The Instigator
Bwacit
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Blade-of-Truth
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Prospective Job Applicants Should Not Be Asked To Reveal Prior Criminal Convictions

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Blade-of-Truth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,039 times Debate No: 67321
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Bwacit

Pro

Prospective Job Applicants Should Not be Asked to Reveal Prior Criminal Convictions

Criminal Conviction = the judgement of a jury or judge that a person is guilty of crime as charged.
Prospective Job Applicants = people applying for a job
Prior = Before an event

Proposition

Hello judge. Imagine this. A poor man is starving. He robs a store to help his family survive, and he is arrested. Later, he gets out of prison, and applies for a job so that he can be a better person and feed his family without breaking the law. However, when he applies for a job, he is discriminated against due to his criminal record, and he is left homeless and jobless again. Later, with his family in poverty again, he returns to robbing stores and is arrested again. Not only are we using tax money to pay for his stay in prison, but his family is left alone, without food, money, or shelter, and vulnerable. If we make job applicants reveal their prior criminal convictions, this will happen a lot more often.

My first point is that crimes are just mistakes, and everybody deserves a second chance.

Judge, do you remember when you were little, getting into trouble, and your parents grounding you, or taking away a toy? And then maybe you didn"t do that particular thing again, because you realized the consequences. Crime is just like that. A mistake, made by a foolish person, and chances are they weren"t do it again. According to the New York Times, less than half of criminals are arrested again. This shows that the majority of them do learn from their mistakes. Also, if you don"t get a second chance, how are you expected to learn. You just sit their, miserable for the rest of your life? Imagine that. Once you commit a crime, and then you can"t make any more of your life. Even if people make an awful mistake, wouldn"t you like to know that everyone gets the chance to live their life to the fullest without having to be perfect? Also according to the Department of Justice, did you know that when you reveal an offense it can be something so minor as a traffic infraction, or a recurrent parking violation? That means that if you get more than 3 tickets in a year, you could be classified as an offender of the law, and it could prevent you from getting a job. Judge, do you realize what this action can do to people? People who have never even been arrested are not getting jobs. People who are just bad drivers can end up in poverty! As you can see, we should ban this action.

My second point is that not getting a job can lead to reoffense.

According to the Los Angeles Times, although most criminals do not get arrested more than once, more than 75% of two time offenders do not have a job. That"s right, if criminals cannot get a job, there"s a high chance that they will commit another crime.
By forcing people to reveal prior criminal convictions, we are giving them less of a chance to get a job, which can leave them with only one option. To commit a crime.
You know what"s sad? It"s so hard to find a job, that many people are committing crimes because that lifestyle is better than the one at home. Also, according to the Economist, California has roughly 3500 juvenile prisoners, who are there simply for truancy and running away from home. This will make it nearly impossible to get a job when they are young, and, since it is more likely that people start committing crimes when they are younger versus older, those kids will spend more time in prison than adults, and will probably never get a good job.

My third and final point is that disregarding applications from criminals is discrimination.

According to the New York Times, if you don"t give somebody the job just because of their criminal record, it is classified as discrimination. Also, according to the New York Times, racial discrimination plays a part in this too. Using conviction as a basis for selecting a job applicant as racial discrimination involved, for they state that non-caucasians are almost 6 times more likely to be arrested than others.

Thank you, and due to these reasons and many others, the proposition should win this debate.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I'd like to begin by thanking Pro for starting this thought-provoking debate, and I expect it to be a good one!

Clarifications

I am taking the Con position, meaning that I support job applicants being asked about prior criminal convictions.

Since Pro is arguing against the current status quo, the majority of the burden falls on her to affirm this change of common business practice.

I fully accept the definitions given by Pro.

Arguments

I. Safety of the work environment

As a business owner, the common health and security of those who work for you is a concern of the utmost importance. You are responsible for their well-being, their pay, and even their health insurance or retirement plans. In essence, their lives depend on you - the one who employs them and provides the job for which they work - and it is up to you to protect them as any proper leader of men and women would.

An integral part of protecting not only your business but also those who work for you is making sure that you hire those who are best matched for the duties that the job demands. For instance, if you are applying to become a server at a restaurant you will need to be someone who is responsible with handling money and social enough to adequately serve the customers who come in to eat and have a good time. Using this server example, if a manager unknowingly hires someone who has a record of robbery convictions or identity theft, he puts his entire business at risk. Perhaps the person doesn't report all of his tips, perhaps the person copies a customers credit card information and later buys a new tv using the customers credit card numbers. These potential harms are a reality in this world, and happen pretty often. [1] [2] Such cases could land the business in serious trouble, both financially and legally.

