The Instigator
becasue
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1Devilsadvocate
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

Employer useing facebook to hire

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 3 votes the winner is...
1Devilsadvocate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2013 Category: Technology
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,488 times Debate No: 29152
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

becasue

Con

I belive employer should not be able to use facebook to hire becasue it violet the 4 amendment
Debate Round No. 1
becasue

Con

Well in the 4th amendment it states that there well be no unreasonable searches. So an employer asking for your log in information would be an unreasonable because what would they do with this information. Would would they do if they saw you upside down with a funnel of bear going down(actually up) your throat. Would they be biased.

Use some quotes to help your augment
1Devilsadvocate

Pro

It is not an "unreasonable search".
An employer has a right to know who he is hiring.
If you were hiring wouldn't you want to know about the person before you hire them.

Furthermore no one is forcing anyone to do anything. If you want the job, I want to see who you are.

If you don't want to give it that's fine, but I probably won't hire you.

The 4th amendmant only refers to searches against a persons will.
Debate Round No. 2
becasue

Con

Well john richard say it is wrong and he is a company president!
1Devilsadvocate

Pro

I don't know were to start:

1) Appeal to authority fallacy.

2) He is not even an expert on American law.

3) No source, for who this guy is or what he said.

That should be enough.

Con has failed to show that, "Employer useing facebook to hire" [sic], goes against the 4th amendment.

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by becasue 4 years ago
becasue
Thanks for the info i was the oppisite side and now i have to do no work TROLL TROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLL
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
The instigator made only two arguments--

"Well in the 4th amendment it states that there well be no unreasonable searches."
"Well john richard say it is wrong and he is a company president!"

1Devilsadvocate points out the first is not a problem since the potential employee must consent to provide the information. He points out that the second matches the appeal to authority fallacy--and that it's not much of an appeal, since the instigator never established why this particular one's opinion has any more weight than the many, many other company presidents out there.

I conclude that the instigator has not met the burden of proof.
Posted by becasue 4 years ago
becasue
How do you reply
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
becasue1DevilsadvocateTied
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: Wtf
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
becasue1DevilsadvocateTied
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: I agree that it's wrong. But you did a horrible job presenting that case. First, the 4th Amendment is inapplicable to a private organization. Second, your grammar and spelling is atrocious. Third, you used no reliable sources aside from your own personal beliefs.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
becasue1DevilsadvocateTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: See comments for RFD. Alos, while Pro's S&G is not perfect, Con has far more errors, including not capitalizing the name of his source nor using question marks. Both sides were courteous. No sources were presented by either side, so that's also a tie, although it ultimately hurt the instigator more.