The Instigator
Pokemonzr
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Daltonian
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

Ban Tipping!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Daltonian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,678 times Debate No: 55461
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)

 

Pokemonzr

Pro

Hello, and welcome to the debate on the topic 'Ban Tipping!'

Structure:
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Refutations/Main Arguments
Round 3: Refutations/Main Arguments/New Arguments (Optional)
Round 4: Refutations/Overlook (No new arguments)

Rules:
1. Don't troll.
2. No harsh language.
3. Don't troll.
4. Take this seriously.
5. Don't troll.

I eagerly await an opponent to debate this topic with and am much looking forward to it. I wish my opponent luck!
Daltonian

Con

I accept, and am clueless as to what your argument could be! Good luck!

*Please note that I may not produce a rebuttal immediately, I may be busy.
Debate Round No. 1
Pokemonzr

Pro

To start out, I would like to narrow this topic.

Narrow: We should ban tipping in restaurants.

I would now like to present my initial arguments.

Argument 1:
Restaurants should ban tipping because tipping actually harms the service of the workers. The reasoning is that although many believe that people tip more based upon service quality, they actually tip about the same regardless of service, based on their own personal habits. However, pooling the cash gotten from the automatic tip, like we stated in our plan, would actually increase the amount of money the servers got. Anybody who"s ever worked as a waiter or bartender knows you can boost your income at least two ways: by earning bigger tips (whatever it takes to do that), and by turning over your customers faster through speedy service, which means you'll get more customers and therefore more tips. Sure, there are flaws in this system. Tip-starved waiters, for instance, might rush customers and degrade their dining experience (which, incidentally, would degrade their tips, too). And on busy days some waiters could take more tables than they're able to handle, impacting service for everybody.R32;E- Jay Porter, the owner of a San Diego farm-to-table restaurant called The Linkery, actually had allowed tipping for the first two years of his restaurant's business. However, they later added in an 18% automatic tip. Their waiting service improved, their revenue went up, and the business and employees alike made more money. (http://qz.com...) This is important because one of the goals of tipping is to provide an incentive for the waiters to give better service, but in fact, it does exactly the opposite. Banning tipping will help both the servers and the business owners.

Argument 2:
Tipping should be banned because some people tip more than others do. By some families tipping more than others, wait staff receive a different amount of payment. At Panera, they stopped allowing customers to tip because they felt that the customers were tipping too much or too little for certain servers. This caused an imbalance in the overall amount of money they received because people went out of their boundaries. Something like this could cause employee and management issues. By banning tipping entirely, every member of that wait staff receives a small bonus that would "compensate" for the tips they might have received. This makes it so that people can't extravagantly (or meagerly) tip the wait staff and makes it just. In the end, it is a win-win situation.R32;

Argument 3:
Tipping should be banned in restaurants because tipping is subsidizing restaurants. This is because restaurants are relying on the customers to tip the waiters for them to make minimum wage. Michael Dunn, a Professor at Cornell University (no, not the guy who shot a black kid for having his music too loud), estimates that 40 billion dollars a year is given in tips in the United States. The federal "tip credit" allows restaurants to pay their employees as little as $2.13 per hour. By having the customers give tip it brings the waiters hourly pay to minimum wage. Basically, this makes the customers co-employers to the waiters and waitresses through their tipping. The impact of this is that the customers should not have to pay for the waiter or waitresses income because they are not the employers.

Conclusion:
Tipping should be banned because:
1. It harms the service of restaurant employees, affecting you and your meal.
2. Some people tip more than others not because of service quality, making unfair wages in restaurants.
3. Tipping is subsidizing restaurants.

Good luck Con!
Daltonian

Con

Thank you for your points, Pro. I will now do my best to refute them, and then respond with points of my own.

Refute 1 - Paradox
Many people do tip the same regardless of service, and they have the right to do so. If servers usually make the same tip regardless of service, how could a waiter be tip-starved in the first place? This is a paradox in itself.


