PetersSmith Works for Juggle
PetersSmith should not accept this debate. Should she accept, it is an automatic win for me, since she cannot bear to read a debate about her authoritative persona on DDO.
I think PetersSmith works for Juggle, as a OneSpace Employee.
1st round is for acceptance.
On a side note: I have never played mafia but I understand that the object of the game is to determine who is mafia through observations and questions. Consider that the way I compiled my theory about PetersSmith working for Juggle is similar to the way a game of mafia is played.
This puts pro at a disadvantage, but she created the disadvantage for herself and judges should not feel sorry for her. If she uses extremely good arguments, even better arguments than me, but they don't persuade you, than vote for me.
Arguments such as nihilism are often harder to argue against, but people do not find them persuasive. In a normal debate not responding to nihilist arguments could give me a loss, but since this debate is about persuasiveness, the judges do not need to require me to respond to arguments that aren't convincing.
I just wanted to educate the judges on the format real quick. I accept the debate and agree to the terms.
PetersSmith works for Juggle
My theory about why I think that PetersSmith works for Juggle is rather complex, so I will break down the components that caused me to think that she is an employee of OneSpace, a company owned by the same company, Juggle, that owns DDO.
 Polls - Research and Marketing
What would be the motivation for an employee of OneSpace, DDO’s sister company that is also owned by Juggle, to become a polls moderator? The answer is marketing! What effect would a polls moderator have on marketing? The power to continuously advertise the polls on forums to attract users to a page where their answers can be compiled by researchers in a more scientific methodology than expressing oneself on forums, or especially on debates. Dialog between members takes place directly in debates and to a somewhat lesser degree in forum postings. The polls allow comments without direct dialog. It would be more viable for researchers to compile data about political leanings or sentiments about current issues using the polls, than analysing debates or forum postings.
PetersSmith is the moderator of the polls, giving her an excuse to closely examine the data and comments that are compiled there. I’d guesstimate that 70% of her comments on forum threads mention the polls, usually her dissatisfaction with how they are working, along with hinting that she would like members to ask airmax to give her the ability to moderate and/or remove polls.
 OneSpace - a company that pools talent to aid online marketers.  OneSpace Click the link - I dare you. Does the page that I directed you to actually say anything that gives you much of an idea of what their purpose is? No, it is wordy and vague and says absolutely nothing about the real purpose of the website or their “platform.” This is done intentionally. Just to demonstrate that OneSpace is a company owned by Juggle here is the link.  Juggle
Here is another example of OneSpace’s “Case Studies” page that says absolutely nothing of any substance about what they actually do.  OneSpace case studies
When I clicked on “articles,” and then “Swansea firm aims to be at center of the gig economy,” I finally get a glimpse of what OneSpace’s aim is:  OneSpace "gig" economy
“OneSpace is positioning itself to be a central player
I clicked on, “Custom Solutions,” and found that OneSpace offers, “content moderation,” and “data management,” and learned that freelancers are paid to flag “inappropriate” content, and “turn unstructured data into actionable insight.” Custom Solutions at OneSpace
 PetersSmith behavior on the forums is authoritative or evasive much of the time.
Whenever I directly questioned her about working for Juggle, she became irritated and informed me to ask airmax. It is possible that airmax doesn’t know that she works for Juggle via OneSpace. When I pushed her, she claimed that she didn’t work for Juggle, but it doesn’t mean that she doesn’t work for OneSpace who is owned by Juggle. Technically she doesn’t work for Juggle directly, but she could work for OneSpace as a freelancer or some sort. Here are links to previous conversations we had some time ago about the subject of her working for Juggle.
[http://www.debate.org...] no answer
[http://www.debate.org...] no answer
[http://www.debate.org...] no answer
[http://www.debate.org...] finally an answer, and I had taken her word for it, but when she encouraged Zmike to leave the site for airing his grievances, I once again suspected she works for Juggle, so I made this debate.
This link is to our most recent discourse about her working for Juggle, on 6/12/2016.
[http://www.debate.org...] The authoritative tone about Juggle, is what leads me to believe she knows more about them than anyone else. She claims that other members say similar things about Juggle and links me to the wrong page of whatever she was trying to direct me to. I think that Juggle’s motivation for attempting to control content on DDO, may be to ensure that their sister companies (other than DDO) are viewed favorably by their clients. In all of the content that I read while researching OneSpace, it was clear to me that they’d prefer content be easily decipherable. They employ people to monitor and edit content on the web. Could PetersSmith be one of those who receive a paycheck?
