The Instigator
demyG26
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1Devilsadvocate
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Employers hiring facebook users

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 1 vote the winner is...
1Devilsadvocate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2013 Category: Technology
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 515 times Debate No: 29244
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

demyG26

Con

If employers hiring facebook users get access to their account. How can we be sure that nothing would change or be added or posted by the employer?
1Devilsadvocate

Pro

1) Who says that we can?

2) Why would they?

3) Take a screen shot before hand.
Debate Round No. 1
demyG26

Con

1. I did
2. because they want the job
3. The employer asked for permission
4. Its for the protection of the companies information.
5. background checks are used to determine the eligibility of the people your going to hire, you wouldn't wanna hire
any body that you don't know
6. Companies want to ensure that find employers that has good skills for the company, Its called the business life my friend, this things happn because there are monopolies going every time and companies want the right employee for the job
1Devilsadvocate

Pro

It seems like we have an identity crisis going on over here:

" 1. I did "

Let's clarify this.
Con asked " How can we be sure that nothing would change or be added or posted by the employer?"

I responded " Who says that we can?"

Con responded "I did".

So in essence he is saying that we can be sure that nothing would change or be added or posted by the employer.

"2. because they want the job"

The subject of your opening sentence was the employer, thus when I responded "Why would they?" It refers to the employer (i.e. why would the employer change or add stuff?)

Thus your reply, "because they want the job", really doesn't make sense.

"3. The employer asked for permission"

I'm not sure what your trying to do with this.
This would be a reason why there is no problem.
Let me remind you that you took the con position.

"4. Its for the protection of the companies information."

Same as before. This would be why there is no problem.

"5. background checks are used to determine the eligibility of the people your going to hire, you wouldn't wanna hire
any body that you don't know"

Same.

"6. Companies want to ensure that find employers that has good skills for the company, Its called the business life my friend, this things happn because there are monopolies going every time and companies want the right employee for the job"

For the 1st sentance - Same. As for the rest, I have no idea what it's trying to say.

As I said there seems to be an identity crisis here.
It seems that my opponent thinks that he is pro, that is clearly not the case.


Further more if you look at the title - which is the only thing he wrote which could be considered a resolution - it reads, "Employers hiring facebook users".
If he is con, that means he holds the position that Employers should not be hiring facebook users, or that it is somehow bad that/if employers hire facebook users. Or something to that effect.
A resolution that is untenable.
Debate Round No. 2
demyG26

Con

demyG26 forfeited this round.
1Devilsadvocate

Pro

Con F.F.

Extend.

Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 3 years ago
tmar19652
demyG261DevilsadvocateTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff