The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Consumers' right to make informed choices must be protected by law

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 3 votes the winner is...
mongeese
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,104 times Debate No: 12735
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Did you know that many of Britain's biggest and best-known high street chains, including Marks and Spencer (1) and Tesco (2), are owned by Jews? You wouldn't guess it from the names, would you? And there are thousands of other businesses that don't have names that make it immediately apparent that Jews own the company either.

To some people the knowledge that a store is Jewish-owned would not deter them from shopping there, but many potential customers would be concerned that the some of the company's profits might be channelled to Israel to fund illegal Jewish settlements (3) or to finance Jewish terrorist groups such as Kach and Kahane Chai (4).

Now, if customers wished to boycott produce of Israel, they could easily do so because the law requires that all products have the country of origin prominently displayed on the label.

However, if customers wished to boycott pro-Israeli businesses they would be unable to without conducting some extensive research beforehand.

For that reason, Jewish-owned business should be legally required to have a Star of David (5) displayed in a prominent position over the entrance to the premises, rather like these shops in Poland:

http://ww2army.com...

However, in the interest of balance, businesses owned by people of other faiths should have their own religious symbols (6-9) similarly displayed.

In conclusion, consumers have a right to favour certain businesses over others for moral or political reasons, but without the religion of businesses' owners being prominently displayed they are unable to make a properly informed choice and, therefore, the law should be changed to enable them to do so.

Thank you.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) http://www.ifamericansknew.org...
(4) http://electronicintifada.net...
(5) Jewish symbol http://gateway.kwantlen.bc.ca...
(6) Buddhist symbol http://1.bp.blogspot.com...
(7) Christian symbol http://www.haulingforless.com...
(8) Islamic symbol http://www.iup.edu...
(9) Hindu symbol http://www.ancient-symbols.com...
mongeese

Con

I would like to thank brian for starting this debate.

My opponent claims that many people would wish to boycott pro-Israeli businesses. This may be true. However, just because a business is Jewish-owned does NOT mean that its profits are being used to fund Israeli operations, and to assume so is rather unfair to the Jewish business owners. Additionally, I think that the number of people who are concerned about the religion of the owner of a business is slim to none. I think that if they're really all that concerned about the owner's religion, they should just ASK.

A problem with my opponent's proposed law is that it would restrict the right of a man to display his shop in a way that he desires, a subset of the right to the pursuit of hapiness and the right to liberty [1]. A shopkeeper ought to have the right to display what he wants to on the entrance to the premises. If he wants a painting, fine. A Star of David might interfere greatly with the arrangement of the entrance, and turn away potential shoppers.

Another problem is the easy tendency towards fraud. If a shopkeeper realizes that his profits are down ever since he started displaying the Star of David on the wall, because the shoppers are there for shopping, not religion, he would have great motivation to take it down. It would take somebody who knows that the man is Jewish to expose him, and in court, there'd have to be evidence of the shopkeeper's religion, which is very subjective and nearly impossible to decide by court.

In conclusion, this law would only help a small subset of the population that generalizes based on religion and is too lazy to ask the religion of shopkeepers, which may or may not exist; at the expense of having religious symbols displayed everywhere in the stores; and at the expense of more police investigations, lawsuits, and court battles, dramatically increasing the costs to the government, and therefore the taxes.

Again, thank you, brian, and good luck with your next argument.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thank Mongeese for accepting this debate and for his worthy contribution to which I respond as follows:

It is entirely reasonable to assume that money from Jewish businesses will be channelled to Israeli settlers and terrorists because Israel is fundamental to the Jewish religion and it is the religious duty of all Jews to support the settlement and expansion of Israel.

As Rabbi Eliezer Melamid explains:

"The commandment to settle the land of Israel requires that we conquer the land. It is thus written, "Possess the land and settle it, for I have given you the land in order that you take possession of it" (Numbers 33:53), and our sages explain the expression "possess" to imply the conquest and establishment of Israeli sovereignty in the land. Moreover, this commandment remains binding upon us in all generations

In addition to the more general Torah commandment to take possession of the land of Israel, the Torah warns: "Do not allow them to reside in your land" (Exodus 23:33). The Rambam (Hilkhot Avoda Zara 10:6) explains that when we have the power it is forbidden to allow any non-Jew to reside in our land.

The Torah also exhorts: "...do not give them any consideration" (Deuteronomy 7:2), and the sages interpret this to mean that it is forbidden to provide non-Jews with any sort of foothold upon the soil of the land of Israel (Avodah Zara 20a).

The Almighty God has given this land to the nation of Israel and every Jew has a portion in it."

http://www.yeshiva.org.il...

