The Instigator
jlmealer
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
tunafish316
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Anti Competitive behaviour

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: 7/11/2010 Category: Technology
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,179 times Debate No: 12527
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

jlmealer

Con

This is coming from a businessman and non liberal leaning man, so please read on and bear with me.

Here's the deal:
New US based alternative fuel powered automaker (Mealer Companies LLC) is interfered with and funding blocked by GM and GMAC on June 9th, 2009 just after the big GM failure and BK.

GM-GMAC intentionally interfere with and block Mealer funding for expansion and the capability for massive business growth in the automotive field. The GMAC connection is their secure ISP located at GMAC HQ in Detroit... And of course, the new GMAC and ResCap "...aggressive debtor collection techniques..." that they so proudly tout.

This is wrong as it was done illegally and at the same time, GMAC owned the title to Mealer's home and is forcing a legal foreclosure which was obtained through unlawful methods.

Let's hear views, both for and against a gov't funded mega corporation who crushes a smaller company MFG similar items. (Both automobiles in this instance).

This is currently a civil case getting ready to kick into high gear...

Also, since the US Treasury is funding the mega corps, where might their liability lay once they have been given notice of the misapplication of their bail-out funds?
tunafish316

Pro

Due to my adversary's ambiguous contention, I could only deduce that his main argument is that business competition is wrong. (for his title is based on anti-competitive behavior, and he stands on the negative of such actions.)
Therefore, I affirm that competitive behavior is acceptable if not essential to the survival and welfare of one's wellbeing in the business world.

My basic argument is that in a global and national marketplace where numerous businesses offer relatively similar products and strive toward a unified goal of fiscal success, competition on any level is necessary. My opponent claims without any valid support, that the government had supported major automobile corporations to illegitimately hold onto their market supremacy. Because of the lack of evidence I can only contend with his other claim, morality in the business world.

Although morality is an important virtue, it cannot be deemed the chief motivator nor the persuading force in the battle for fiscal success. Although many businesses boastfully claim their advocacy to follow a fiscal agenda that incorporates moral rectitude's as well as a sharp business mind, all of these claims are just merely smokes and mirrors.

One example is the famous 99 cent stores. After looking at many online sources that offer help to new 99 cent entrepreneurs, the first crucial step that they emphasize is meticulous combing of neighborhoods to find the ideal place to set up shop. This is a sugared down way of saying look for areas where citizens are unable to afford the standard pricing and standard commodities offered to the middle class and upper class. Therefore these stores, although they claim to offer affordable pricing and vital sustenance to the lower class, are fully cognizant of their demographic exploitation. Therefore, morality is impossible to uphold in a competitive business world. Thank you, I fully expect a great debate.

Sources: http://www.koleimports.com...
Debate Round No. 1
jlmealer

Con

Pure competition is great in all aspects, HOWEVER, the larger automaker intentionally crushed the funding aspects of the smaller automakers when in fact, the larger automaker had an additional advantage of owning the very bank that held the mortgage to the smaller automakers private home and forced foreclosure to further interfere in competition.

If this were a simple case of my car is built better than your car, the solution is simple and it becomes competitive in sales and customer relations. As stated earlier, the larger automaker and bank and mortgage company who is receiving US Taxpayer funding stepped on the underdog and stole the business owners home, while never allowing the prototype alternative fuel powered vehicle to become funded and a competitive issue.

This is comparable to a kindergarten school teacher walking up to the new school and finding the doors locked and the police on the way to arrest the new teacher because the rival teacher's union lied and told everyone that this new teacher was a child molester and that several small children that disappeared over the years were due to misconduct by the new teacher.
tunafish316

Pro

After reviewing my opponent's case, he seems to be stressing the importance of morality and an ethical outlook on how businesses should be enforced and run. Although these are great notions and pleasant thoughts, the reality, however, is the total anti-thesis of anything remotely endearing.
Again I cannot stress that morality/ethics cannot coincide with fiscal matters. Although businesses have tried, when scrutinized they become pathetic masquerades of fake generosity and benevolence. Just as how one could mix salt and pepper together in a bottle and shake it generously, it can never become a homogeneous mixture. Similarly, morality and business cannot be fused together, making it a failed expenditure if attempted.
I see no wrong in how the major automobile companies responded to such a threat. They simply used their assets available to them to facilitate their supremacy in the global and national market. Although this may seem ruthless, it is an inevitable fact of business. There is neither room nor time for sympathy or compassion. There is no such thing as fair play in business.
If my opponent explicitly stated their main argument it would be appreciated. What exactly are we debating? And Sources of your information would be nice because surfing the web, praying for pertinent information can be quite ambiguous and arduous at times.
Debate Round No. 2
jlmealer

Con

jlmealer forfeited this round.
tunafish316

Pro

tunafish316 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
jlmealer

Con

jlmealer forfeited this round.
tunafish316

Pro

tunafish316 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
jlmealer

Con

jlmealer forfeited this round.
tunafish316

Pro

tunafish316 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
If you ever come back... It's not a draw because one person dropped out, all you needed to do was write "Extend all arguments" in the remaining rounds to win.
Posted by tunafish316 6 years ago
tunafish316
Should my opponent fail to respond within the time limit, what happens? does the outcome close to a draw?
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
Sources would be nice.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
This is more of a forum than a debate imo.
Posted by Volkov 6 years ago
Volkov
Yeah, jlmealer, if you can, I would reword this. I think I get the jist of it, but its a very confusing resolution and/or argument. Could you make it a tad clearer?
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
Good, I wasn't the only one..
Posted by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
I too found this very hard to understand. Apparently a large automotive company is doing something against a smaller company that the OP believes is wrong or illegal. I can't really tell much for sure about what's being said.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
There is no resolution to debate, the opening statement is incomprehensible (What has an Internet Service Provider have to do with funding?), and there are no references to any factual material that might make it comprehensible.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
jlmealertunafish316Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: FAIL DEBATE, as both sides dropped out... (checking the voting period debates, from Least To Most votes. By giving this one, it won't be prioritized in the system anymore.)