As I will say below, the individual faults of waiters who make a bad judgement call and take more tables than necessary do not reflect on the entire system.

Refute 2 - Fault the faulted, not the system
Saying that tipping should be banned because some waiters received more than others is based on no premise. This would allow for genuinely worse servers to take away money earned from the servers who actually worked hard to earn their tip (not just the ones who "rushed" the customer). The individual faults of servers are the faults of the servers themselves do not apply to the entire tipping system and those who can make advantage of it properly.

Refute 3 - Remove the Federal Tip Credit
I agree that tipping has become subsidized, but disagree on the method of solving the problem. This issue could be solved just as easily by rather, paying the waiters and waitresses the minimum wage like everybody else, and then add on the individual bonuses that they earned as courtesies of the customer. The issue here is the federal tip credit, not tipping itself.


Now, I will move on to my argument:

In Defense of Tipping
- My argument here will largely revolve around the civil liberty of the customer to give a tip, the wait staff to accept the tip, and of the business to allow the tip.

- Tips can be, and if they cannot, then should be, interpreted as separate sums of money transferred from customer to staff as a show of gratitude for their kindness. Whether this is effective or not (which I believe it is), a customer is allowed to do as they please. And if someone wishes to reward a presumably in need wait staff for treating them kindly through monetary funds, then that is their constitutional right to do so.
- A ban on tipping is not legislatively plausible. The amount of funds it would take to forcibly change the system, and the amount of funds necessary to insure that restaurants are actually obeying by the new ban would end up beating the entire point of the reform.

- Tipping has the potential to motivate staff to act properly. Most staff will realize, under a tipping system, that if they are fundamentally rude to a customer, or ignorant of them, that they will not receive a good tip, which composes an extra profit for them. However, if they are certain that they will receive a pay equivalent to someone who did truly work for it regardless of their performance, they will have no reason to work as hard.

Example of above, directly from source: "Jay Porter, the California restaurateur, generated a lot of feedback when he wrote in favor of tipless restaurants last year, claiming, among other things, that “the quality of our service improved” after tipping went away. A local critic disagreed, pointing out that Porter’s restaurant failed and closed in 2013, partly because of “quirky, poorly trained service staff [who] waited tables in an off-the-cuff style that appealed to few patrons, according to reviews.”

I await your rebuttal! :) Good luck!


Debate Round No. 2
Pokemonzr

Pro

Con, I admire your refutation and argumentative skills, however I will take a stab at refuting them. :/

Refutations to Refutations:

1. My opponent's refutation:
"Many people do tip the same regardless of service, and they have the right to do so. If servers usually make the same tip regardless of service, how could a waiter be tip-starved in the first place? This is a paradox in itself.

As I will say below, the individual faults of waiters who make a bad judgement call and take more tables than necessary do not reflect on the entire system."

I disagree with this. First of all, let's look at the definition of a paradox. A paradox is a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) But let's look at what the real paradox is here: tipping. Tipping is self-contradictory and absurd since allows racism (proved later in my arguments), decreases service quality, and is subsidizing restaurants. What was tipping's purpose? To award servers for good service, but it does not do this at all, and contradicts itself, thereby making it a paradox. And it does express a possible truth: that we should ban tipping.

Secondly, I disagree with this because my opponent stated that many people do tip the same regardless of service. This is conceding my point, since the point was that it harms worker service. If many people do tip the same, as my opponent and I both agree on, then waiters and waitresses are not receiving awards and encouragement, but rather receiving meaningless money that does not promote good service. Also, at the end, they stated that a local critic disagreed with Porter; I believe this was expanding on this refutation. Sure, one local critic, one contradicting opinion. It's not a huge deal. If you want another example where the restaurant did not indeed close, look at Sushi Yasuda, a New York City Japanese restaurant that banned tipping. Because of this tipping ban, the restaurant raised the employee's wages to $15 an hour (tipped salary minimum wage is $2.31 an hour), so employees are making a steady pay and not dependent on tips. Also, service quality increased and customers were happier because the pressure of a tip was eliminated. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)

So voters, through this refutation, I have proved that tipping is a paradox, and that banning tipping will be beneficial.

