The Instigator
Pashira
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Firewolfman
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Does everyone need good grammar to get hired ?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 776 times Debate No: 28495
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Pashira

Pro

Ability to work is not based on knowledge of grammar, but how hardworking the individual is. A person can be very hardworking but has a bad grammar."17% of people living with bad grammar are known to be successful people"( It's Not Just Rules ; It's Clear Thinking). Attitudes to grammar teaching are profoundly social divisive.
Firewolfman

Con

I accept this debate, to clarify I am con, and against this topic.

Thank you, and I hope we can have a nice, thoughtful debate.

To star off, I would like to point out that my opponent has provided no sources to back up any of his information, or the percent of "17%" and I will request he not put down the title, as we can not just find where he got this by looking up the exact title, but he posts a link and sources more acurately. Until my opponent can do this, I believe that his argument in that point is basless until he can prove to me, and the audience, where he got this information and whether or not its fact.

"Attitudes to grammar teaching are profoundly social diviisive"
1.) My first real rebuttal that I can really do is to this statement, as my opponent provided a source but did not put a link so that I could click and directly view where he got his information, so the other points he made are automatically assumed, (Like assumed innocent until proved guilty,) basless until proven fact, or given backup proof or evidence.

I believe, that my opponent is saying "Attitudes towards the teaching of grammar differ greatly thoughout different social groups." As divisive comes from divide, and that means to seperate or, using the definition directly from dictionary.com, it says: "1. forming or expressing division or distribution. 2. creating disscension or discord." [1]

In definition number two, (and a little bit in number 1,) they both are right on the target, or around what I personally define divisive as, and it means pretty much people going into seperate groups, or dividing into different sections of groups, or into people with common interests as them. Therefore, dictionary.com approves of my personal definition, and shows the real definition of divisive, unless my opponent considers the use of this website, a corrupt website that does not provide correct, factial, information, and if this is so then I would like to request that my opponent please state in the next round whether he accepts, or denies my usage of the resource known as "dictionary.com," and if he denies my usage of this resource then please provde logic, proof, reasoning, and evidence, that clearly shows, and convinces, me, and the viewers.

So my opponent says that if you take a good widespread, well-represented amount of every type of person, so that you aren't creating an invalid data table, then it is clearly shown that people have very strong opinions towards grammar teaching, and almost all of the opinions difer from another, that people have their own opinions on grammar teaching. Since this is logically true, as no two humans are alike, then I accept this as true, but I fail to see how this really holds any relevance on the argument, as we are debating whether "Does everyone need good grammar to get hired?" and my opponent is trying to prove that grammar is NEEDED to get hired, for EVERYONE, *Hence the title*, and I fail to see how poniting out that people are not alike when it comes down to opinions on the teaching of grammar proves that everyone NEEDS grammar to be hired. I see no evidence showing how the fact of differing opinions leads to not being hired, and let me remind you, we are not discussing, "Whether Different Opinions is the cause of not being hired", as you imply, (as you're implying that different opinions somehowI proves that grammar is needed to be hired, but I fail to see how this is true or relevant,). Therefore, I have rebutted my opponents statement that was not baseless like everything else, therefore it is apon my opponent to back up his claim and prove my rebuttal wrong, or show overwhelming evidence that proves that he is instantly correct.

My opponent has also failed to deliver any round structure, or rules of any kind, so I acknowledge this fact.
I would also like to suggest that my opponent correct his sourcing and add more relevant, correct, and proved arguments for R2, as it is unlikely that you can win if you fail to provide good arguments in a debate.

Now, since I have rebutted everything my opponent has used as arguments, I will now move onto my arguments and points. Note that my opposition must address each point with a rebuttal, or simply say that I agree and drop the argument, which in the case that he agrees or drops one of my arguments, I would win the point on the half of that specific argument.

1.) The problem isn't grammar-it's more likely that people aren't given a chance to even get an oppurtunity for a job. Pretty or not, the world is a bunch of discriminative losers, and the world ISN'T FAIR! It's more common then ever for unemployment rates to rise particularly amongst mexicans, and peoples of other races or differences, as discriminating is a more blamable cause for the unemployment, not grammar. I have provided a link to a chart that supports this statement, and proves that a lot of unemployment is caused by discrimination.

[2]: http://www.cancommunitydashboard.org...

2.) Since when are people with grammar given a chance? Many people, such as Stepen Hawkings, defys your argument as he is one of the most famous scientists and the creator the black hole theory-yet can barely talk and has horrible grammar as a result of lack of oxygen at birth. So therefore, I have already proven you wrong as you said EVERYONE NEEDS, but yet one person apparently doesn't fit in the section of everyone, and apparently didn't need grammar to be considered one of the smartest people in the world, and hes rich now :/ I have provided a link below for a source to this information.
[3]: http://www.hawking.org.uk...
(Note I have provided the link so I am not violating the rule at the top of the page that restricts producing, hosting, or editing of this document as I am not making any money, and I am providing the source, AND READ THE PART ABOUT GRAMMAR!)

In conclusion, my opponent must provide rebuttals for all of my arguments, back up his statements that I rebutted and that he can source correct and prove his first argument non-basless as we cannot view or even see in any way, the source where you got this from if you do not provide us with a way to view the website where you got your information from.

Back to you, pro.

Sources:
[1]: http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2]: http://www.cancommunitydashboard.org...
[3]: http://www.hawking.org.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
Pashira

Pro

Pashira forfeited this round.
Firewolfman

Con

Extend arguments, as opponent forefeited last round.
Debate Round No. 2
Pashira

Pro

Pashira forfeited this round.
Firewolfman

Con

Firewolfman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.