 PetersSmith’s profile page mentions that she is a writer. Duh…., all of us who are on this website to a degree are writers. Does she mean that she is a paid writer? The use of the term “writer” leads me to believe she is paid for it, because most members word it in such a way that shows that it is an activity they they enjoy or are good at, and use a phrase such as, ”I enjoy writing.”
Her feed seldom shows any activity. I had checked fairly often, during the times that I was engaged in discourse with her on forums, to see what she was up to, but her activity has ALWAYS been incognito.
[http://www.debate.org...] no answer
PetersSmith avoids dialog about herself
I spent quite a bit of time reading polls that PetersSmith had previously posted. It seems that she hasn’t made a poll in quite some time. I did find these comments to her / about her from members that implied she had a purpose for her polls.
“Reeseroni says May 13 2015 03:39 PM Report Post
“reece says April 24 2015 04:54 PM Report Post
What does this have to do with my theory about her working for Juggle via OneSpace? It shows that other members noticed that she is compiling information to analyse.
If she does work for OneSpace, we should have sympathy for her. They seem like real Jacka$$es to deal with. They push their “freelancers” for little pay or recognition.
I'm just going to focus on positive arguments this round (maybe this is written in a stream of cosciousness like most of my debates.). I don't have all that much to say. My opponent has accepted my interpretation of how the voters should judge the debate, so that interpretation should stand. If you read this debate, you can keep your preconcieved bias and judge the debate based on what you think is true, but be sure that you mention this voting guideline was mentioned in the debate, and why you accept it.
Peter Smith has been on the site almost 3 years. She probably started on the site around the same time I did. She is 19 years old now, and was about 16 or 17 when she joined DDO, according to her profile. http://www.debate.org...
16 or 17 is way too young to start working at Juggle. Especially when you consider the types of positions they typicall hire for, such as engineering, marketing and senior sales positions, all requiring a college education or a significant amount of experience. http://www.onespace.com... don't know many 16 year olds with an engineering degree or a lot of work experience, so this makes that very unlikely.
I'm sure Peter Smith being a polls moderator is some of the reason for the initial suspicions of her working in some way for Juggle. Maybe some knowledge of how that came to pass should be mentioned. The first and most obvious reason is because she does take pride in creating polls. Making sure they are appropriate and detailed. As annoying as she is, she is one of the more mature users on the poll section, because of the fact it has a younger demographic than the rest of the site.
I think the biggest reason she obtained the moderator position is because of some politics. Sometimes people end up as political footballs, it is beyond their control, and the moderation position going to her was kinda dumb luck in that respect, it could have just as easily been some other poll member who became a political football and happened to catch the limelight at the time.
In December of 2014 a heated presidential race between Bladerunner and Mikal occurred. http://www.debate.org...
The voting criteria was 500 forum posts or 3 debates. I wanted to see Mikal win so I in fact was a large part of helping him win that election, something I regret to this day, more because I think without my efforts he would have lost, and that he could have easily repaid me by doing the bare minimal to get me the votes necessary to beat BSH1. Anyway, we spammed the hell out of eligable voters, something which was usually refrained from at the time, and in fact something not likely to occur so much in this next election.
The fact that most of the very active members voted Bladerunner and Mikal won became a sore spot. At the time people were mad that somebody could come on and just do 3 debates and be eligible to vote, while respected members who have contributed a ton could not place votes for president.
Changing voter requirements was something hotly debated across the site, and it seemed every time somebody would say the status quo was fine, another member would point to Peter Smith and ask how is it somebody who has only debated 3 times and made no forum posts could vote but Peter Smith was locked out?
Here is just one example of Peter Smith being used as a political football, but I assure you it happened several times.
MishapQueen: "PetersSmith is excellent at improving the quality of the polls. She has done over 500 quality polls and has been an active member for 5 months. But she is not into debating." (referring to who should qualify to vote.)
"She uses the forums, but she's new to that part of it. She is qualified because she has been a tremendous influence in the poll section, and she knew about the candidates and was informed about the election. We even discussed it a good bit."
If you look at other threads about voting after that election you will see the same thing. For anyone interested in why new voting standards were being debated so hotly, just know it was because the side that lost was being cry babies and wanted to prevent any populist from ever winning in the future.
Anyway....... All this attention on Peter Smith as a political football had everyone saying a bunch of positive things about her, praising her more than maybe she deserved, though the praise was perhaps long over due. With Airmax wanting a polls mod, and him seeing all the praise for Peter Smith, he likely thought she was a good candidate. You see, she was here atleast a year before becoming a mod, and the main reason she became a mod was mostly out of her control, she most definitely did not get that role because she is a Juggle employee.