2. My opponent says this argument is based on no premise. I disagree. The premise this is based on is causing a wrongful imbalance in waiters and waitresses' salaries for no apparent reason. Also, my opponent states that "the individual faults of servers are the faults of the servers themselves and do not apply to the entire tipping system", but let's take a look at this. The individual faults of servers, meaning bad service, do not apply to the entire tipping system. But it does. It applies to the entire system because it shows how unjust and immoral tipping is.

3. In this refutation, my opponent concedes that tipping has subsidized restaurants, but disagrees that banning tipping is the correct method. He says that the solution is "paying the waiters and waitresses the minimum wage like everybody else, and then add on the individual bonuses as they earned as courtesies of the customer." Looks like this is banning tipping to me. If we ban tipping, we pay the waiters a baseline salary, like $15 an hour in Sushi Yasuda vs. a measly $2.31 an hour tipped wage. So, he is correct on that, we pay them a minimum wage, which we already do. Add on individual bonuses earned as courtesies of the customer, correct. Bonuses such as the satisfaction of good service, bonuses such as a smile on the customer's face, and bonuses such as the feeling of good karma when a person compliments you on your service, but cannot any longer leave you an immoral tip. Also, I believe I have proved well enough through my arguments and refutations, that banning tipping is indeed the solution.

Refutations to Arguments:

1.My opponent's whole case revolves around how good tipping is, and how it is a reward for good service. But how is it a reward for good service if it harms the service? Also, my opponent has already agreed with me in his refutations that most people do not tip based on service, and tip their normal amounts no matter how good or bad the service is. So he himself even agrees with something that goes against his own arguments, and therefore contradicts himself heavily.

2.My opponent states that banning tipping what take funds, but what funds? If we pass a law saying tipping isn't needed anymore, there are no funds involved except the restaurant owners not ripping off their employees and paying them a decent salary.

Main Arguments:

I have a new argument that I would like to present, but before I would like to add additional evidence onto the already existing first argument.

Argument 1:
According to Michael Lynn and Michael J. Sturman from Cornell University, customers typically do not vary their tip based on services. They tip more or less the same every time. In turn, the waiters and waitresses realize that service quality isn't necessarily an important thing; however, what does make a difference in their pay is the number of tables they visit, thus decreasing service quality even further.

And now, for my new argument.

Argument 4:
Tipping should be banned because it perpetuates racism, sexism, and other unjustifiable opinions. This is because people put in the their own personal biases into giving someone a tip. A server working at a Red Lobster restaurant in an affluent suburb of Nashville, Tennessee claims she was subjected to a racist jibe after customers allegedly left the words 'none ni**er' in the tip section of the check. (http://gawker.com...) Tori Christina Jenkins, who is 19, was in the middle of her shift at the seafood restaurant in Franklin and serving a couple of customers who racked up a $45 bill during their afternoon meal. When the time came to pay the check, Miss Jenkins, who is training to be a nurse, says she found the racist insult written on the couple's receipt. Secondly evidence-wise, http://www.huffingtonpost.com... states that a French waitress said that the tips she got depended on her choice of clothes. Also, according to http://www.psychologytoday.com..., women with bigger breasts were tipped substantially more. This impacts society because tipping is promoting the thought of racism, sexism, and other biases, something that the US is not okay with. People who are discriminated against are mistreated. The founders of America promised equality, so the US should follow this promise.

Conclusion:
Tipping should be banned because:
1. It is a paradox.
2. My opponent agrees with key elements that justify the ban.
3. My opponent lives in a fantasy land where tipping is all good, whereas in the real world, the bad outweighs the good of tipping.
4. A tipping ban will make scumbag restaurant owners rightfully increase well-deserving servers' wages.
5. Tipping harms the services of restaurant employers, which ultimately affects you.
6. Some people unjustly tip more than others not because of service quality, making unfair wages.
7. Tipping is subsidizing restaurants.
8. Tipping promotes racism, sexism, and biases.

