The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
lenorenomore
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points

It's okay for bars and pubs to discriminate against the working class.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 10/17/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,172 times Debate No: 5740
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (10)
Votes (5)

 

brian_eggleston

Con

There are certain bars and pubs in central London that have a signs on the doors designed to keep workers out. Here is an example:

http://www.flickr.com...

These are discriminatory and should be outlawed. After all, if they put a sign in the door which read:

"No skull-caps or gartels" they would be had up for being anti-Semitic.

Similarly, if a sign read:

"Die deutsche Sprache ist nach innen ausschlie´┐Żlich verboten" German customers would rightly protest.

Equally, a sign reading:

"No breathtakingly loud Hawaiian shirts or hideously vulgar checked pants" would certainly infuriate American tourists.

The toffs and snobs that cause these signs to be put up may be acting lawfully, but since the workers' money is as good as anybody else's, morally speaking, working class customers should not be discriminated against in this way.
lenorenomore

Pro

My opponent's statement: It's NOT okay for bars and pubs to discriminate against the working class.
Thanks, and I look forward to an interesting debate.

The sign you provided reads: "No soiled clothing and no working boots."
This should be outlawed why? Please explain.

First off, the definition of soiled is: (from http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Pronunciation: \ˈsȯi(-ə)l\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French soiller, suiller, from Old French soil wallow of a wild boar, abyss, from Latin solium chair, bathtub; akin to Latin sedēre to sit — more at sit
Date: 13th century
transitive verb
1 : to stain or defile morally : corrupt , pollute
2 : to make unclean especially superficially : dirty
3 : to blacken or taint (as a person's reputation) by word or deed
intransitive verb
: to become soiled or dirty.

So, to say no-one with soiled clothes are permitted in the pub, is to say anyone unclean, or dirty can't go in, right? A simple dress code. Why should this be outlawed? Because it may offend someone? There's always one person who will be insulted by anything. Are you to say a posted sign reading "No shirt, no shoes, no service." is discriminatory act against nudists???

http://www.derf.net...
http://ecx.images-amazon.com...
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Con

First of all I would like to thank the debater formerly known as Lenore for accepting this challenge. (I wonder why she is no more Lenore, but that's none of my business really).

Anyway, I accept my opponent's definitions and interpretation of the sign to mean the establishment operates a dress-code policy, which prohibits people wearing dirty clothes from entering the building.

She asked why this policy should be outlawed? Well, the reason is a pub is traditionally the only place where the whole of society can gather together, regardless of social status. It is more than a business, it's a community resource. Landlords are, of course, at liberty to refuse entrance to unaccompanied minors or drunks, but otherwise they should serve anybody that has the price of a pint.

Think about the man whose teenage daughter is a regular outpatient at the local abortion clinic. As a dutiful father, each time she is admitted, he waits for her outside in the car park, Should he be asked to leave the premises? No, of course not. Now what about if he has come straight from work without getting changed? Still no. Well, what about if he works at the local abattoir and is wearing a white coat which is all splattered with blood and he occupies his time by standing by the staff entrance with a big bucket of unwanted cows' entrails which he feeds to packs of stray dogs? Er, probably, yes actually. Okay, let me think of some better examples…

Say, my opponent decides to visit an elderly relative at the local old folks home. Nothing wrong with that is there? Well what about if she decides, for some reason, to wear a skull mask and pull her top up over her head? Just because the last time she did that one of the aged inmates mistook her for the Grim Reaper and had a turn for the worse, is that any reason to stop her at the door? Again, probably yes, okay, let's try again…

What about Sunday morning when a Catholic gambler loses not only his shirt, but his shoes as well and decides to repent of his sins but on arriving at the church too take mass he sees a sign on the door which reads: "No shoes, no shirt, no service"? No, churches, like pubs, should be open to all.

http://www.derf.net......

Or what about the businessman running late for his for his flight from Kinchasa who is refused entry to the Executive Lounge at the airport just because he fell into an open sewer on the way? Since he's got a first class ticket, he should be allowed in regardless, just like working class people should be allowed into pubs, provided they have enough money to pay for their drink.

http://news.bbc.co.uk...

My opponent also wrote: "There's always one person who will be insulted by anything". How true. At some point some toff must have been in the pub when a working class person walked in and complained to the management: "I say, landlord, some filthy working class oik in a boiler suit has just walked in. I request and require you to have him removed from the premises forthwith". Not very nice is it? How would they like it if their local fish and chip shop had a sign in the window that read "No top hats, tail-coats or bowties"?
lenorenomore

Pro

I agree with you completely. You win.
Thanks for an interesting debate. You're right, it's true anyone should be allowed in., though if someone DID fall in to an open sewer, or was walking around with cow guts, I would be a little grossed out. ;)

BTW, my user name is based mostly off the poem The Raven by Edgar Allen Poe. I am still Lenore! XD
Debate Round No. 2
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
Brian.
It was lmao
or laughing my as* off
Posted by lenorenomore 8 years ago
lenorenomore
Thank you.
Posted by SolaGratia 8 years ago
SolaGratia
I vote PRO. Soiled clothes do not a working-class person make.
Posted by lenorenomore 8 years ago
lenorenomore
Cool. Thanks for being honest, and even more so for explaining your choices. I appreciate it. This was my first debate, and I have much to learn. :j
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
Scissorhands as a cleaner and a decent voter

1. Agree with before the debate Pro
2. Agree with after the debate Con in certain circumstances depending on the bar.
3. Conduct - Con exhibited great conduct by thanking his opponent and being respectful Pro was not disrespectful but did not display good conduct by 1. Refuting much of Pro's argument, 2. Not thanking Con in R2. So points go to Con
4. Both opponents had little and insignificant grammar mistakes so Tie
5. Pro conceded and didn't refute Con's points so default Con.
6. Con provided more sources pertaining to the argument, so again Con.

Overall a solid victory for Con.
Posted by lenorenomore 8 years ago
lenorenomore
I know! (especially in Florida...) That cracked me up. He posted this, which made me laugh too:

Still no. Well, what about if he works at the local abattoir and is wearing a white coat which is all splattered with blood and he occupies his time by standing by the staff entrance with a big bucket of unwanted cows' entrails which he feeds to packs of stray dogs? Er, probably, yes actually.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Laughing my *ss off.

Do our tourists really dress so hideously still. I thought that was a '90s thing.
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
PorJoe...or anyone, what does "imao" mean?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Hey Pro... no skull masks on debate.org.

:P
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
"'No breathtakingly loud Hawaiian shirts or hideously vulgar checked pants' would certainly infuriate American tourists."

lmao.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
brian_egglestonlenorenomoreTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by lenorenomore 8 years ago
lenorenomore
brian_egglestonlenorenomoreTied
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 
Vote Placed by SolaGratia 8 years ago
SolaGratia
brian_egglestonlenorenomoreTied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
brian_egglestonlenorenomoreTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
brian_egglestonlenorenomoreTied
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:70