The Linda Problem
Conspiracy theories happen for many reasons, but the main one has to do with the conjunction fallacy. I'm going to ask the voters to play along in their head, while I quote this paper:
“Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with the issue of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in antinuclear demonstrations.
Which of the following is more probable:
1. Linda is a bank teller (T)
2. Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement (T and B)”
What did you answer? This is a very ogical group here, so I bet most of you picked answer 1, but still a significant numer of readers picked answer 2. Answer 1 is the most likely answer, but don't feel bad if you picked 2. Studies have confirmed most people pick number 2, but why is number 1 correct?
Well number 1 is less specific. The more specific of a theory you make, the less likely iy is to be true, and pro has gotten pretty specific. This is not the rebuttal round yet, but a good example of the Linda problem in action is for my opponent to believe that PeterSmith's writing makes her more likely to freelance at one of Juggle's companies, than just writing books as PeterSmith claims. My opponent finds the more specific yet less likely scenario to be of a higher probability.
Conspiracy theories happen because of a lack of information usually. We find it naturally fun to fill in the gaps and figure things out. Often times when we lack information we attribute malice to an action. If somebody won't answer our question it is because they are hiding some evil thing about themself. Sometimes it is true that people are hiding their own malice, but usually it is just our imagination. The person who snubbed you by not saying hello was not likely being rude, but they had their mind occupied or they legitimately did not see you.
There is also Hanlon's Razor to consider. What Hanon's razor says is: "Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice" https://en.wikipedia.org...
The reason being is that stupidity is more common than malice. When you get married, your husband doesn't intentially turn all the clothes pink by throwing a red shirt in with the whites. Your kid doesn't intentionally forget mother's day to hurt your feelings. Peter Smith does not have an heir of authority around her because she secretly is employed by Juggle, likely some much more mundane explanation is likelier. Maybe she is an only child that always got her way, and the heir of authority is just her being herself and likely not even realizing she is doing it or knowing how to fix a problem. There is a reason why only children are bad at making friends. I am not saying that is the case here, but it is far more likely that somebody is an only child than a Juggle employee.
Anyway thanks for your arguments Emma, and I look forward to providing rebuttals in the next round
Ok, Wylted, your arguments did not convince me that Peters Smith doesn't work for Juggle, she did, in her response to you on the comments of this debate. I no longer care if I win this debate, I care that I have harmed the reputation of someone, PetersSmith, who did nothing wrong. She is an assertive female, as I myself am. She holds a position of more authority than most members on DDO. Imabench's Movie had me speculating that an outside force was killing meaningful dialog on the forums. Some members themselves are killing the freedom of expression on the forums.
@PetersSmith, I owe you a sincere apology. I no longer care if you do work for Juggle, or OneSpace, it's really none of my business. I did read many of the polls you made over a year ago when the polls were working. They were done meticulously with much thought put into them. I can see why airmax gave you the position of polls moderator.
Anyone who judges this debate must consider that Wylted broke the rules of "no personal insults" that he agreed to when he accepted this debate. If you don't vote it a tie, I will report the vote. I am now convinced that my resolution is false but not through the efforts of my opponent, and my opponent broke the main rule of this debate, so the only fair ruling should be a tie.
I hope anyone who reads this debate will realize that OneSpace is a company who pays freelance writers very little money for menial tasks, until they work their way into a more prestigious positions. Writers like PetersSmith could have fallen victim to their invitation, but I no longer think she works for them.
Direct Responses to R3
"Wylted, your arguments did not convince me that Peters Smith doesn't work for Juggle"
Good for you. I'd like the judges to keep in mind that pro believes Peter Smith is not a Juggle employee.
"Anyone who judges this debate must consider that Wylted broke the rules of "no personal insults" that he agreed to when he accepted this debate."
I made no personal attacks on Peter Smith. Personal insults was not mentioned in the op. Luckily for me Airmax has made an entire thread on personal attacks. It defines them, and discusses the punishments. The thread is the reason for about 5 members leaving the site, some of which have returned, but Imabench and Conservativepolitico are the two names that stood out in my mind, because they had shows that could be misconstrued as personal attacks.
Here is what Airmax has to say about personal attacks: "A personal attack, in the context of this site, is not "anything directed at a person that they find to be unfavorable". Not only would such a definition be absurd, it would stifle exchange and debate. If someone is being dishonest, calling them out on it could be considered by the literalist to be a "personal attack". You are, after all, saying something negative about them, personally. But that's not what's intended by the policy."