So, for the reasons I have stated, I believe that I have won this debate so far.

I eagerly await Con's arguments.
Daltonian

Con

Thank you, Pro, and now I will attempt to refute yours :) Please do not take offense to any of what I say.

1 - Subject of Paradox
Here, whether intentionally or not, my opponent has attempted to manipulate my argument into representing his side of the debate whilst ignoring the essence of what it was.

I conceded that many people do tip the same regardless of service - but not all, nor the majority. Additionally, I think the majority of people, rather, tip with a black or white tip approach - meaning that if the service was bad, they tip “x” or do not tip, and if the service was good (no matter how good), they tip “y”.

My argument about paradoxes did not refer to tipping as my opponent would wish it did, but rather to my opponent’s argument: my opponent claims that all or most people tip regardless of service.

P1: All people tip the same regardless of service.
P2: Tip starved waiters perform worse.

The average tip in the United States is 15% (source below), which is not an immodest amount.

So, if all people tip the same regardless of service, then how could a waiter ever be tip starved? If all people tip 15%, then a waiter would never be short on tips unless there is a shortening in the influx of customers. And if there is a shortage in customers, then logically there is no need to rush faster.

So, henceforth, the remarks about a paradox were referring to my opponent’s argument being logically impossible, not tipping in general.

Tipping can therefore not decrease service quality under my opponent’s logic, and it is the Federal Tip Credit that is subsidizing restaurants - NOT tipping. There is a major difference between the federal tip credit and tipping, as I will demonstrate below.

2 - My opponent claims that when a server makes a mistake, all other servers should have to account for them, and that individual mistakes do reflect the system and show that they are immoral, yet he simply fails to explain how. How does it show how immoral and unjust tipping are?

3 - “Tipping” is defined as: Giving a small sum of money to someone for performing a service; giving a gratuity.

The Federal Tip Credit is a reduction in the minimum wage of Waiters/Waitresses.

Therefore, banning the Federal Tip Credit is not equivalent to banning tipping.

“Individual bonuses that are courtesies of the customer” are still small sums of money given to a waiter for performing a task, are they not? Banning Tipping would constitute banning the transmission of funds from a customer specifically to a waiter and assuring that the only funds the waiter receives for their services are their wage, which I disagree with, and with what the Pro is advocating for - as long as ANY money is being transmitted from customer to waiter for the services involved, it is tipping.


4. Here, my opponent demonstrates his desperateness in attempting to correlate tipping to racism. Citing three individual cases of racism associated tipping proves no correlation between tipping and racism whatsoever. This is a classic example of a “Texas Sharpshooter” fallacy, and of a lack of understanding of what racism is.

Racists exist, and they will use whatever platform necessary to exhibit their racism.

Refute A to Argument 4) Blaming a platform because a racist exploits it to develop opinions is unfounded. If my opponent claims that tipping should be banned because it can be used as a platform to perpetuate discrimination, then he must also support that usage of the Internet should be banned because it can be used as a platform to perpetuate discrimination.

“Blame a racist for his racist writings; not the pencil he writes them with.”

Refute B to Argument 4) By all technicality, under the protection of the First Amendment of the United States constitution, racists are protected and thus there is nothing that can be done to prevent them from doing so. According to the law, one must pay the fine and thus the worker being discriminated against’s wage, but he is not legally mandated to pay anything additional, and if his reason for that is associated with race/sex/etc, he has the legal right to say so no matter how vulgar or ugly it is.

5. Since the federal tip credit is NOT tipping, by banning tipping you would have to legally enforce waiters to deny tips. The only possible way to insure that additional funds are not transacted from customer to waiter would to literally set up an “anti-tipping enforcement system”. How do you plan from preventing pro-tipping waiters and businesses from stopping their conduct, other than investing millions/billions in forcing them to stop?

