The Instigator
slayer54321
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
CP
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Favoritism is shown in most fast food places and is a good thing to have in them.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,237 times Debate No: 4505
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (8)

 

slayer54321

Pro

First of all, by a "good thing to have in them", i mean for the fast food place, not necessarily the customers/others.

For this debate, I will use this definition of favoritism from dictionary.com.

1. the favoring of one person or group over others with equal claims

Definition of claim (also from dictionary.com)-The sum of money demanded
--------------------------------------------------------------

The "Employee of The Month" award commonly used in fast food restaurants is an example of this favoritism. What it is basically saying is this: "I, the manager believe this person (The EOM) to have worked slightly (or drastically) harder than the other employees that work for the same pay, so I like him/her better." It could also be saying "This person has a good attitude and I like him/her, so he/she is the Employee of The Month."

Now you might ask how is it that this type of favoritism should be shown in this restaurant. For the employees who actually keep track of the EOM, it gives them a desire to have their face on that wall or just to be recognized. To earn this, they must work harder, enhancing the quality of the food sold at this particular place and the customer service, stock, etc. This, in turn, gives the restaurant a good reputation, adding more customers, and therefore increasing the restaurant's profit which is in fact a good thing (for them).
--------------------------------------------------------------
This makes favoritism a good thing in these restaurants, thus proving my point that is shown in the topic of this debate. Because I have proved that the EOM award is good, thus making favoritism good in fast food places, since the EOM award is an example of favoritism, I have proved my point (for now). Back to whoever chooses to accept this debate.

I will now make it look like i wrote more than I actually did =�

~~~
V
O
T
E
~~~
P
R
O
~~~
P
L
E
A
S
E
~~~
O
R
~~~
E
L
S
E
~~~
S
O
M
E
T
H
I
N
G
~~~
W
I
L
L
~~~
H
A
P
P
E
N
~~~
T
O
~~~
Y
O
U
R
~~~
C
E
R
E
A
L
~~~
B
O
X
~~~
.....
Y
O
~~~
CP

Con

Thank you for starting this debate, and best of luck.

Definitions:

Favoritism - "the favoring of one person or group over others with equal claims". I have no issues with this definition.

Claim - "The sum of money demanded". I do however, have a problem with this definition. As you will see, this definition was pulled from the American Heritage Dictionary through Dictionary.com:

n.
1. A demand for something as rightful or due.
2. A basis for demanding something; a title or right.
3. Something claimed in a formal or legal manner, especially a tract of public land staked out by a miner or homesteader.
4.
a. A demand for payment in accordance with an insurance policy or other formal arrangement.
b. The sum of money demanded.
5. A statement of something as a fact; an assertion of truth: makes no claim to be a cure.

(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

As we are all aware, favoritism is certainly not always, and most of the time not, dependent on money. Therefore it seems inappropriate to utilize this definition of "claim" with regards to favoritism. Furthermore, it should be noted that my opponent used the definition of favoritism directly from the Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) (http://dictionary.reference.com...); however, in regards to the definition of claim, he sought out alternative sources. He then proceeded to use one of the more obscure definitions that has no direct relevance to the definition of favoritism in order to justify his argument. Since we have agreed on the definition of favoritism based on the Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1), the definition of claim should be referenced from the same source. Thus, I offer the following definition :

Claim
–noun
6. a demand for something as due; an assertion of a right or an alleged right: He made unreasonable claims on the doctor's time.
(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

This ladies and gents leaves us with the following understanding of favoritism:

- The favoring of one person or group over others with equal demand for something as due

__________________________________________________
At this point you can see that my opponents case becomes completely unraveled. As he stated "What it is basically saying is this: 'I, the manager believe this person (The EOM) to have worked slightly (or drastically) harder than the other employees that work for the same pay, so I like him/her better.' It could also be saying 'This person has a good attitude and I like him/her, so he/she is the Employee of The Month.'" In both cases, my opponent has conceded that a manager bestows the title of EOM on a worker who has created GREATER demand for something that is due. They have either out-performed their co-workers by increasing output (working harder) or increasing morale (attitude). In either scenario, the worker therefore does not have an EQUAL demand for something that is due (EOM award).

Favoritism would actually be the case that all workers were equally due for EOM based on their production, yet the manager decided to give the award to someone for another reason. Let's take the scenario that 5 workers at a fast-food restaurant perform equally, 4 guys and 1 girl. Now let's imagine that the manager is a male who happens to have a crush on the female employee. The manager decides, outside the boundaries of performance, that he is going to give the EOM award to the female. What happened here? FAVORITISM. The same could apply if he selected her because of a scenario in which he was closely tied to her family.

