The Instigator
Kenostic
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Korashk
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Nike should be banned from the USA!

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 4 votes the winner is...
Korashk
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2010 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,506 times Debate No: 11198
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

Kenostic

Pro

Nike should be banned from the USA. Why?

1. They cheat you out of your money! *gasp* i thought they were fair! Nope. Only about 16$ of your 120$ shoes are actually sent to the plant that made them. How much do these shoes really cost? 16$. About 70% from those 120$ goes to advertising.

2. Where does all the other money go? to making factories? no! Nike owns how many factories? how many shoes are made by them per year? none. All of it is outsourced to other countries, the only places that they could get away with spending so little money on the shoes. 114$ are left. about 60$ of that go toward making you increase the only thing nike really owns. It's name. Nike is a name, thats it. When you pay all that money you are paying for the little swoosh on your shoe.

3. Sleep. How can you sleep at night when you can hear the screams of the underpaid, overworked, abused people who are making your shoes? Nike: "wages per hour: $0.16 Hours: 77-84; 11- to 12-hour sifts; 7 days a week." Enough said.

Source: No Logo, Naomi Klein.
Korashk

Con

Well here we go, I thank my opponent for making this debate even if I have strong suspicions that your opening argument is just plagiarized from your source, No Logo.

~~~~~~
Rebuttals
~~~~~~

///Point 1.///

I don't see how overcharging for a product means that Nike should be banned. As a consumer with a brain and free will you can choose to not buy Nike brand items. They are not holding a gun to your head and telling you to fork over your money.

///Point 2.///

This isn't really a point, all it says is that most of the money goes to advertising and that all you are paying for is a name. In society names hold a lot of power. For instance a lawyer that has a Harvard Law degree can pretty much have his pick of any job involving law; an engineer with a degree from MIT can likewise get pretty much any job in that field. Names are status symbols. Does a Rolex watch tell time any better than a working five dollar watch you got from a street vendor, no. His point again fails to supportthe resolution that Nike should be banned.

///Point 3.///

To answer your question; because I both can not hear them and I don't care. Now back to topic.

These sweatshops are in countries where there is no minimum wage and therefore these places can pay them this small amount of money. Another factor to consider is that for many of these workers it is either $.16 an hour or nothing. If Nike wasn't buying shoes from these places then they couldn't pay their workers.
Debate Round No. 1
Kenostic

Pro

Never in my life have i had so little faith in the goodness of my fellow humans. I don't know if it is ignorance or spite that would allow you to speak with such nonchalance about the suffering that these corporations have caused. But i get ahead of myself.

1.
There is no gun of course, but how about acceptance? Klein talks about a childhood experience that she had: "I was in Grade 4 when skintight designer jeans were the be-all end-all, and my friends and i spent allot of time checking each other's butt for logos. "nothing comes between me and my Nikes," Brooke Sheilds assured us,"

What does this tell you? If you don't wear the right clothes you lose your "cool." I bet you wear Nikes and have several name brand clothing that you wear. Why do you wear them? social pressure, because, as you say, they work no better than the ones you buy at the street corner. Only unlike a med degree at Harvard, it doesn't make you better at anything. If that doesn't ring true, then how about this, a group of teachers teaching high school student in NYC told their classes about nikes. This school was composed mainly of lower to middle class black and Latino children. When they learned how much they were being ripped off, they had a protest and dumped thousands of shoes upon Nike's doorsteps. You see, it isn't a crime to over price things, but it should be a crime to overprice things and hide how much you are ripping them off. The mothers of these children pay their price. Who do you think pays for their 120$ shoes? How do middle and lower class families pay for these shoes, often more than one pair per person? Either the parents break their backs for logos or they resort to crime, not knowing that they are doing this not for the shoes, but for a logo.

If that isn't morally wrong i don't know what is.

2.
Colleges are status symbols recognizing that you worked hard to get into the university, then worked hard to get good grade inside of it. Logos are simply a little bit of fabric sown onto your shoes, there is a big difference.