The point is that there is a reason why such questions are asked during interviews. The employer is responsible for the livelihood of everyone who works in that business. The business itself is the livelihood of the owner. If anything happened to that business it could harm the lives of many innocent people. This is why employers ask such questions, they are doing it with the best interests of the company in mind. Hiring the wrong person can be the difference between continued success and the business shutting down.

II. Reputation of the Business

Another key aspect of this debate would be the importance of maintaining a good reputation for the business. In my previous argument I showed the potential harm that could arise if business owners hire people without previously inquiring on their criminal history. In this argument, I wish to express the importance of customer-relations and opinions of the business. There are many websites nowadays dedicated to rating the quality of a certain business. Such sites like yelp.com or angieslist.com depend on the opinions of people who have experienced these businesses first-hand and then report on their personal opinion. So why is this relevant to the argument?

The reason this is important is because surely no parent would desire to leave their child at a day care who hires ex-child molesters. Unfortunately, this is the reality that my opponent is arguing for. If my opponent gets their way, businesses like day cares run the risk of hiring such people, whereas if they inquired on the potential-employees criminal record they might have seen that he is a convicted child molester. Perhaps a film-developing company hires an ex-peeping tom and then customers start complaining about personal photos missing. Both of these scenarios pose serious threats to the reputations of the respective businesses.

The aim of any decent business owner is to build a successful business. Part of that success would be attributable to the company having a good reputation. Surely no decent person would waste time with a company that has a poor reputation when a better company is within reach. Would you take your date to a restaurant that has reviews saying "there was a cockroach in my soup"? I don't think so. Thus, maintaining a good reputation is imperative of any hopeful business owner, and part of protecting that reputation depends on hiring employees that are well-fitting for the respective job position. I firmly stand against my opponent's position which has the potential of letting child molesters work wherever they please due to no background checks.

Rebuttals

III. "everybody deserves a second chance"

Not every crime is committed by "foolish people" plus there is no guarantee that they wouldn't do it again. Unless pro can provide some kind of guarantee, this point fails to hold validity. Pro claims that according to NYTimes less than half return to a life of crime. There is no supporting data given for this claim, thus it is nothing more than an unproven claim. Furthermore, it still fails to account for the other share of criminals which do return to lives of crime. Furthermore, there are work opportunities for criminals. [3] [4] My opponent also fails to consider the opportunity for criminals to have their past crimes expunged or sealed. Having a criminal record doesn't automatically mean that you'll never find a job again.

IV. "not getting a job can lead to reoffense"

Pro provides no sound reason to believe that two-time offenders become that way due to a lack of employment as a sole cause. There could literally be thousands of different reasons why that person chose to commit another crime. While the study might reveal a correlation, correlation does not necessarily prove causation. Furthermore, as I pointed out above, there are work opportunities for criminals. Furthermore, lessening the chance of them getting a job does not leave them with only one option - to commit a crime - that's ridiculous. Pro needs to provide some serious proof before either myself or the audience accept it as a valid one.

In my fourth source, it actually covers the issue of juveniles and criminal records. They are the ones who can most easily get their records expunged or sealed. Additionally, most juvenile records don't even show up on adult records. So, not only does only a fraction of them actually have those charges remain on record as adults, but they additionally have a better chance of getting those records expunged or sealed once they do become an adult. There is no reason to assume that just because they are in juvenile detention that they'll never get a job. This is an unproven assumption and nothing more on Pro's part.

V. "disregarding applications from criminals is discrimination"

False.

Discrimination is defined by the Oxford dictionary as: The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. [5]

Not desiring to hire someone who poses a greater risk of harming the company is in no way reminiscent of discrimination. It is the owner practicing caution over the business which his/her livelihood and that of their employees depend on.

I'll need proof from NYTimes saying otherwise, as I've now shown that discrimination does not involve criminal background checks from potential employers.

Furthermore, racial discrimination has no grounds in this debate. This is known as a red herring fallacy [6] and I highly suggest you avoid presenting such logical fallacies as arguments for the remainder of this debate.

In Closing,

I've provided two key arguments as well as rebuttals for each argument presented by Pro.