Conclusion:
1. All non-mandated transferring of funds from customer to waiter ARE tipping.
2. The Federal Tip Credit can be banned independently of banning tipping, they are not one in the same. It is the Federal Tip Credit that is subsidizing tip credit.
3. My opponent has failed to provide facts that were not paradoxical or manipulations behind his assertion that the bad outweighs the goods.
4. A tipping ban will not make scumbag restaurant owners rightfully increase well-deserving servers' wages, it will only lower the amount paid to the server to $2.34 an hour, the minimum wage. A ban of the Federal Tip Credit would do this, not tipping.
5. Racists promote racism, sexism, and biases, not tipping.


Since Pro has failed to uphold his burden of proof as to why a non-tipping system would be better than the one we have now, other than with paradoxes and misconceptions about what the Federal Tip credit is, I believe I have won this debate so far.

Back to you! Best of luck!

Sources:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
http://www.tripadvisor.com...;
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
Pokemonzr

Pro

Now in the final round, it is my job to refute arguments, emphasize my arguments, weigh the debate, and explain to you, voters, why I have won this debate.

First off is refuting.

Refutations to Refutations:

1. The paradox has surprisingly become one of the major parts of this debate. But I will explain why I win on this point. First off, I did not "attempt" to manipulate my opponent's argument; I did manipulate it, and it worked, however my opponent does not explain properly why my attempt went sour. Secondly, he admits to concede that many people tip the same regardless of service, however did not concede that not all nor the majority do, however many is synonymous with majority, therefore meaning that my opponent conceded to that point. Thirdly, he said that people tip with a black or white tip approach, and I agree, they tip more if the waitress or waiter is white and less if the waitress or waiter is black. Therefore, I have won this argument.

2. I do not claim that when a server makes a mistake, all other servers have to account for them. This is a misconstrued statement made by my opponent to falsely poke holes in my case, clearly showing that he is so desperate as to simply make up something I said, and should be disregarded by you, voters. Also, I did not state that the individual mistakes reflect the system and that this shows how it is immoral; I simply stated that tipping is immoral and should be banned and have explained how in many cases.

3. Banning the Federal Tip Credit is not the solution; banning tipping is.

4. In response to my racism argument, my opponent says that I demonstrate my desperateness in correlating tipping to racism. However, I disagree, since I am not desperate to prove that tipping is an outlet for racism; it has been proved, and my opponent tries to personally attack me instead of providing a proper refutation to this at first. Also, my opponent has misconstrued my argument thinking that I say that tipping is racist, however my argument is "Tipping should be banned because it perpetuates racism, sexism, and other unjustifiable opinions." So let's take a look at this argument. First off, my opponent decides only to attack 1/4 of this argument, providing a refutation that simply should not pass. Secondly, I have proved through evidence that tipping is indeed racist, with specific examples of people leaving tips with notes with sexist biases. Since my opponents think that this evidence is not strong enough, however he completely ignores the evidence supporting the sexism and other biases in this argument, the "Big Breasts = Larger Waitress Tips" article. Also, he brings up a quote with no source or name of the person who said it, so my opponent is desperate enough to make up a quite and try to sound ingenious when all he is is a person who uses made-up evidence and criticizes me based on a texas-sharpshooter fallacy. Now for the final part of this refutation. In his refutations B, he says that racists are protected under the first amendment. I don't disagree with this, but he isn't seeing the big picture. Tipping is one of the major outlets for racism, so by banning tipping, we will be taking a key step to eliminate racism that has been frowned upon for years by the United States. Therefore, I believe that I have won on this portion of the debate.