3.
Sorry to sound sentimental, but it really breaks my heart to hear you put it like that. I hope it is because you haven't researched the topic, but to say that you don't care about your fellow human beings as they are abused really disturbs me.

a. you said that somehow these countries not having minimum wage justifies paying them a little amount of money. (if this wasn't your point then it isn't justified and your point is moot) What kind of morals do you have that you are willing to let these poor, abused (yes they are abused, people are fined for loss of production when being pregnant, overtime is forced, yet not paid, and there have been many cases in which employees were beaten or otherwise humiliated) people be? Nike was unable to get away with such gross violation of human rights in the US so they simply moved it over seas. I don't know if you support the constitution, especially when it says, liberty and justice FOR ALL (you should vote for the amendment "except those over seas" (oh and while your at it add "cripples and unfit" and you might as well become a Nazi, after all, the abuse is on the same level)). I really hope that not all who read this are so callous to the pain of our fellow homo sapians that they would let them suffer such a fate (because inaction is the same as letting it happen)

b. Now for the economics of it all. Here, i am glad to know that is ignorance, not brutality that was speaking. You are mistaken if you think that Nike in any way helps the economies of the countries that build their products. There is a cycle. All the countries are desperate for companies to come because of their financial status. How do they attract these corporations? they offer them free time on their lands, to draw them in. Nike comes in, sets up shop, demolishes any other way to make a living, pays no money for being there and then leaves when they are about to pay taxes. Not only does Nike rape the people by giving them no money or benefits then leaving them to rot when they leave, but the whole time they are there, they aren't even paying taxes and helping the economy. Somehow, i think no jobs would be better than destroying their communities and leaving them.

I am very sorry if i was insulting during this argument, but i believe that the morals behind your argument are abhorrent, and need to labeled as such.
Korashk

Con

I will try and respond to my opponent's points and would like to iterate that as Con in this debate I have accepted the Burden of Clash and therefore to win this debate I only need to show that my opponent's arguments do not support the resolution, not why Nike should not be banned from the USA.

///Round 2, Point 1///

This entire point has nothing to do with the resolution because Nike is not ripping off the consumer because Nike is not the only show company in America. For instance, the shoes that I am wearing right now I purchased for $10 at Wal-Mart; they were on sale. People choose to buy Nike, I don't understand why but they do. I do not understand why you bring up the fact that middle and lower class families can't really afford these shoes. So what? A company shouldn't be banned because some people can't afford it. If we use that logic then almost every product in America would be banned. You claim that these people either go hungry for Nikes or resort to crime, the solution is much simpler: Don't buy Nikes. I will tell you that I do not buy expensive brand-name clothing. This is because, as you said, they do not work any better and are a lot cheaper.

///Round 2, Point 2///

My analogy about Harvard and MIT is an analogy to show the power of names. The point I was trying to make was that it is the Harvard name that gets a person status. Lets say Bob has a law degree from Flibbledorp University (a place that I have made up for the purposes of this debate), Flibbledorp teaches the exact same law classes that Harvard does, there is literally no difference, but Flibbledorp is a fairly new college so not many people know about it and it's name holds no weight.

///Round 2, Point 3a///

I did not say that it justifies it. I said that they are doing nothing illegal which is quite different. In America laws aren't explicitly made because things are morally wrong. They are made based on how they apply to the US legal system. There are many things that are both legal and, in someone's eyes, immoral.
the rest of this point is basically just an attack on my character that doesn't have anything to do with this debate because this debate is not about my moral character. Also, the Constitution doesn't say 'liberty and justice for all,' that phrase is found in the Pledge of Allegiance which is not a legal document.

///Round 2, Point 3b///

To say that Nike and other corporation do not help the economy of these countries is just not true [2]. The situation may not be ideal but it is hardly harmful. Nike does not even control any of the 'sweatshops' overseas. The sweatshops supply them with a good that, contrary to my opponent's point, they pay for. They are also aware of the unsavory working conditions and are making an effort to change them [1]. Based on this point it would seem to me that my opponent thinks that Nike controls these factories. The truth is that they were there before Nike was.

///I am very sorry if i was insulting during this argument, but i believe that the morals behind your argument are abhorrent, and need to labeled as such.///

The morals of my argument would matter if this debate were about morals, I am very aware that to most I have horrible morals. The only person that I care about is me. I ask that my opponent stop using these appeals to emotion and stick to the debate.

[1] http://preview.tinyurl.com...
[2] http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Kenostic

Pro

First I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate. I hope that you and all who may be watching us, may see the morals that are at stake here, in America, the home of the brave.