Cases such as these have the opposite effect that my opponent would have you believe. Favoritism often times leads to discord amongst employees, disdain towards the "favorite", dissolution of team unity, and loss of incentive among other damaging effects. All of these being detrimental to the productivity and morale of the fast-food restaurant. In other words FAVORITISM is NOT a GOOD thing to have in a fast-food restaurant.

- Back to you slayer -

*** holds his cereal box tight ***
Debate Round No. 1
slayer54321

Pro

Nice argument there. Wasn't expecting that.

I will first refute this statement by my opponent---
"In both cases, my opponent has conceded that a manager bestows the title of EOM on a worker who has created GREATER demand for something that is due. They have either out-performed their co-workers by increasing output (working harder) or increasing morale (attitude). In either scenario, the worker therefore does not have an EQUAL demand for something that is due (EOM award)."

I do not see how working harder or increasing attitude gives this hypothetical individual a greater demand for the award. This may just be his/her work ethic, he/she may not even notice that they are working any harder than the rest of the employees. I mean, the employees are working for money, they might as well work hard, right?
--------------------------------------------------------

Next my opponent states---
"Favoritism would actually be the case that all workers were equally due for EOM based on their production, yet the manager decided to give the award to someone for another reason. Let's take the scenario that 5 workers at a fast-food restaurant perform equally, 4 guys and 1 girl. Now let's imagine that the manager is a male who happens to have a crush on the female employee. The manager decides, outside the boundaries of performance, that he is going to give the EOM award to the female. What happened here? FAVORITISM. The same could apply if he selected her because of a scenario in which he was closely tied to her family.

Favoritism often times leads to discord amongst employees, disdain towards the "favorite", dissolution of team unity, and loss of incentive among other damaging effects. All of these being detrimental to the productivity and morale of the fast-food restaurant. In other words FAVORITISM is NOT a GOOD thing to have in a fast-food restaurant."

This argument in particular is very formidable. I always like a good challenge. I have no problem with the first paragraph though. It proves my point. But the second paragraph is what makes this formidable. The discord among employees (ex., employee X and the EOM) and the disdain towards the "favorite" are not caused by favoritism. They are merely caused by the amount of tolerance employee X has, and the jealousy that eventually may brew up in them if this tolerance level is reached. The fault is in the emotions of employee X, and how much they can take, not favoritism. The same applies with the dissolution of team unity, not caused by favoritism. As for the loss of incentive, this is not true. The workers would not have a loss of incentive knowing that if they tried they could be the next EOM, thus motivating them to try harder and not to do the opposite. It might not motivate them sometimes, but under the circumstances, it will absolutely not make them work less harder.
----------------------------------------------------------

Now that that's taken care of, my final argument. So far I have proved that favoritism is not a bad thing and is a good thing under the terms of the debate, so that field is taken care of. Just to be safe, I will give another example of how favoritism is shown in these places. Let's say a teen passes his job interview, but the interviewer doesn't like the look of this young teen and doesn't like his/her motives for working at this random location. He/She will most likely inform the manager and his friends among the employees, who will in turn spread the word. This gets the word out to the manager, making his/her expectations for the young teen higher, decreasing this boy/girl's chance of being the next EOM. As the young teen works harder, the manager still tends to ignore them and picks someone else for the EOM award. This is an example of favoritism towards the other employees. This creates a greater motivation to work in the young teen, thus increasing his/her regular work output. He/She may then become the manager's FAVORITE, still an example of favoritism there.

Vote Pro.
And CP, I ate your Apple Jacks =�.
CP

Con

Thanks, hopefully I've made it challenging. Pressing on...

Demand:
-verb (used with object)
1. to ask for with proper authority; claim as a right: He demanded payment of the debt.

(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

My opponent states: "I do not see how working harder or increasing attitude gives this hypothetical individual a greater demand for the award."
As both my opponent and myself reside in the U.S., I can only assume we are debating fast-food restaurants in our respective country. It is a common ideology in our capitalistic, American culture that hard work is rewarded; be it through recognition, monetary means(raises/bonuses), or promotions. Thus, when a worker goes above and beyond the call of duty, they necessarily expect to be given their due. In other words, they claim as a right (demand) is greater because the worker feels that he is due for his reward.

My opponent continues: "I mean, the employees are working for money, they might as well work hard, right?"

