The Instigator
tuduashok197
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
GenesisCreation
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Electronic companies must take responsibilty of older and less useful outdated products

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...
GenesisCreation
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,524 times Debate No: 26234
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

tuduashok197

Pro

First round is for acceptance, second round for main argument, third round for rebuttal, fourth round for final focus. No new information may be presented in this round. Does my opponent accept?
GenesisCreation

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
tuduashok197

Pro

I buy a new laptop or a new mobile this year and after the next one or two years all appears crap.
Hardware configurations doubles, newer designs, latest craze keeping you out of your mind until you get hold of the new specs.

Now what about our old gadgets. Gaining dirt on our shelves and waiting to get dumped until we find it one day totally," phew!!! What is That???". And then with all the crap things that needs to be dumped, it gets dumped. This is not just about me. This story is about many millions of people like me, a common policy that gets followed up without getting noticed. The only time these less-useful stuff make to news, when big synthetic mountains of e-waste gets formed and a big ruckus is created of the matter. Today companies claim they have gone greener, they are better than their counterparts because they produce goods by doing less damage to the environment. They also ask their consumers to give feedback and advice. Well as a conscious consumer I would like to advise them to take care of dumped products of their company. We will be depositing those products at outlets provided and they can recycle them so we can reuse. See the process is quite simple. Handling e-waste is not a big deal after all.
GenesisCreation

Con

My opponent provided the resolution and bears the burden of proof. My opponent will attempt to convince the voter that designers, manufacturers and distributors of "old, less useful and outdated" electronics should maintain, repair and offer warranty style service including but not limited to:

  • Repair
  • Upgrade
  • Refurbishment
  • Customer Service Support

I will be arguing that the manufacturer is only responsible for manufacturing defects or operational malfunction reported within the time frame of the subjective factory warranty or quality assurance agreement. Any further services and customer support is not legally required, nor morally obligatory. Should other services be made available, the customer is responsible for "at will" maintenance and incurs the full cost for parts and labor.


This premise is based on the reasonable expectation of time, use and abuse related failure of any manufactured device. Once the merchandise exceeds the reasonable expectation of time, use and abuse, the customer takes full responsibility for the cost of repair and upkeep. Should the Company have ceased production of the device, and a reasonable time frame of post-production maintenance has expired, the customer will need to seek 3rd party, unauthorized or authorized repair centers for service, which may or may not be affiliated with the manufacturer.


Example: The NJOY electronic Cigarette Manufacturer's warranty


Debate Round No. 2
tuduashok197

Pro

WE all have an idea about the number of companies on Earth. There are many companies producing same kind of products, now that is what we call redundancy. Why we have these companies running? It is, to make the planet a better place for us to live. These are solely for the purpose of serving us. That's what we are paying for. Only those will get the share which will serve us better. We favor those companies which provide us with competitive goods. Let me cite an example of Samsung electronics.

Samsung electronics is a leader in smartphones and smart TVs. See link:
(http://en.wikipedia.org... )

All this because it spends a whooping amount on R&D activities obvious from previous year news. See link:
(http://www.phonearena.com...)

This year Samsung unveiled television that can be upgraded for cost of new television thus finishing off the need to buy a new television. See link:
(http://newsthump.com...)

So, companies who are being sticky to old rules and regulations and not trying out on something new and innovative are bearing the brunt of being ousted from the market. All the conditionary statements on the company's manuals etc. appear so mean say like, "Company shall not be held responsible.....blah blah blah...", when the consumer is having difficult time with the product. As an organisation it has certain duty towards the society and it should try to keep up with changing times and demands.

A good after-sales service is required from the company that's all coupled with other benefits like exchange offers and up-gradation. This is not all a herculean task and can be accomplished if positive steps from the company side are taken.
GenesisCreation

Con

My opponent is correct by stating that companies should innovate to remain competitive. However, innovation does not change the Company's obligation to the customer. I can purchase a TV from Samsung that can be upgraded. This fact does not obligate the company to perpetually provide me with more upgrades. I am only entitled to the upgrades that are advertised and the upgrades are not free.


Should the TV break, I have a legal right to demand repair or replacement, if the TV is covered by either:

  • Manufacturer Warranty
  • Store Warranty

Pro said: "So, companies who are being sticky to old rules and regulations and not trying out on something new and innovative are bearing the brunt of being ousted from the market."

Rebuttal: I agree. How does this relate to the burden?



Pro said: "Why we have these companies running? It is, to make the planet a better place for us to live. These are solely for the purpose of serving us."


Rebuttal: My opponent believes that Companies exist exclusively to serve humanity. I would argue that Companies exist to make as much money as possible. It is diametrically opposite of my opponent's premise. Companies do not serve humanity. It is the Consumer that serves the Company's interest. Any benefit the Consumer receives is irrelevant. In fact, the Company's goal is to provide a minimal amount of service for a maximal return.