I would like to agree to some of my opponents points, well, only one of them. Yes Phil Knight is aware of the working conditions. Unfortunately it is apparent that he has done no further research into what Mr. Knight has done. Phil Knight promised a variety of things, of which he has not allowed anybody to monitor. Health regulations are scarce and the factories that the heath inspectors visit have months notice (to fix up their problems just in time, then to let them sag once again), the promised increased wages were not enacted (instead a loaning system was enacted which wouldn't be needed if they kept their promises of better wages), the promise that other heath inspecting companies would be used to validate their own inspectors has been put into action in only one factory in which the company is allowed to visit once a year. Their conclusions are not given to the public, and their promise to increase the funding to universities for the countries that contain Nike's factories has been ignored completely. [1]

Next in your own piece of evidence (which I don't think you fully read) on the last page it shows that these testers of the factories have been given "sanitized views" of the company. Additionally, when The University of Oregon joined the group trying to gain better conditions, Nike withdrew the donation it was going to give. What does this tell you? Obviously Nike has some kind of problem with people working to make the factories a better place. [2]

Next, on the topic of ripping off the consumers, you ignored my point. People don't realize that they are paying more money for the same shoe! Not only have you failed to meet my point, but also you have completely ignored it. There is a huge issue with teenagers when it comes to the topic of being cool. Nike has and is breeding its brand to be cool. (See chapter 2 in No Logo [3]) If you aren't cool, it is a huge emotional and social blow. There are people who wont look at you if you don't wear what's cool. In my school I see almost every kid with some sort of name brand sneaker, why? Because they have been told, TOLD that it is cool. By whom? Not themselves, they have been led to believe from an early age that Nike is cool because Nike told them so. The social pressure to waste your money is extraordinary. As I said, the ramifications of buying these shoes are bigger than one would think. There are kids in my school who can't afford a new backpack so they use one that has only one strap and a hole in the bottom because they bought a shoe that they have been led to believe that they must have to be cool. It is not the fact that Nike is ripping people off that is bad; it is the fact that they are preying upon poor families that can't afford it. They are preying upon the stupid or ignorant, and it is as bad committing theft. You, who don't obey the logo pressure, are among a small percentage that contains the exceptions. I hope this doesn't mean that you would ignore all of those who are suffering because they aren't.

As for your point concerning Colleges, it is how rigorous the curriculum of the college is, how good and experienced the teachers are and how much better the teaching tools at Harvard that puts it apart from your fake new school. It isn't just that Harvard has been around for a long time, it's that it has the best of everything available that makes it so prestigious. Your analogy is quite good however. Harvard is a better school than most, and you pay more for it. Nike's shoes are no better than anybody else's, yet you pay more. There is a problem here isn't there? I don't have a problem with ripping people off, but making ripping people off your whole company, and not letting the customers know that you are ripping them off is heinous.

While what Nike is doing is just within what is legal, you are wrong concerning the importance of morals. Murdering is banned because it is morally wrong. Theft is banned because it is morally wrong. Laws are created based upon morals of the majority. However, this system has a flaw. There are two reasons why Nike can get away with such blatant abuse to its workers. 1. They are overseas and therefore not protected by the US. I say that we should protect the workers that are working for America overseas just as much as we protect them here. Not only would that benefit any people working there, but it would promote companies making more factories in our home ground, giving jobs for Americans. We should have Americans making stuff for Americans, not Americans giving jobs that could help so many here in the USA to other countries because it is cheaper. 2. There is a shroud of ignorance around America. People do not know they are being ripped off. People don't know that their shoes are being made overseas when they could have gotten the jobs themselves. People don't know the abuse that these people in these third world countries go through. Proof? Use your own article. [2] As can be seen in the last page, informed people who are in college are shocked and appalled by the conditions in these factories. Why are so many colleges joining the group to gain better conditions for the people in these factories? Because the people who know about them also know that it is morally wrong not to help the people suffering underneath them.

My penultimate argument will rely on the US constitution [4]. First, Amendment 8 is broken. Cruel and Unusual Punishments have been inflicted upon the workers in Nike's factories. Punishments have included physical abuse and heavy fining (for talking or being pregnant) humiliation, screaming, and forced unpaid overtime. [5] Next, both amendment 6 and 5 are broken, no trials are afforded to Nike workers much less "speedy trials," when they are being fined and/or punished. Finally, being deprived of minimum wage, not being allowed to leave work without overtime even when sick, and being put under dangerous conditions [3] all break the 5th amendment when it says "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property" If we are to protect our rights, we need to protect everybody's rights, that is the real reason why America spreads democracy; because as it says in out mission statement, the pledge of allegiance: "with liberty and justice for all," we need to give the blessing of liberty and justice to all.

