representing the CON side of this debate will win as long as I am capable of proving that the consumers ARE NOT THE MAIN REASON for outsourcing. That means as long as I can prove that the allegation made by PRO is untrue, I will have won this debate.

In this case, PRO carries the burden of proof, and MUST PROVE that consumers are the MAIN reason for outsourcing.

I will first begin by addressing the points my opponents brought up in his speech, then moving on towards my own contentions.

1. The idea of outsourcing is NOT based on America's need for the best and most of everything. How so? There have been several recent re-calls on products made overseas, particularly China.

http://www.nytimes.com...

http://www.usatoday.com...

Mattel recalled over 9 million toys in the United States due to the fact that they were found to have been painted with lead paint. 83 various products sold by Mattel, including several Sesame Street and Dora the Explorer products popular with younger children have been manufactured with lead paint.

According to Thomas G. Rawski, an economics professor at the University of Pittsburgh, has stated [regarding China]:

"… there are lots of things happening that in an ideal world shouldn't be happening, including things that wouldn't happen in Japan or the U.S."

I have no idea how you were brought up, nor do I really care. Regardless, the fact remains that the products outsourced to other countries is simply not of the "best" quality, and certainly far from the safest. Lead paint hasn't seen use in the United States since 1978 for obvious health reasons. Products manufactured overseas, otherwise "outsourced", are a far cry from being of the same standard as products made within the US. Why?

Simple, technology has moved at a pace faster than governmental regulation and consumer protection agencies within the countries we outsource to. The inspections standards and manufacturing procedure is radically different in Mexico or some South Asian country compared to the guidelines put in place by the US government. Products made in areas outside of the US do not follow the same rigorous amount of inspection, nor are they produced under proper procedures. Thus, outsourcing in such cases is actually DETRIMENTAL to the interests of the American people, at times endangering the lives of us, our children, and even our pets:

http://www.usatoday.com...

The most disturbing aspect of this is not the fact that some animals were contaminated. This occurrence literally sent tremors down the pet industry for a simpler, lesser-known fact – FDA regulation regarding pet products and food is notoriously strict, stricter even than the standards in place for human consumption.

That is not to say that I am opposed to outsourcing, in fact I support it! However, it is morally reprehensible to continue to out-source our products to outside countries where governmental regulation is far less than adequate.

2. My opponent has stated in his case that we as consumers are the cause for outsourcing. That is not true. The true cause for outsourcing is not the American people, but simple economics. When companies realized that it is possible to out-source labor and manufacture their products in other countries at a cheaper cost, they moved production out of America.

Of course we want the best we can have at the best prices! But the problem is, we have no control over what larger companies do. Don't tell me boycotting; such an action is both ineffective, inefficient, and impractical. If we were to boycott every single product that was not made in the US, we would die within the week (assuming we could actually take such a protest out that far).

We are not the cause for outsourcing, economics is. Companies want to maximize their operations by outsourcing. Consumers want to maximize their spending power by buying goods at a cheaper price with a reasonable decrease in quality. Foreign governments want to kick-start their economies by attracting US companies with special tax-exemptions, subsidies, and a favorable exchange rate.

Under my observation, PRO must PROVE his allegation to be true. However, I and simple economics state that the MAIN CAUSE FOR OUTSOURCING LIES NOT UPON THE CONSUMERS.

Rather, cause or "blame" cannot be assigned to any one group or entity/ies. A complex system of a globalized economy and a set of incentives act together to furnish outsourcing, not an individual group of players within a sophisticated game setting.

Companies, governments, and the eventual diffusion of wealth feed more directly to outsourcing than consumers. Consumers looking to maximize their limited wealth are no different from Companies looking to maximize their limited resources are no different from Outside Countries looking to maximize their resources; everyone acts in self-interest.

Everyone acts in their own interests.

Everyone acts in their own interests.

Companies, Outside Countries, the US government, the People's Republic of China, my next door neighbor, you, me, she, he, EVERYONE ACTS IN THEIR OWN INTERESTS.

EVERYONE CONTRIBUTES TO OUTSOURCING.