Looking at the current business culture, I believe that it is easy to see that this is not always the case. In many cases workers will only work hard enough to keep their job, especially when referring to lower income jobs. This is actually the entire reasoning behind incentive based awards like EOM. It encourages an employee to work harder than they normally would in order to achieve this recognition.

"They are merely caused by the amount of tolerance employee X has, and the jealousy that eventually may brew up in them if this tolerance level is reached. The fault is in the emotions of employee X, and how much they can take, not favoritism."

I find this statement akin to saying something along the lines of "The problem isn't racism or sexual discrimination, it's the fault of the emotions of colored people and women." See anything wrong with this logic? The problem isn't the human emotion caused by the act, the problem is that the act is the catalyst for the emotion. It's illogical and unreasonable to assume otherwise. Even if it were an issue of the emotions of the other workers, that doesn't negate the fact that favoritism caused the situations of discord and disdain. Neither of these being "good" situations for the productivity and profit of the restaurant.

"The same applies with the dissolution of team unity, not caused by favoritism."

My opponent didn't qualify this statement, so I cannot aptly respond. If he is hinting that it is the emotional downfall of the others, I have covered that in the previous paragraph and ask that it be extended to this contention.

"The workers would not have a loss of incentive knowing that if they tried they could be the next EOM, thus motivating them to try harder and not to do the opposite."

My opponent fails to realize a few factors.
1. EOM doesn't always have to be someone new every month. At some companies the employee out-performing all others (or possibly the favorite) can retain the EOM Award for a stretch of months or even indefinitely.
2. There is no definitive limit to the amount of favorites a manager can have. Therefore, even if EOM had to be someone different every month, the manager could potentially rotate continually through his favorites while ignoring the other employees.
3. Motivation only lasts so long in the face of adversity. There is no incentive for a person to continue the Sisyphean task of working harder than others and not getting rewarded.

My opponent's final argument boils down to the idea that a manager should punish an employee based solely on his favoritism for others in order to increase that employee's incentive, and thus his performance. I will remind the audience that this entire debate rests on what is GOOD for the RESTAURANT.

From my opponent's opening argument: "To earn this, they must work harder, enhancing the quality of the food sold at this particular place and the customer service, stock, etc. This, in turn, gives the restaurant a good reputation, adding more customers, and therefore increasing the restaurant's profit which is in fact a good thing (for them)."

With this in mind, it is easy to see that my opponent's contention is not in the best interest of the restaurant; quite the opposite is true. Given his case of a new employee joining an established workforce, it would actually be MORE beneficial for the manager to award EOM to the over-productive newcomer. Doing this would supply incentive to all of the under-productive, older employees to meet this new level of productivity. The manager would then have a multitude of employees striving to be more productive instead of just one. Therefore, the restaurant would actually receive a greater benefit by avoiding favoritism.

Given these arguments, it's clear that FAVORITISM is NOT a GOOD thing to have in a fast-food restaurant.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by slayer54321 9 years ago
slayer54321
And your record is 0-1?
Look who's talking.
Posted by bablybabe 9 years ago
bablybabe
revenge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 succaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa muahahahahah dats what chu get for tryna prove me wrong that y ur opponent is winning aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahhahah slayer
Posted by UUAA 9 years ago
UUAA
I vote con on the basis that pro did not adequately refute the argument that there is a demand, or claim, for the EOM, thus resulting in the act not qualifying as favoritism. Thus, the resolution failed to be proven and I err con.
Posted by gahbage 9 years ago
gahbage
I voted Con because Pro didn't even refute (much less understand) the points you were making.
Posted by CP 9 years ago
CP
Since this was my first debate, any comments as to the reason a peron voted one way or the other would be greatly appreciated.
Posted by gahbage 9 years ago
gahbage
You, you're weird.

25 characters
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by bablybabe 9 years ago
bablybabe
slayer54321CPTied
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 
Vote Placed by OneShoe 9 years ago
OneShoe
slayer54321CPTied
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 
Vote Placed by necromancer 9 years ago
necromancer
slayer54321CPTied
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 
Vote Placed by UUAA 9 years ago
UUAA
slayer54321CPTied
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 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 9 years ago
InquireTruth
slayer54321CPTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by CP 9 years ago
CP
slayer54321CPTied
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 
Vote Placed by slayer54321 9 years ago
slayer54321
slayer54321CPTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by gahbage 9 years ago
gahbage
slayer54321CPTied
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