The Instigator
MitchyMill
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Cobo
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Business should be allowed to discriminate against whomever they wish in the private sector

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...
Cobo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,526 times Debate No: 14246
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

MitchyMill

Pro

By "discrimination" i refer to Wikipedia's definition; "the prejudicial treatment of an individual based solely on their membership in a certain group or category".

Begin! :D
Cobo

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for this debate today.

And Secondly I would like to wish him good luck.

Now since my opponent has used Wikipedia definitions I will use them as well, to make it that there no biased definitions.

Business-A business (also known as company, enterprise, or firm) is a legally recognized organization designed to provide goods, services, or both to consumers or tertiary business in exchange for money. Businesses are predominant in capitalist economies, in which most businesses are privately owned and typically formed to earn profit that will increase the wealth of its owners.

Private Sector-In economics, the private sector is that part of the economy which is run by private individuals or groups, usually as a means of enterprise for profit.

I will also use my Opponents definition of Discrimination.

I now await my opponents opening arguments, and again wish him the best of luck.

Sources-
Business-http://en.wikipedia.org...
Private Sector-http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
MitchyMill

Pro

Intro: Most self-appointed spokesmen for "oppressed" groups love to blame the free market for the "inequities" of modern society. Were it not for benevolent government intervention, these people claim, lacks would still use separate water fountains and women would serve only as nurses and teachers. Yet, as with most anti-capitalist myths one will see that the true situation is precisely the opposite: the market contains powerful incentives for employers to make objective decisions based on merit, while government agencies face no such constraints.

1: The free market has a "racist fee". Example, an employer who refuses to hire, sell to, or deal with blacks, Hispanics, Jews, women, Catholics, or any other group would be harming himself, limiting his market and shrinking his own pool of available talent and hence of productive managers and workers. Example: If an employer has an opening that pays $50,000 in salary, and the Christian applicant will bring in $51,000 in extra revenue to the firm while the Muslim applicant will bring $55,000, then to discriminate against the latter will cost the employer $4,000 in potential profits. (The employer will make $1,000 by hiring the Christian but $5,000 by hiring the Muslim). No government inspector or watchdog agency is required: by definition, discrimination is automatically "fined" in the free market.
2: The scenario that a businessman could make profit by catering to prejudices held by his costumers is untrue. If a restaurateur knows that many of his costumer would object to being served by a black waitress, and that they would act on this prejudice by taking their business elsewhere. Then it would seem that it would be ore profitable (assuming he had no fear of lawsuits or government fins) for him to hire a less-qualified white women for the job. But in cases like this the free market (even absent government fines) still punishes discrimination. Only this time the costumer pays the "racist fee". The costumer pays extra (in the form of inferior service) to be served by a white waitress who is worse at her job than a better-qualified black candidate.
3: "Affirmative Action" is not a remedy for racial and sexual discrimination.

[Affirmative Action is when employers must strive to ensure that qualified minorities and women are considered for hiring or promotions]

Most proponents of affirmative action are quick to distinguish it from quotas. The law doesn't require that choose a less-qualified black applicant for a job, only that a firm make every effort to make sure there isn't an equally qualified black applicant before hiring the white guy. Despite this, however, experience has shown that the easiest way for a company to demonstrate ts commitment to affirmative action (and defend itself from lawsuits) is to hire in proportion to the racial mix of the surrounding community. Thus the zealous effort to alleviate past injustices has led to the institutionalization of genuine racial and sexual discrimination. Ironically, affirmative action hurts the very groups it is supposed to help. Every time a black or other protected minority is hired or promoted, the surly white males who were passed over can blame it on affirmative action, even if the decision was purely on merit. Minorities can be turned into failures by being mismatched with a position. Just like a student can be mismatched with their college.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But the problem isn't with the arguments above. Unfortunately the US nor any other country has an entirely market, and so we can't count on market forces to eradicate the unjust problem that offends most people. It is a mystery to me why leftist trust government to reform an unjust society. After all, any prejudices harbored by the people at large will be reflected in the government officials they elect. The only difference is that bureaucrats don't face the same free market penalties that employers (or costumers) do for following their prejudices. By the same token, kickbacks and other forms of corruption are far more dangerous in government than in the private sector, because shareholders have far more incentives than do congressmen to detect waste, fraud, and abuse.
Cobo

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

First an observation (A guideline if you will)
The Resolution states private not public Sector- I would like to make it clear than we are talking about private sector and not Public sector, this is not a comparison between the two. The resolution only has to do with private sector. So anything in my opponent's case that talks about Government agencies and such should be null a void when doing voters judges.

Intro-Private sector-In economics, the private sector is that part of the economy which is run by private individuals or groups, usually as a means of enterprise for profit
Now let's talk profit. If you noticed in my definition of Private sector and my definition of Business you will find they both talk about profit, And making a profit.
In the business world you want to MAXIMIZE your ability to prosper (Basically making a profit) this is what my case revolves around.