For the above listed reasons, I STRONGLY urge a Con ballot. Thanks.
Debate Round No. 1
olle15

Pro

First off good day to my opponent now to business.

Now usually I start at the top off my opponent's argument and work my way down but after reading this I couldn't help but mention this first. In the last lines of your round you said and I quote "EVERYONE CONTRIBUTES TO OUTSOURCING." That sounds like you're supporting my argument because my debate is not about whether outsourcing is right or wrong or who is really is to blame it is about the fact that we can't complain because like you said everyone contributes.

Now I keep trying to go back to the beginning but you won't let me because of another contradicting comment. You said "Of course we want the best we can have at the best prices!" Ding ding ding there it is complete contradiction to your stance as CON business are based off of what people want. You don't see many businesses that make you pay more for less you see businesses that let you pay less for more because that's what the people want so that's where the money is.

Thanks to all of your very contradicting arguments I have given up on order. This next quote not only the first quote I provided but the second one as well you said "We are not the cause for outsourcing, economics is." Did you forget that the economy is based on what we buy sell and trade meaning even if you blame the economy you're still blaming us. And because we want the lowest prices (which you agreed with me on) we affect the economy in a bad way. But as I said before this is not a blame game it is about the fact that we have contributed to out sourcing.

Now I had to comment on this your whole first point is way off topic I never said the best quality I said the best as in the newest, most high tech, the coolest, the fastest, the hip or popular the fact that there have been call backs does not change the fact that they are what everyone wants.

Also another disproving quote "Consumers looking to maximize their limited wealth are no different from Companies looking to maximize their limited resources are no different from Outside Countries looking to maximize their resources; everyone acts in self-interest." The consumer's primary goal is to save and the big businesses goal is to gain money and the best way to do that is to give the consumer what he or she wants.

"Everyone acts in their own interests." You couldn't be more right either you try to save or gain either one helps lead to outsourcing.

Now as you can see I have completely undermined my opponent's argument while further enforcing my own so it is obvious that you should vote Pro it's the only smart decision.

Your Turn
psynthesizer

Con

I would like to begin my response by first thanking my opponent.

My opponent does not quite seem to understand the fact that he carries the burden of proof. Throughout his responses thus far, he has provided no evidence proving that CONSUMERS ARE THE MAIN CAUSE FOR OUTSOURCING.

I presented my response to his assertion (which I will note that he did not support with evidence), and he agreed with everything that I have stated thus far.

My opponent does not seem to understand his own argument, and rendered the resolution a scrambled mess in both his constructive and in the topic title itself. As follows is what my opponent had stated in his constructive:

"Now what I mean by this title is if you are not willing to or able to pay the extra cash needed to make everything in America shut up with the complaining BECAUSE YOU ARE THE MAIN CAUSE." –olle15

Grammar mistakes aside, I took the convenience of highlighting the "resolution," or the point my opponent must prove in order to win this debate. As I have stated earlier, he carries the burden of proof. He MUST PROVE that consumers are the MAIN CAUSE.

In his rebuttal, my opponent stated that I was supporting his argument by stating that consumers are part of the reason outsourcing exists. My opponent has COMPLETELY misconstrued the resolution THAT HE HIMSELF SET FORTH. We are not arguing whether or not consumers contribute to outsourcing, WE ARE ARGUING THAT CONSUMERS ARE THE MAIN CAUSE.

Now I will continue on to a rebuttal of a rather interesting opinion my opponent has.

--
"the fact that there have been call backs does not change the fact that they are what everyone wants." – olle15
--

When I first read this I felt like reaching through the internets and punching my opponent in the face. According to his logic, we all want lead-based paint on children's toys. This assertion on his part is DISGUSTING. Apparently my opponent is fine with the fact that over 9 million toys on US shelves were coated with lead-paint.

Maybe my opponent is unaware of the numerous health hazards caused by exposure to lead-based paints. Lead is toxic to human beings, attacking all of the body's organs. It is especially dangerous to children, attacking the nervous system of a developing child, basically fucking a child up completely by screwing their organs and central nervous system during a period of growth. CHILDREN DIE FROM LEAD-POISONING. LEAD-POISONING OCCURS THROUGH INGESTION OF LEAD DUST.