Here we have Airmax defining what a personal attack is not. Peter Smith being offended by what I say in the debate does not make it a personal attack. Her feelings do not determine what is and isn't a personal attack. It also doesn't make it a personal attack for me to say something negative about Peter Smith given I have good reason to do so, such as providing premises for my statement or using some scenario which may or may not be true to illustrate a point.
Here is what Airmax says regardin the types of personal attacks: "DIRECT ATTACK, This is where, outside the context of a discussion on the topic or of behavior in the course of that discussion, someone posts something negative about a specific member. Generalized complaints about generalized behaviors are not direct attacks....(Ex.: A forum post saying "You're an idiot", or a debate with the resolution "User123 should be kicked off the site".)"
This is something I have not engaged in. No direct attacks were made. We did touch on Peter Smiths "heir of authority", but pro mentioned it first. Besides pro mentioning it firs, it is a generalized complaint of Peter Smith's behavior, and not a personal attack.
Airmax: "MERE INSULT, A step below even the Ad Hominem fallacy in terms of argument: Simple unjustified insult. "Stupidity" is not something that can be objectively justified. Nor can other insults with subjective meaning. (A**hole, etc.) Some things which may be insulting can be justified. "You are saying something dishonest" can be justified objectively, by demonstrating dishonesty. If it isn't justified, though, then it becomes a mere insult. Mere insult of ideas is allowed--mere insult of people is not....(Ex.: "You're an a****le", " You f**")"
No mere insult has occurred. Peter Smith has not been insulted at all, even if they feel insulted.
Airmax: "AD HOMINEM, Should be the easy one, on a debate site; ad hominem is a logical fallacy which every debater should be aware of. Formally known as the Argumentum Ad Hominem.
Ad hominem attacks are not valid rebuttals. Which is not to say that the every statement about the person in relation to their arguments is an ad hominem attack. Pointing out that of course a politician would deny cheating, whether they did cheat or not, is not an ad hominem. Claiming that of course someone cheated, because they're a politician, would be....(Ex.: "Well, you're a cop, so your opinion is wrong")"
Didn't happen. I made no Ad Hominems in my post.
Airmax: "CROSS-THREAD CONTAMINATION, Another kind of personal attack is where a member with whom you've had heated exchanges in the past posts something unrelated, and you feel the need to bring up their actions there against them. Unrelated discussions are just that. Sometimes new discussions do directly relate to the old ones. Then, it may be acceptable to bring up the old ones. Otherwise, if it's not related to the current discussion, it's just you attacking them to attack. That doesn't help the current discussion/debate--it only hinders it. Comment on the arguments presented, and the way they're being presented. Not about the member or your own general opinions of them....(Ex.: In a forum about the relative tastiness of cheeses, User A opines that smoked gouda is by far his favorite. User B says "Yeah, smoked gouda is delicious. But you think that leveraged buyouts are legitimate uses of corporate financing, so your opinion is worthless!")"
Other threads are relevant to this discussion, so this obviously does not apply here because the exception is noted. While we're on this it may be of benefit of my opponent to learn that cross thread contamination is a conduct violation, as she has given examples of herself doing just that in this very debate.
Airmax: "ACCUSATIONS AND THREATS, Accusing a member of misconduct (such as votebombing) is serious. Obviously, misconduct is bad. But likewise, baseless accusations are bad.
If you're going to accuse a member of something, remember that serious accusations require serious evidence. Egregious misconduct of the kind likely to warrant immediate banning should be reported to airmax1227, rather than complained about in the forums. However, if you want to discuss something like an accusation of a supposed vote bomb, you may bring up the vote for discussion, provided you actually have cause to make the accusation. Without that evidence, an accusation is as stifling to discussion as a threat.
It should be noted that, even with a justified accusation, stating what consequences will result would be a threat. Which brings us to threats.
Threats are, for the purposes of this policy, personal attacks. They are not tolerated.....(Ex.: "I'm going to hunt you down and break your legs", "I'm gonna get you banned for this!")"
The only person making accusations in this debate is pro so........
The site does go through the trouble of defining personal attacks, I have shown that I have made no personal attack. If my opponent wants to concede the debate and it looks like she does than fine, but I should win points for it. I also want to take the time with what little space I have left to point out that my opponent's theory is that Peter Smith is a freelance writer who has Juggle as either a client or as a tool for gaining clients. A freelancer by it's very definition is not an employee. Here is the definition of freelancer to prove my point.