5.Let's look my opponent's #5 refutation. My opponent provides us with a false dichotomy, saying that "the only possible way to ensure that additional funds are not transacted from customer to waiter would to literally set up an 'anti-tipping enforcement system'", however this is not the only choice that we have, creating this a false dichotomy. There are many more choices that we can take, such as using our police force as an "anti-tipping enforcement system", which would not be a practical option. Rather, I believe that we should not have to set up an 'anti-tipping enforcement system', however there should be a way to find waitresses who take tips, since they are illegally taking money, and fine them. The crime, however, does not suit the punishment of jail time. But, my job as Pro is not to provide a way that we can punish tippers and waitresses who accept tips, it's simply to prove that banning tipping is what we should do. Therefore, my opponent has thrown a red herring at me that I will not let slip by.

6. In my opponent's conclusion, he states "A tipping ban will not make scumbag restaurant owners rightfully increase well-deserving servers' wages, it will only lower the amount paid to the server to $2.34 an hour, the minimum wage. A ban of the Federal Tip Credit would do this, not tipping." However, he is wrong, since the minimum wage of $2.13 an hour is a minimum wage with tips. There is a reason why we have the federal minimum wage. Waiters and waitresses, with a tipping ban, will be paid the minimum wage for their state or even higher in restaurants, therefore earning more money than they did through the wrongful process known as tipping.

7. In the end of my opponent's round 3, he states that "Since Pro has failed to uphold his burden of proof as to why a non-tipping system would be better than the one we have now, other than with paradoxes and misconceptions about what the Federal Tip credit is, I believe I have won this debate so far.", however I disagree, since my burden of proof is simply why we should ban tipping. My opponent is trying to thrust a new BoP on me in the final round, which should be the reason why he loses this debate considering this is a wrongful thing to do. Also, I will explain more on why I have won this debate in contradiction to this statement later.

The following will be a list of my arguments with evidence, however because of the character limit I cannot put entire arguments, only assertions and links, however the full arguments can be found in previous rounds.

Argument 1: Restaurants should ban tipping because tipping actually harms the service of the workers. http://qz.com.... https://www.youtube.com....

Argument 2: Tipping should be banned because some people tip more than others do.

Argument 3: Tipping should be banned in restaurants because tipping is subsidizing restaurants.

Argument 4: Tipping should be banned because it perpetuates racism, sexism, and other unjustifiable opinions.

Weighing:

So voters, let me weigh this debate for you. On my opponent's side, he fails to bring up evidence, tries to refute by using personal attacks instead of proper evidence, and completely ignores gigantic parts of my arguments in order to knit a refutation easy for him to use, and even conceded to a point. He tries to win by thrusting a BoP on me in the last round, and drops his arguments in the third round. His arguments are that all people tip the same regardless of service, and that tip-starved waiters perform worse, which have clearly been disproven by me. On my side, I have four strong arguments that prove why tipping should be banned and solid refutations disproving everything my opponent has said.

Why I have Won:

I have won this debate because my opponent, (1) has invalid evidence, (2) uses personal attacks instead of proper refuting, (3) drops his arguments in the third round, and (4) ignores large chunks of my fourth argument. Also, I have won this debate because (1) I have solid arguments, (2) I have solid evidence, (3) I have solid refutations, and (4) I don't thrust a BoP on my opponent in the last round.

So voters, go with the right choice, and ban tipping!

Vote Pro.
Daltonian

Con

I am no longer comfortable debating this topic with pro, and forfeit the last round.

If you are curious enough for reasons as to why I am no longer comfortable debating this topic, see the comments.

Because of this, Pro will likely win the debate, as it is my fault that I am uncomfortable in defending my character through what was originally intended to be a friendly debate. Had I known I would be forced to do so, I would not have accepted the debate... sorry for wasting anyone's time in that regard.

One thing that I would ask, however, is that conduct points do not automatically go to Pro because of this.. as I largely disagree with Pro's conduct in the previous round and I believe he largely disagrees with mine in round 3, and wish that the only part of our conduct that is to be judged would be our behaviour in-debate.