Just an FYI:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

LEAD-PAINT TOYS ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT WHAT PEOPLE WANT. But this is what my opponent is advocating with this opinion. Maybe he has a hard time with children and wishes to seem them suffer through a painful life. Or maybe he played with lead toys as a child. It's obviously something to be concerned with.

The logic my opponent is applying is ATROCIOUS.

I would continue to attack the rest of my opponents case, but he changed the resolution during his rebuttal, stating:

"…my debate is not about whether outsourcing is right or wrong or who is really is to blame IT IS THE ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE CAN'T COMPLAIN…" --- olle15

So now my opponent has changed the resolution. Or changed his mind on the resolution. Yet he continues on in his "rebuttal" of my points. Regardless, he is still Pro and still bears the burden of proof. However, he has still yet to produce any substantial information or even evidence to prove the resolution.

I'm fairly new to debate, but I'm certain you can't change the resolution halfway through the debate. Maybe your original post wasn't very clear. Maybe you should think a little more clearly before posting, maybe check to make sure your responses are coherent.

But, for the sake of an entertaining and enlightening debate (think flex-case in pf), I will accept this resolution change.

Under this new resolution, I re-present my original contention on hazardous lead toys made in outside countries. To reiterate, consumers MUST have the ability to raise their voices in protest against obviously inhumane business practices.

Free business is great and all, but when businesses sell lead toys, they produce a large social externality for society. Consumer watch-dog groups were created for this very reason; to protect the consumers. If consumers do not "complain," or more correctly bring issues with products to businesses, then businesses will continue to produce such externalities that are extremely harmful to society and the economy itself.

As I have stated, and my opponent agreed upon, businesses need consumers to survive. If consumers do not tell what businesses what they do and don't want, then businesses will go bankrupt and ECONOMIES WILL BE RAVAGED.

The ability and right to "complain" is essential for businesses and consumers remaining within a mutually beneficial relationship. By allowing dialogue between the two parties to occur, you also have a much greater equalization of information, thus destroying the massive externalities commonly created by informational asymmetry.

http://nobelprize.org...

The following Nobel laureates in economics, Joseph Stiglitz, George Akerlof, and Andrew Spence, received their prestigious awards by conducting research into the field of informational asymmetry and the negative impacts it can have on a society. The paper brings up a much more technical approach to the subject and will be an enlightening read to all those interested.

I am advocating that consumers must have the ability to voice their opinions, which ultimately helps the economy move in a much smoother manner.

I ask my opponent: If consumers should not be able to complain, especially about shoddy or dangerous products, then why does every successful business spend a good deal of money on customer relations and feedback? Why would they want comments?

Why is market research an industry unto itself?

Everyone acts in their own interests. Contrary to your logic, businesses actually WANT more feedback from consumers. Consumers are benefiting businesses by commenting on products and services. It is in both the business and the consumer's best interests to communicate to one another, be it through "complaints" or a letter of admiration.

I end with the following statement:

Debate is most beneficial to its participants and the audience when everyone walks away with a new look upon topics, and new facts that encourage intellectual growth. Regardless of your position, I hope that you will walk away from this debate just a little bit more informed than you started out with.

Oh yeah vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
olle15

Pro

Okay I have literally five minutes to right this debate before I am forcibly kicked off the computer until tomorrow so I will be short and may have to ignore some lesser topics.

1.First off thank you for pointing out my contradicting statements it seems we both must work on that,
2.You said "I presented my response to his assertion (which I will note that he did not support with evidence), and he agreed with everything that I have stated thus far." Wrong and wrong again. Not only did I disagree with everything you said. But if you look back in this case disproving you proves my point.
3.Regardless of what I said the topic is clearly stated at the top of the page but I can admit when I was wrong and should have worded things differently. Because from the start it has been about how be are part off the problem.
4.I probably know more about the dangers of the stuff we buy than you do and by the way there's a lot out there but that hasn't stopped us from buying for example:

Reports of sparks flying from Ipods as they charge pop up but sales have stayed steady.