"Working on a contract basis for a variety of companies, as opposed to working as an employee for a single company. Freelancers are often considered to be self-employed"
I'll begin this round by citing a quote by airmax that he provided:
Con wasn't factual with the attributes that he assigned to Peters Smith. Her own comment on this debate testifies to that:
Con did not did not insult her ideas, he attacked her character by saying she was more likely "an only child that always got her way," than a juggle employee, and implied this may be why she's bad at making friends. I was embarrassed when I read his R2, because I was expecting an argument that had substance, not a cheap shot to explain why she seemed authoritative on threads at times.
When I previously confronted her because of the heir of authority that I perceived she had, it was because I thought that she worked for juggle and was parading her authority in front of regular members. It annoyed me, not because she was direct and assertive with her opinions, but because I thought she held an important PAID position, to use DDO members for research. It was that I thought deception was involved that annoyed me, not her assertiveness that I only perceived as authoritative when I thought her motives were profit or research driven.
I was going to concede my argument that Smith works for Juggle, until I trolled her on a post last night, joking that I still thinks she works for Juggle, because again her tone was authoritative on a post about Juggle. I did so because I wanted to see her reaction to me pointing out how her authoritative tone can be perceived as someone who works for the company that they are making strong claims on behalf of. Her response, and Airmax’s as well, is what made me to decide to continue this debate, that she works for Juggle. [http://www.debate.org...] and [http://www.debate.org...]
I realize that this was an attempt at sarcasm, but as we continued the dialog, and airmax commented as well, I realized that her use of sarcasm was an attempt to confuse what the truth actually is. She evaded responding to my inquiry about, “What is truth?” when I questioned her about using the word truth while simultaneously being sarcastic.
She evaded my next response about using truth in congruence with sarcasm, but answered my about quoting her for this debate.[http://www.debate.org...]
Why would she use sarcasm after I revealed that I trolled her about working for Juggle? To hide truth, and discredit my theory, that she does work for Juggle.
Con brings up her age as evidence that she would have been too young to work as a freelance writer, but then goes on to notice her maturity level from her activity on the polls. IT IS THE INTERNET! Unless anyone has even viewed her on the hangouts, live with the camera ON, there is no reason to believe she is the age she says she is. She admits that she lied about her gender when she first became a member., why not age as well?
Smith herself, (if we can believe anything she says) discredits my opponents theory about what led to her becoming a polls moderator.
What I did find interesting is the time frame of changing the voting standards (not needing 3 debates) for voting in Presidential elections, and the subsequent change in moderation on DDO. Once voters in elections were not made up of members who completed the debate requirement, standards on the site changed across the board on DDO. An employee of Juggle would know how to place herself in a position of protest, to effect other changes on the website!
The Linda Problem
I appreciate con’s insights about conjunction fallacy, and it could apply to my theory about PetersSmith being an employee, or freelancer of Juggle via OneSpace or Write.Org, but Smith’s evasiveness when asked direct questions, and use of sarcasm to confuse truth, makes me continue to believe that my theory is relevant and not a conjunction fallacy.
Con mentions that technically a freelancer is not an employee, but a sub-contractor. May I remind con that the resolution of this debate, is that PetersSmith works for Juggle, and being a freelancer is still considered working for the company in which you receive a contract.
I already briefly addressed con’s arguments in R3 about whether or not he attacked Smith in R2. Smith definitely is skilled at the art of deceptions as demonstrated by her responses to me many times on threads. I will leave it up to the voters to decide if I convinced them that Smith’s deception is due to working for Juggle.
Here is a photo of Samantha PETERS a freelance writer for Write.org, another company owned by Juggle, alongside a previous profile pic of PetersSmith. Does anyone else see a resemblance?
In round 3 pro concedes the debate. She tries to wriggle her way out of a loss by requesting a tie vote based on a faulty premise, however it is a concession and I should get the win based on that alone, but even if that concession is not accepted, I still win based on the standards I mentioned in round one which my opponent accepted by not contesting them, and I know she has not convinced anybody of her conspiracy theory. However if you want to use normal standards while also ignoring her concession, I still win based on the fact all my round 2 arguments were dropped when she wasted all of round 3. Her rebuttals and new aruments should be ignored, but even if you don't buy that, read on.
Let's rehash what I said in round 2.