In other words, Jews believe that Greater Israel (the land between the Nile and the Euphrates) belongs to all Jews and that all non-Jews should be driven out.

However, many people believe that Jews are not "the chosen people" and that they have no "god-given" right to occupy other lands and to displace families from their homes and farms, and to slaughter any that resist.

In fact I doubt many people would be happy if they realised their money was were helping to fuel the fire of the world's most volatile trouble-spot.

Similarly many people would be unhappy if they thought their money was supporting Islamic terrorists which is why many people boycott Muslim businesses.

http://www.haindavakeralam.com...

A Star of David, Islamic Crescent or other religious symbol at the enterance to a business would not substantially interfere with the overall appearance of the enterprise but would allow people to make an informed choice without having to enter the premises to enquire about the religion of the majority shareholders – something the staff may not know anyway.

This would not lead to proprietors being deceitful – they wouldn't risk their business when they could so easily be found out – and, in any case, a religious symbol may actually increase business by attracting customers who follow that faith.

In conclusion, this proposal would give the shopping public the ability to spend their money as they choose by equipping them with the information they need to ensure their money will not ultimately end up in the hands of terrorists or illegal settlers.

Thank you.
mongeese

Con

I would like to again thank brian for this debate.

While my opponent's line of reasoning seems logical, he doesn't prevent any evidence of any Jews actually sending money to Israel. Additionally, the command to drive out non-Israelis also comes with the command to settle Israel, and given that many Jews are not in Israel, but instead choose to live in other places [1], so they're already breaking the command, making it even less likely that they'd follow through with the rest of it.

The boycott of Muslim businesses is equally illogical, given that many moderate Muslims disagree with the extremist terrorists who fight in the name of Allah.

My opponent claims that the staff might now know the religion of the "majority of shareholders." However, there are more ways to find out than just asking. For example, if enough people actually cared, Phil would probably make a website that tracked major businesses and the religious demographics of each. No need to hinder the storefront.

My opponent claims that if the store owner lies, he can "so easily be found out." However, how would you prove that a man is lying about his religion if he makes any effort at all to disguise himself? It would require nothing less than a home invasion, something way too drastic and costly for such little benefit to the people.

My opponent also proposes that religious symbols might attract more customers and increase businesses. However, if it would, shopkeepers would be naturally motivated to put religious symbols on their storefronts, with no laws and beurocracies necessary. A law would just be redundant.

Finally, my opponent concludes by claiming that the public would have "the ability to spend their money as they choose." However, at the same time, he plans to restrict the same right of the storekeepers by requiring that they spend time and money to keep a symbol on their storefront.

My opponent claims that this law would ultimately stop money from ending up in "the hands of terrorists or illegal settlers," but instead of a law that requires religious symbols to be displayed, wouldn't it be more effective to make the funding of terrorists illegal?

In conclusion, the law my opponent proposes restricts freedom, is easily broken, and takes unnecessary law and beurocracy to enforce. We'd all be better off without it.

1. http://www.simpletoremember.com...
Debate Round No. 2
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by PARADIGM_L0ST 6 years ago
PARADIGM_L0ST
The title of the debate versus the content presented by PRO is misleading, not to mention, fascist. I think we could reasonably default to Godwin's law on this one, Herr Eggleston.
Posted by TheAtheistAllegiance 6 years ago
TheAtheistAllegiance
"It is entirely reasonable to assume that money from Jewish businesses will be channelled to Israeli settlers and terrorists because Israel is fundamental to the Jewish religion and it is the religious duty of all Jews to support the settlement and expansion of Israel."

I don't see the difference between this statement and assuming all money spent at 7-11 convenient stores is likely being funneled to Al-Qaeda or the Taliban. It is little more than a generalization bred out of ignorance or racism.
Posted by mongoose 6 years ago
mongoose
I think a comparison to Hitler would be perfectly valid in this situation.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
The resolution proposes that government ought to aid and support ethnic and religious discrimination. That is not a legitimate function of government. I think Con should have attacked it more vigorously, but his arguments were correct and adequate to dispose of this absurd resolution.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
"Does anybody else see the connection between forcing the Star of David on their businesses and Hitler?"
Argument ad Hitlerum.
Posted by mongoose 6 years ago
mongoose
Does anybody else see the connection between forcing the Star of David on their businesses and Hitler?
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
Is this a serious debate, or just a really bad joke?
Posted by Volkov 6 years ago
Volkov
You've really become quite anti-Semetic over the past few months, Brian.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Some horsepucky is too deep to wade in. I'll leave this debate to someone else.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by PARADIGM_L0ST 6 years ago
PARADIGM_L0ST
brian_egglestonmongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
brian_egglestonmongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 mongoose 6 years ago
mongoose
brian_egglestonmongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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