Computer batteries have been reported to burst into flames on occasion while computer is on but we still buy them.

Constant car call backs but business hasn't slowed.

Out of time

To the readers of this debate though I have made mistakes so has he look at my past debates to judge. And if you want proof look into yourself if you've ever looked for the cheaper buy and knew you had the money to pay the extra for usa brand and didn't or got the newest of whatever when you didn't need it. If you're always the one with the newest and best stuff from overseas vote pro because you are at least a small part of the problem.

(sorry for not having a full final round)
psynthesizer

Con

I will make this as brief as possible. I will begin by first addressing your last 4 contentions:

1. Your resolution was poorly worded and a little bit more confusing than it should have been. In future debates, please post a clearer resolution/opening.
2. Wish you could clarify, but this makes no sense. I believe I proved my point quite clearly during rounds 1 and 2.
3. see number 1
4. Don't mean to be a dick, but I highly doubt that. Just based on this debate, you have provided no counter-evidence or much in the terms of counter-arguements.

-"Reports of sparks flying from Ipods as they charge pop up but sales have stayed steady."

This is because of consumer advocacy groups, who alert businesses of problems, and keeps consumers informed of dnagers. Sales have stayed steady because of "whining."

-"Computer batteries have been reported to burst into flames on occasion while computer is on but we still buy them."

This is because consumers know that they have the right to compensation when they receive a faulty product. Without this right, consumers would not trust businesses: economies don't function. Thus, the ability to complain is necessary for economies to continue to develop and grow. When there is something is wrong with a product, be it from out-sourcing or simply poor business practice, consumer complaints act as an important component of a well-funcioning, growth economy. It acts as a check upon ramapant capitalism that poses potential dangers to consumers.

To end, my opponent has been confused most of this round, stated that parents of children want lead-toys for their children, and actually has the audacity to still state that I have maken mistakes throughout this debate.

I have substantiated all of my arguements with proof, articles, and evidence, as well as the underlying economic reasoning underneath them. My opponent has not.

I urge a con vote.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by psynthesizer 8 years ago
psynthesizer
Mmmm, read the ending of my second round response. The resolution was initially very confusing; had no idea what my opponent was debating. Second round, he clarified, and I responded with further information.

I construed the resolution to include consumer advocacy groups and the dangers posed by unscrupulous manufacturing processes (using lead poses a risk to consumers). My opponent did not address this, conceding to my definition.

I just ask that you take this debate as objectively as possible.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Con seems to be committing one huge ignoratio elenchi though- it doesn't matter whether consumers are the "main cause," such a term is meaningless, the point is they are a necessary cause. They are capable of putting up, therefore to maintain some modicum of integrity they must or shut up.

Pro's evidence was imperfect but it had some merit and at least wasn't irrelevant.

Of course, as far as I'm concerned I'd much rather they take the shut up option, outsourcing happens to be something I rather like, at least to most countries. China I question, but it is illegitimate to go the halfway-point most advocates of trade restrictions seek- either a country is acceptable to trade with freely, or it is a dictatorship beyond redemption and no course short of embargo is acceptable.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
I voted Con because Pro never proved his point. Con was playing "devil's advocate", and there were much stronger arguments... like "those opposed to outsourcing can argue for better trade deals which will limit the drawbacks and improve the benefits of outsourcing". In other words, just because you contribute to something doesn't mean you can't complain about it. Most people who FIX things complain about them being broken in the first place...
Posted by olle15 8 years ago
olle15
I'm sorry the tittle should be outsourcing not out sourcing just a minor clarical error I wanted to fix.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by livi 8 years ago
livi
olle15psynthesizerTied
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 Random_Man 8 years ago
Random_Man
olle15psynthesizerTied
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 Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
olle15psynthesizerTied
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 CP 8 years ago
CP
olle15psynthesizerTied
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 Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
olle15psynthesizerTied
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 Aietius 8 years ago
Aietius
olle15psynthesizerTied
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 psynthesizer 8 years ago
psynthesizer
olle15psynthesizerTied
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