"Peter Smith does not have an heir of authority around her because she secretly is employed by Juggle, likely some much more mundane explanation is likelier. Maybe she is an only child that always got her way, and the heir of authority is just her being herself and likely not even realizing she is doing it or knowing how to fix a problem. There is a reason why only children are bad at making friends. I am not saying that is the case here, but it is far more likely that somebody is an only child than a Juggle employee"
The key words in this are highlighted. I think it's obvious my opponent can't win this argument, and is just wasting mine and the voter's time forcing me to waste characters addressing the absurd accusation that this is a personal attack. We are debating whether Petersmith is a Juggle employee or not. I gave 1 of a million possible explanations for why her behavior is the way it is. I did not say this is the most likely explanation, the only explanation or any other absurd thing. I made no assumptions, I merely mentioned a scenario that is more likely to explain the explanation.
It's like somebody saying an alien abduction is more likely than Michael Jordan coming out of retirement. It is a statement on what is more liely, not a statement on what has or will happen. It is sad that pro has wasted our time on this.
Here is what pro says: "Con did not did not insult her ideas, he attacked her character by saying she was more likely "an only child that always got her way," than a juggle employee, and implied this may be why she's bad at making friends. I was embarrassed when I read his R2, because I was expecting an argument that had substance, not a cheap shot to explain why she seemed authoritative on threads at times."
I am sure every single voter who is an only child is offended that you think calling somebody an only child is an insult. I am sure every socially awkward person is also offended thiat you would think calling people socially awkward is an insult. Let's just imagine it is an insult, it was still not a statement of fact that I made but a hypothetical, and anyone reading the quote knows it is a hypothetical. personally I think it would be insulting if somebody called me a Juggle employee than an only child, but that's just my opinion.
I gave her the benefit of the doubt about her age Emma, I don't asume she is a liar. If you think she is a liar then fine, but I thin she is being honest about her age, even if she did misrepresent her gender to get more respect in a male dominated environment.
"Smith herself, (if we can believe anything she says) discredits my opponents theory about what led to her becoming a polls moderator."
She does not discredit my theory. She dismisses it out of hand while stating facts that don't even contradict it. For example in he comments she says "I became the poll mod in March of 2015 (joined in around August of of 2014), so that's 7 months I was on the site before becoming the mod. Airmax appointed me as mod because he didn't focus on the section, and believed I was "by far the most prolific user of the polls section." I understood the section, cared for the section, and agreed to it out of the kindness of my heart."
None of that contradicts how Airmax's attention was drawn to her. With people continually singing her praises and Airmax noticing, yes this makes sense. Also it is obvious that people would choose the best member they can think of in the polls. I say she was a political football which drew Max's attention to her, and she says that is not true because she is an awesome poll member, without realizing that her being awesome is the reason she became a political football to start with. It is no coincidence she became a moderator the second the situation cooled down.
I repeat, no facts either one of us provided contradict each other, only our interpretation of the facts. My interpretation does not even neccesarily contradict hers, she just thinks it does. Either way this is firm evidence that circumstances caused her to become a mod, making the Juggle employee theory for it less likely. If she was not a great polls user, in fact the most prolific, those circumstances would have never developed around her, but her awesomeness as much as circumstance is why she got the role. Either way, me and Petersmith both agree she got the spot due to factors having nothing to do with being an employee. Whether it be her awesomeness which squashes Emma's theories, or circumstances, squashing Emma's theories.
There should be less suspicion cast if she got the position from being the best. If she was 2nd or 3rd best poll user, than my opponent's argument might make since.
"Con mentions that technically a freelancer is not an employee, but a sub-contractor. May I remind con that the resolution of this debate, is that PetersSmith works for Juggle, and being a freelancer is still considered working for the company in which you receive a contract."
Nope, a self employed person is self employed. They work for themselves. They have clients, not bosses. My dentist does not work for me just because I pay him for a service. He exchanges his services for my money. This is an equal relationship. We both are purely self interested. An employer/employee relationship is a hierarchy. A client/service provider agreement is not a hierarchy. The cable company does not work for me when they come to my house to install cable. Wal-mart does not work for me just because I exchange money for their goods and services. Nobody is going to buy this twisting of the English language by you. Is was not even worthy of an attempt.
Voters should ignore the new arguments, many of which can already be rebutted by me copy and pasting what I said in round 2. The last statement should be ignored also, it's a racist statement.
It is my opponent's way of saying all white people look alike.
Anyway, ignore the stupid stuff, ignore the new arguments, ignore the rebuttals she used on argument s she dropped, and count her concession against her.
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|