Finally you missed my point where I compared you to Hitler. By not giving rights to these people working in factories you are taking away the rights of a minority. To take away the rights of a minority puts you right next to the homicidal, oppressive, genocidal man who figured that taking the rights away from the minorities and then killing them is fine. Not giving equal rights to those who are suffering is the first step on this path.

By not taking action and removing Nike from the US until it offers equal rights to all it's workers we are allowing Nike to oppress, to take away rights, and to degrade the constitution which we, the people, have fought for.

Sources:
[1] http://www.globalexchange.org...
[2] http://preview.tinyurl.com...
[3] No Logo, Naomi Klein
[4] http://www.usconstitution.net...
[5] No Logo, Naomi Klein, Table 9.3
Korashk

Con

~~~~~~~
Rebuttals
~~~~~~~

///Paragraph 2, Round 3///
Your source round 3 source [1] states that CEO Phil Knight made 6 commitments. Increasing wages was not one of those commitments as Knight does not have the power to dictate how much these factories pay their workers. You also claim that Knight promised to fund universities in the countries that produce for them, this is also not true according to your source. While many of these promises were not fulfilled to the satisfaction of many they were fulfilled.

///Paragraph 3, Round 3///
While this action paints Nike in a bad light it does not support the resolution that Nike should be banned.

I will be responding to paragraph four in its individual parts.

///People don't realize that they are paying more money for the same shoe!///
It is not a crime to charge exorbitant amounts of money for your product. As I stated in previous rounds, Nike is not forcing people to purchase their merchandise.

///Nike has and is breeding its brand to be cool.///
Of course it is, cool = popularity, when concerning products popularity = money. I hardly think it is rational to ban a company for being popular or cool.

///Because they have been told, TOLD that it is cool. By whom? Not themselves, they have been led to believe from an early age that Nike is cool because Nike told them so.///
These kids have been told that Nike is cool, but it is not Nike that says this to them. Society tells these kids that Nike is cool because to society the Nike brand is cool. Nothing can be cool without people thinking that it is cool. Nike became cool because someone thought that it was cool and the idea caught on.

///There are kids in my school who can't afford a new backpack so they use one that has only one strap and a hole in the bottom because they bought a shoe that they have been led to believe that they must have to be cool...it is the fact that they are preying upon poor families that can't afford it.///
See the first rebuttal for this paragraph.

///As for your point concerning Colleges, it is how rigorous the curriculum of the college is, how good and experienced the teachers are and how much better the teaching tools at Harvard that puts it apart from your fake new school.///
You misunderstand my point. Harvard Law is _literally_ no different than Flibbledorp. In this scenario the teachers have the _exact_ same amount of experience, they teach in _exactly_ the same manner, and they have _exactly_ the same amount and quality of resources. Harvard is not a better school for teaching law than Flibbledorp is, their name just holds more weight and that's just the way it is.

///While what Nike is doing is just within what is legal///
Remember this as it is important later on.

///Murdering is banned because it is morally wrong. Theft is banned because it is morally wrong.///
These are incorrect statements. Murder and theft are not illegal because they are morally wrong, they are illegal because they violate other individual's right to life and property respectively. Many things considered immoral are legal such as gambling, lying, and prostitution (in some places). Morals are subjective and therefore have no legal influence on lawmaking. Lawmaking is a process that deals with protecting the rights of citizens.

I will skip over the next portion because they mainly deal with the immorality of the Nike company for worker exploitation, not why they should be banned. As a blanket refutation of this portion I will simply say that rather than forcing the Nike company out of business would be to make laws that prevent what Nike is doing, they would therefore be required to fix things or risk legal ramifications.

///Paragraph 7, Round 3///
It is here that my opponent relies on a legal argument to justify a ban on Nike. To make this contention have any weight my opponent should not have stated the following, "what Nike is doing is just within what is legal." If what Nike is doing is legal then how can they be violating the US constitution? This statement invalidates this argument because the constitution is the document that dictates laws in America and if what Nike is doing is legal then they are not in violation of the constitution.