Thank you for reading. :)
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Daltonian 3 years ago
Daltonian
I apologize for my comments about desperateness - my comments about manipulations were perhaps phrased in a way that could incite confusion (when I said 'manipulate', I meant that you twisted my argument back at me to serve your side of the debate). I think you understood it in this context as well, as you even conceded that you did indeed 'twist/manipulate' my argument, and that it "worked".

Yet, still, one usage of the word 'desperateness' does not warrant your behaviour, in my opinion.

Your argument in the last round, as pointed out by some of the voters, largely did centre around attacking me rather than attacking my argument (especially in the "Weighting the debate" section).

- "Logically Impossible" is a word that comes up a lot when dealing with things of supposed paradoxical nature, as a paradox in itself is illogical. This was not intended to be an offensive remark.

- I heavily disagree that I threw a new BOP on you in the last round. I am still of the firm belief that the justification of "banning tipping" is synonymous with the justification of "banning tipping would make it better than it currently is".

I like you, Pokemon, and I apologize for my role in personalizing this debate.. but you must realize that you had a very firm role in doing so as well.
Posted by Pokemonzr 3 years ago
Pokemonzr
As a little kid would say:

"HE STARTED IT!!!!!"
Posted by Pokemonzr 3 years ago
Pokemonzr
Daltonian:

I think that what I did was justified considering what you did and even allowing me to do it. I may have taken the personal attacks a little to far, but let me quote some things you said in your argument.

"my opponent has attempted to manipulate my argument into representing his side of the debate whilst ignoring the essence of what it was."

"My argument about paradoxes did not refer to tipping as my opponent would wish it did."

"referring to my opponent"s argument being logically impossible"

"Here, my opponent demonstrates his desperateness in attempting to correlate tipping to racism."

"[my opponent's] lack of understanding of what racism is."

"My opponent has failed to provide facts that were not paradoxical or manipulations behind his assertion that the bad outweighs the goods."

"Since Pro has failed to uphold his burden of proof as to why a non-tipping system would be better than the one we have now, other than with paradoxes and misconceptions about what the Federal Tip credit is, I believe I have won this debate so far."

This last quote was indeed thrusting a new burden of proof on me in the last round. No matter what my opponent says, it will always be this and simply cannot change, whether he meant it or not.

My opponent claims that I called him a dirty, wrongful debater, however I did not. This is an extreme exaggeration of what I said. I simply stated that thrusting a BoP on somebody in the final round is unjust and that my opponent doesn't have the proper evidence backing up my arguments, which he also said about me.

Also, I understand how my opponent feels, so he forfeited in the last round. I did this once, and know that my opponent isn't really hurt because nothing I ever said was in any way hurtful; it was simply debate and something that my opponent also did.

But, if you take a look at my profile, I never use personal attacks in debates. I don't believe that I lost this debate, and that conduct should b
Posted by Progressivist 3 years ago
Progressivist
This is my RFD.

http://cdn-www.i-am-bored.com...

This is a very hard debate to judge, as towards the end, things heated up and the debate seemed to be personalized very quickly.

Both parties made arguments which the other either manipulated or failed to properly refute, like so:
- Con failed to refute Pro's argument about service quality
- Pro failed to refute Con's argument about his argument being paradoxical
- Con was correct in asserting the differences between the Federal Tip Credit and Tipping, and rightfully explaining which one is actually subsidizing restaurants.
- Pro shuts down Con's usage of a false dichotomy.

The hardest part of this debate to judge for me was the "racist" aspect. Pro does go to prove that tipping can be exploited to allow racism, and con refutes in practically saying that almost all things can be exploited to allow racism (he gives a quote from I don't know who about blaming a racist for his writings which fit the situation quite well)

Pro then attacks this quote and Con's saying that he, pro, did not use enough sources, when he could not even be bothered to cite his quote. I disagree with this personally, as I think anonymity isn't a bad thing, but con never did refute this easy point.. because he forfeited.

