The Instigator
LaissezFaire
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points
The Contender
rengstrom6147
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Americans with Disabilites Act

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 6 votes the winner is...
LaissezFaire
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,322 times Debate No: 13148
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (6)

 

LaissezFaire

Con

I will be arguing that the Americans with Disabilities Act should be repealed. I accept the burden of proof for this debate.

Definitions:
‘Americans with Disabilities Act'-http://finduslaw.com... passed by Congress in 1990.

‘Should be repealed'- I will be arguing that the US as a whole, and Americans with disabilities, would be better off without the Americans with Disabilities Act

Please wait until the 2nd round to post arguments, and please only accept this debate if you intend to finish every round. Do not accept this debate if you think the Act should be reformed significantly, but not abolished. If you are Pro, you should be defending the current law, not what you think the law should be.

I'm fine with changing the amount of rounds or voting period or whatever, just ask in the comments section if you'd like something changed.
rengstrom6147

Pro

I accept your challenge.
I accept your definitions.
However, while I will be defending the current version of DADT, I will not be arguing that the bill is perfect, rather I will be arguing that the bad the act does to disabled people and the country at large is outweighed by the good.
I look forward to a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1
LaissezFaire

Con

To look at how effective the ADA has been, we must first look at what the purpose of the act was. The stated purpose was to increase employment among the handicapped. This seems like a worthy goal, doesn't it? After all, at the time the ADA was passed, only 59.8% of handicapped men were employed, compared to 95.5% of non-handicapped men. [1] So what happened after it was passed? 5 years after the ADA went into effect, employment among handicapped men dropped 10.9%, to 48.9%. [1] And that was during a time of economic growth—the economy was booming in 1995. That sharp decline in employment didn't happen for non-handicapped people, just the handicapped. [1] So the ADA clearly failed by its own standards. It made tons of new regulations and rules for employing the handicapped, which encourage businesses to be wary of hiring them, since they don't want to risk lawsuits.

[1] Daron Acemoglu and Joshua Angrist. "Consequences of Employment Protection: The Case of the Americans with Disabilities Act." Unpublished manuscript, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1998.

The handicapped do not need the government to help them get jobs. Before the ADA, employers were perfectly willing to hire handicapped people that were capable of doing the work. Overcoming a disability shows that a person is willing to work hard, and is an indication that someone is likely to be a good employee. Now, all an employer thinks when interviewing a handicapped person is that he'll be sued if he can't afford to restructure his business to accommodate that person. Were there some people that blatantly discriminated against the handicapped? Sure, there were a few. But this act does nothing at all to prevent that sort of discrimination. It's impossible to tell which employers don't hire handicapped people because they hate the handicapped, and which don't hire them because they can't afford it, as bigoted people rarely advertise their discrimination. So all this act accomplishes is to keep that discrimination secret.

The ADA also often cripples businesses, hurting the economy. Business owners are required by law to make all sorts of special accommodations on their own private property. This is costly by itself, especially to small businesses just starting out, but the real cost is the lawsuits. The ADA encourages the handicapped to file frivolous lawsuits for non-accommodation. The businesses don't need to be notified about their non-compliance before the lawsuit is filed, so they don't get a chance to make the required accommodation. And most of the time, these lawsuits are frivolous, and just waste business owners' valuable time and money on legal fees. The business wins in 98% of the cases that come to court, and many more are thrown out before that. [2] But the fact that the lawsuits are unfounded and usually lose doesn't mean that the business owners don't have to pay expensive lawyer fees, or waste their time in court. These costs can be crippling to small business owners, especially in a bad economy.

[2] http://mises.org...

Everyone except for politicians and lawyers would be better off without the ADA. The handicapped would be better able to find jobs, and would likely face less actual discrimination. Business owners would be spared crippling compliance and legal costs. They could use that money to create more jobs, rather than enrich lawyers. Fewer small businesses would fail, and more would be willing to start up without the artificial costs of the ADA.
rengstrom6147

Pro

rengstrom6147 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
LaissezFaire

Con

I assume that my opponent forfeited because my arguments convinced him that I was right and he was wrong, as he has been online several times during the past three days. I guess the Americans with Disabilities Act is just completely indefensible.

Vote Con.
rengstrom6147

Pro

rengstrom6147 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rengstrom6147 6 years ago
rengstrom6147
Im sorry not DADT for my opening post I meant ADA, I've had DADT on the brain lately, sorry.
Posted by JBlake 6 years ago
JBlake
If I had the time this week, I would definitely take it. If no one does, we can reopen the debate in a week and a half when I have more time.
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
I haven't even read the bill though. I have no argument prepared, and know nothing about the bill except what I saw on Stossel's show. So I'd be on pretty much even footing with my opponent.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
LF, I think everybody's just afraid you've read the bill better than they have.
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
lol@this still in the challenge period.
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
When I want to do a serious debate, I like to pick me opponent out ahead of time. Ask Volkov, JBlake, or Freeman if they're interested.
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
5 days and no takers? I figured the ADA would be something a lot of people support.
Posted by belle 6 years ago
belle
my school is being sued b/c one of the handicap access ramps on campus has a grade that is an inch too high :/

its absurd.
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
The thing is, it doesn't protect the handicapped, it, like any other government intervention designed to help people, makes them worse off. So it's probably a good thing that the government hasn't decided to try to "protect" anyone from sexuality discrimination yet.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
The hilarious part is that they have this act which protects discrimination against incompetent retards (and I mean that in the most PC way possible), and yet our guvmint refuses to protect people from sexuality discrimination which has far less bearing on one's ability to do a job... hmm.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Pandora9321 6 years ago
Pandora9321
LaissezFairerengstrom6147Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
LaissezFairerengstrom6147Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
LaissezFairerengstrom6147Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
LaissezFairerengstrom6147Tied
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 J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
LaissezFairerengstrom6147Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
LaissezFairerengstrom6147Tied
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:70