///By not taking action and removing Nike from the US until it offers equal rights to all it's workers we are allowing Nike to oppress, to take away rights, and to degrade the constitution which we, the people, have fought for.///
These arguments would have been good had this been the resolution. The resolution in this debate is that Nike should be banned. Period. Not 'Banned until they give workers equal rights.'

In conclusion my opponent has failed to provide any sound evidence that shows that Nike should be banned from America. He has shown a great deal about how what Nike is doing is immoral and wrong, but in America things are not banned because of immorality, things are banned because of the fact that they can be harmful to the American public. I believe that I have successfully fulfilled my Burden of Clash and strongly urge a Con vote.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by redbrave70 7 years ago
redbrave70
Should we ban...
1.) Pet stores for selling animals that come from illegal means or puppy mills etc
2.) Food stores that buy products such as meats that dont properly slaughter the animals painlessly
3.) Utility Companies such as water and sewer within the United States that underpay and overwork employees while the CEO's make millions
4.) Ford for making cars for over 100 years that slowly destroyed our ozone etc
So on and so on...while were at it Kenostic?

Give me a break open your eyes come back to reality hey go take a trip to the country that has these sweat shops i guarantee they are happy mother fu@#ers who have a job and earn money to live and survive. This world is full of stuff that isnt right or isnt fair or not what you like, but hey thats life. Call me a nazi or hitler as well but I must side with Korashk for the simple fact that nike hasn't paid someone with the 70% of sales to put a gun to your head and say he what size are you. And if your that worried about the people working in sweat shops make your argument useful and start a fundraiser or something, cause by the sounds of it your overly serious about this debate and either need to go find a nice tree to hug or spend your time elsewhere.
Posted by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
I gave myself conduct because he called me a Nazi and compared me to Hitler.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Third World countries want Nike factories, and they are very clear about that. The alternative is generally subsistence agriculture in an overpopulated place, which is an alternative worse Nike. What Nike pays workers is not what the shoes cost. Overseas operations are expensive in many way, because the countries have little infrastructure, so the company has to worry about things like providing electricity and getting materials in and product out. Managing overseas operations is also expensive. In addition to worker pay, the Third World countries also get infrastructure improvements.

It's true that Nike customers are paying a hefty chunk of change for Tiger Woods' endorsement and other such marketing ploys. However, that is a voluntary choice of consumers. It's like sports or entertainment, where the customer chooses to pay a hefty premium for the product.

Con argued correctly throughout.
Posted by Grape 7 years ago
Grape
Though I agree with Korashk that Nike should not be banned, they do deserve to be reprimanded for their actions. However, I doubt very much that it is economically feasible.

Also, a degree from Harvard Law is worth more than simply the name. It comes with the garuntee that the product (which is in this case a lawyer) will be of the top quality. The reason the Fibbledorp lawyer won't get the same job is because chances are, Fibbledorp DOESN'T offer the same quality courses as Harvard. If it did, the name would be worth more. Though I understand the point of this analogy, it is a bad example.
Posted by mattrodstrom 7 years ago
mattrodstrom
how bout instead of banning them b/c their stupidly expensive.... Don't buy it.
Posted by Kenostic 7 years ago
Kenostic
Then vote for me!
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
Nike should be banned in general. They use sweatshop labour in third world countries.
Posted by Kenostic 7 years ago
Kenostic
It didn't. I have read the book and used several of her statistics yes, but none of which i wrote was in any way plagiarized, all that i have quoted was in quotation marks. The rest have been from multiple sources that i have accumulated and put into my own words. I have done considerable amounts of research into this topic.
Posted by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
I call it like I see it. The opening argument is just a list of statistics and his only source is the book No Logo, it is not that great of a leap to say that I think his entire 'argument' came from that book.
Posted by Kusfraba 7 years ago
Kusfraba
Korashk, have you read the book, "No Logo" or are you just automatically assuming that Kenostic is incapable of higher thought? Your opening sentence was irrelevant to the argument, and put a bad light on your ethics. Seems you would rather insult your opposition than come through with an enlightening opening sentence..
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
KenosticKorashkTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
KenosticKorashkTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Vote Placed by Grape 7 years ago
Grape
KenosticKorashkTied
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 Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
KenosticKorashkTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04