Point 1-Best of the Best
Now Discrimination is "the prejudicial treatment of an individual based solely on their membership in a certain group or category"
In My opponents Case (Which I will address after mine) States some applicants get passed over others with discrimination. BUT in a world focused primarily on business, wouldn't you want the most profit?
Why not bypass that racist "fee" and focus on the money? Instead of thinking on your feelings why not think objectively.
Also I would like my opponent to know it is ILLEGAL to for an employer to ask for a religion on an application.
Employers want the things that will make them happy like a 5k profit, not things like religion. And it will maximize their ability to prosper

Point 2-Discrimination incites violence.
Let's go back to the late 50's early 60's.
"On February 1, 1960, four students Ezell A. Blair Jr. (now known as Jibreel Khazan), David Richmond, Joseph McNeil, and Franklin McCain from North Carolina Agricultural & Technical College, an all-black college, sat down at the segregated lunch counter to protest Woolworth's policy of excluding African Americans. These protesters were encouraged to dress professionally, to sit quietly, and to occupy every other stool so that potential white sympathizers could join in. The sit-in soon inspired other sit-ins in Richmond, Virginia; Nashville, Tennessee; and Atlanta, Georgia.
As students across the south began to "sit-in" at the lunch counters of a few of their local stores, local authority figures sometimes used brute force to physically escort the demonstrators from the lunch facilities."

Enough said, right. When you exclude someone from anything they'll have a natural disposition to get mad.

Simple Example-
1.Timmy goes to playground
2.Timmy wants to play baseball with other kids
3.Other kids won't let Timmy play
4.Timmy shamefully goes away, wondering with anger why didn't they let him play

You see even in basic forms discrimination incites violence.
Discrimination DOES NOT Maximize a business ability to prosper. It only causes companies to go out of business from boycotts and such. BUT if a Company thinks objectively and without feelings than it will surely hire the best of the best (Point 1) and the people that will give it a profit in the long run.

Now on to my Opponents Case-

Intro-My opponent says that if businesses think objectively that they discriminate. Well I disagree. If Business thinks objectively than they rule out there feelings for a race appease to reason.

Point 1-Racist Fee
For Starters I would like to cross this point with my Point 1 and 2.
Now thinking objectively and being rational, you will clearly see that you could make profit or get a person mad at you.
Also I would like my opponent to know it is ILLEGAL to for an employer to ask for a religion on an application. The want to know if you can give them a PROFIT. That's what BUSINESSES were created for.

Point 2- The scenario that a businessman could make profit by catering to prejudices held by his costumers is untrue.
Then why do it? Honestly, this is a Con point. It takes everything the Con is trying to get at and even gives an example, to why discrimination does not work in the private sector. Business were created for profit, if you lose 1 or two customers that is okay, especially when you gain better service and more people coming in as result.

Point 3-Affirmative Action
Affirmative Action only takes place in the public sector such as, Universities, Schools and Government agencies. According to my observation than that cannot be valued this round.

Summary-The Con has proved that Discrimination in the private sector cannot occur, and leads to NOT MAXIMIZING your ability to prosper, Starting violence and taking a company out of business.
The Pro has proved that a Business (Something that was started for profit) ultimately pays for being discriminate. He has also proved you can't make profit for being discriminate. And lastly proved he doesn't know what Affirmative action is.
So really this round so far has proven discrimination BAD, not GOOD.

I await my opponent's next arguments, and thank him for this opportunity to debate with him.
Debate Round No. 2
MitchyMill

Pro

MitchyMill forfeited this round.
Cobo

Con


Pro Dropped all arguements.
Please vote Con this round
Debate Round No. 3
MitchyMill

Pro

MitchyMill forfeited this round.
Cobo

Con

As You can clearly See, there is no reason for me to even restate my opponents arguments.
So Judges Please vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by BillBonJovi 5 years ago
BillBonJovi
I think the reason MitchyMill de-activated his account was because I defeated him in my Ronald McDonald Debate.
I think the guy wanted a zero-debate-loss record...
Posted by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
Lol. 1 day until it closes.
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
Forfeits = straight vote.
Posted by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
I'll get my case and rebuttal posted tommorow
Posted by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
And Some def's. 1000 charcters Max.
And then I'll let you put up your points.
Posted by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
So. I'll just do an intro first round, alrighty?
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
You can edit the wording since it hasnt been accepted yet.
Posted by MitchyMill 6 years ago
MitchyMill
Sorry i spelled "Businesses" incorrectly
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Dakota-Hiltzman 6 years ago
Dakota-Hiltzman
MitchyMillCoboTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: MitchyMill forfeited
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
MitchyMillCoboTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit, even then argument was in Con's favor.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
MitchyMillCoboTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
MitchyMillCoboTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03