The average mark-up of in-house manufacturing for an electronics company is 450%. A device that costs the Company $ 1,000.00 USD to manufacture, is sold to the Consumer for $ 4,500.00 USD. The average cosmetics manufacturer increases the sales price by 5000%. [1]


Pro said:" A good after-sales service is required from the company that's all coupled with other benefits like exchange offers and up-gradation. This is not all a herculean task and can be accomplished if positive steps from the company side are taken."


Rebuttal: My opponent is stating his premise axiomatically. If the Company is required to furnish a "good after-sale service", "coupled with other benefits" then we should have a moral guideline which demands this.

It would appear my opponent is making the classic error of mistaking "Liberty" and "License". He desires the service, therefore he feels entitled to it. Unfortunately, the Company has no obligation to fulfill his dreams.



http://www.toptenz.net... [1]
Debate Round No. 3
tuduashok197

Pro

Facts provided by my friend are unarguably correct. According to the law, there is no obligation on the company to provide the customer with perpetual upgrades. However laws remain beneficial when they are meant for the good of the society. For example change in laws by Obama government for the automotive industries for more fuel efficient and greener cars is a step towards goodwill for the society.

I said, "companies who are being sticky to old rules and regulations and not trying out on something new and innovative are bearing the brunt of being ousted from the market."

I want to make my friend understand this thing that a step in this new direction will definitely do good to us. I am asking my friend to think from consumer's point of view. This is something we want and we expect and the things happening in the market is actually the result of our collective attitude towards the same.

I agree with my friend that sole motive of companies is to mint money. It is the reason behind their existence but it is we who are responsible for their existence. I believe that those companies must exist to provide goods and services which remain till the end in the best interest of consumers. The profit they are getting is an indication that we consumers are being satisfied, by how much I don't know, it varies from person to person.

The i-phone craze I saw where people remained outside shops waiting for the sun to rise and shops to open stands testimony to the point I am trying to make. You just don't throw it away, you keep it, you use it and love to show you own it.

I want to make this a point that companies interests should be in consumer's interests. Won't you feel cheated if the company performs everything that appears sound on paper, but still ......I hope you are understanding........
GenesisCreation

Con

Pro conceded: Facts provided by my friend are unarguably correct. According to the law, there is no obligation on the company to provide the customer with perpetual upgrades.

Rebuttal: Pro has dropped this argument.


Pro remarked: "However laws remain beneficial when they are meant for the good of the society. For example change in laws by Obama government for the automotive industries for more fuel efficient and greener cars is a step towards goodwill for the society."

Rebuttal: Incorrect. Laws do not remain beneficial when they are meant for the good of society. It would benefit my opponent to read the book:"The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice." [1] In this book, the author explains "how crusading legislators and unfair prosecutors are remaking American law into a weapon wielded by the government and how the erosion of the legal principles we hold dear–such as habeas corpus and the prohibition against self-incrimination–is destroying the presumption of innocence."

Here is one example of a law hurting society, despite it's good intentions: A Michigan law was set in place to save consumers money, by reducing price tag demands on the supplier. The law was supposed to help, but instead it forced the stores to cut hours, reduce wages and frustrate customers. The 2:00 minute news clip can be seen here: http://www.fox47news.com... [2].


Pro stated: "I want to make my friend understand this thing that a step in this new direction will definitely do good to us. I am asking my friend to think from consumer's point of view. This is something we want and we expect and the things happening in the market is actually the result of our collective attitude towards the same."

Rebuttal: Speculation. Evidence points to the contrary. Innovation has radically failed. Obama spent 90 billion dollars on incentives to fund new, innovative, alternate energy solutions. The last company to receive 2 billion dollars in stimulus just filed for bankruptcy. The company is called A123; it's a Dutch company that was lured to Michigan to set up a subsidiary, using stimulus dollars from the Obama administration. The company filed for bankruptcy less than a week ago. [3]


Conclusion: My opponent has radically failed his burden. He has provided no statistical evidence that innovation is beneficial. He has provided no examples of working business models in which the company takes perpetual responsibility for their product. In fact, this point he dropped entirely. My opponent should have created this topic as a forum, to test the idea before bringing to the debate floor.

Without a shadow of a doubt, his burden is not met. I urge a vote for CON.




http://www.amazon.com... [1]
http://www.fox47news.com... [2]
http://www.nytimes.com... [3]
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by tuduashok197 4 years ago
tuduashok197
The debate is turning out to be a good one....thanks bro.......
Posted by tuduashok197 4 years ago
tuduashok197
Whoa!!! who did that????sorry it wasn't me....
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Tweeter?
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Whoa. All caps rage bro.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
tuduashok197GenesisCreationTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to fulfil his BOP. It would be swell if these companies took it upon themselves to take care of outdated products, but that doesn't mean they "must" do so.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
tuduashok197GenesisCreationTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: All things considered, Pro failed to uphold his burden of proof. While he did provide sources, they were barely relevant to the actual resolution, and therefore I award the sources points to Con for his somewhat more relevant sources. Also, arguments to Con for negating Pro's arguments.