I will admit I wasn't overly surprised by con's forfeit in the last round, as I was beginning to think that Pro was displaying a little bit of a "Tu Quoque" fallacy in centring his argument around criticizing the actions of Con rather than actually refuting everything in a nice and proper manner.. he largely ignored what Con said about "the internet being able to be exploited", or a "pencil".

So, for those reasons, I am going to give one conduct point to Con.
- Both sides used specific sources of specific occasions
- Both sides made convincing arguments, but began to break down.
- Both sides had good grammar.

It's sad that this had to happen, as the debate was going quite nicely..
Posted by Daltonian 3 years ago
Daltonian
.. forfeit.
Posted by Daltonian 3 years ago
Daltonian
Pro, what you have said in your final argument is much much more assaultive and mean-hearted than anything I ever said (that you manipulated my paradox argument to serve your point).

What I said was not, in any way, meant to be offensive. All that I meant by what I said is that you had manipulated my argument was that you had morphed what I said about your argument being a paradox into serving your side of the debate, which you even admitted you did.

You effectively call me a dirty, wrongful debater who uses unfounded tactics to win his debates, something I never did to you.

When I said, "feel free to do the same to me", I meant that you could argue that I had manipulated your points - not that you could literally just attack my character.

I am *not* thrusting a new BOP on you in the last round, nor did I intend to. I was under the impression that you were arguing that the restaurant industry is better off without tipping (thus justifying a ban on tipping) If so, then it is not a new BOP, and it is genuinely not nice of you to try and portray it as if I am trying to sabotage you, which I honestly think you know I was not trying to do.

I did not cross a line in saying that you had manipulated my argument. I perhaps skirted close to the boundary in calling you 'desperate' (and for that I apologize), but you crossed a line when you insulted my character as a debater.

Very uncalled for. For that reason, I am likely going to let you just win the debate, as the only possible way for me to win at this point would be to centre my argument around defending my conduct and character, which is not what I came to do when I accepted this personal debate, in which "no offensive remarks" was a term of agreement.

.. I do not want to be forced to defend myself as a person, only my arguments. I do not like personalizing things, and I like having fun on here, and your round 5 argument has rendered that impossible for me to do, so for that reason, I will likely fo
Posted by Daltonian 3 years ago
Daltonian
Pokemon: No, I do not mean to say offending things. I would have a whole debate about that too, but alas now is not the time ;)

Looking through your previous debates, I would have to say you have seen much worse than what my rebuttals have to offer you!

I genuinely do apologize if you are offended, but you must realize that none of it is personal, none the less intentional, and it's all in the spirit of debating (I don't believe I've made any attacks to your character, just your argument) Feel free to do the same to me!
Posted by Pokemonzr 3 years ago
Pokemonzr
It's hard not to take offense to some things people say, including some things in your final round, especially when people direct you not to take offense, it generally means that they say offending things and do not want to be blamed for them.
Posted by Daltonian 3 years ago
Daltonian
My apologies, one minor grammatical error here, in the conclusion in round 4:
"the Federal Tip Credit that is subsidizing tip credit."

this is supposed to be "the Federal Tip Credit that is subsidizing tipping."

Sorry!
Posted by Pokemonzr 3 years ago
Pokemonzr
Great.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Progressivist 3 years ago
Progressivist
PokemonzrDaltonianTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: My reasons for decision are in the comments.
Vote Placed by schachdame 3 years ago
schachdame
PokemonzrDaltonianTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Daltonian forfeited the last round. And usually that would result in loosing to me. But if your only strategy is to violently twist your opponents words instead of providing a fair and logical rebuttal based on the content than the challenger has no claim to victory. Both parties showed therefore conduct problems but as everything else for this debate was pretty even, I am basing my decision on the the personal evaluation which fault was worse. Both parties provided sound arguments and presented them convincingly (no proper sources from any side sadly), which is resulting in a tie to me. I don't approve what happened here and I think Pokemonzr's behavior should not be supported.