I now return the floor to Pro.

Thank you.

Sources

[1] http://www.gulfcoastnewstoday.com...
[2] http://www.nbcnewyork.com...
[3] https://www.ncjrs.gov...
[4] http://www.wikihow.com...
[5] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[6] http://www.nizkor.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Bwacit

Pro

Judge, I would like to start by refuting the Opposition's points, strengthening my own, and then adding two new points to the table for my side.

Refuting

The Opposition's first point was that this can affect the safety of the work environment.

According to Forbes, if the crime in any way relates to the job, interviewers have access to all necessary information, showing that it isn't dangerous. And even if it was, according to the Guardian, less than half of criminals with jobs ever commit another crime. So there"s not a high chance that it will be dangerous. And also, people who have committed crimes that can put your life in imminent danger are in jail. If you are arrested for murder or assault, you will stay in prison for a long time - anywhere from 50 years to life! But either way, there are not many criminals out there who have committed dangerous crimes.

Their second point was that it could harm the reputation of the business.

How, judge? Are you going to tell everyone that you are hiring people with criminal records? And, if everybody agrees and we pass this law, it won't even be an issue, Plus, if driminals don't commit a crime, which chances are they WON'T as I mentioned earlier, then it won't matter whether they have a criminal past or not.

Strengthening

The Opposiition's refute to my first point, that everybody deserves a second chance, was that some people will return to a life of crime, and that not all criminals do not get jobs. However, I would like to say that according to the Los Angeles Times, 1 in 2.3 Americans without criminal records have jobs, as of 2013, where as 1 in 16 Americans with criminal records have jobs. Judge, this is showing that those who have a criminal record, even one as minor as multiple traffic violations, has a lesser chance of getting job, and as I mentioned earlier, even though some people do commit crimes again, statistics show that having a job GREATLY reduces this risk, and if the majority do not reoffend, we should not be afraid of the few who do, because we are losing many job applicants to the rare chance that they may commi another crime. This point remains valid.

Their refute to my second point, that not getting a job can lead to reoffends, was that this is correlation not causation.
Let me up this another way, judge. I said 'can' and 'lead'. The Opposition is right, it would be a complete coincidence if not getting a job meant reoffense. However, I said can lead to, which means in SOME situations it will BEGIN the road o reoffense, it is a lot of chance, however, the pieces seem to fall in this manner quite frequently, and, seeing as this is the only logical explanation, it is not simply a correlation, for not getting a job leads to a lack of necessary supplies, which means there are few ways to acquire them, one being thievery. Judge, since I have shown that the majority of people follow this path, causation or not, it is more likely that someone will reoffend if they do not get a job and therefore this point remains valid.

Their refute to my third point, that it is discrimination to have a bias against job applicants with criminal record, was saying that it is a false point. I beg to differ, for the New York Times FLAT OUT STATED that it is classified as discrimination to turn away job applications with criminal history on them, and that is exactly what job interviewers are doing, showing that this point is still true and their refute was invalid.

My new points

Point Four: This will help America"s problem of massive unemployment.
This will help our unemployment rate with ex convicts, bringing more employment to them, and as a chain reaction, it"ll help America"s unemployment rate.
1 in 4 Americans have a criminal history-millions. So when we remove the bias, think of how much more steady we"ll be, how much more employed.
The current unemployment rate for people returning from convictions is 60 to 75 percent for those a year out of jail.
This is because of the bias behind those with a check mark in that box. Realize that the employer only asks whether someone has been incarcerated, not why.
Why is crucial. Why they were in jail can have nothing to do with the job they are seeking, and yet there is bias just because of that question.
This has to do with unemployment, a problem plaguing America, because then they aren"t going to be able to find a job, then they can"t provide for themselves, then they go back to their old ways. But that is all in the past, and it should be, but that isn"t going to happen when we stop asking.
We are going to see an upwards spike of more employment if we stop asking. When you don't ask about prior convictions, as demonstrated in Minneapolis, where a ban the box act was passed in 2007, ex convicts who were able to find a job went from 6 percent to 60.
That is a huge leap! Just see how it could benefit our unemployment rate, a huge issue for this country.

Point Five: It"ll also bring down the prisoner rate while it brings up the employment rate.
I was just talking about how when an ex convict cannot get a job, it can very likely lead to reoffense because if they can"t provide for themselves, they might just steal to get things for themselves, and therefore re enter prison.
A study in New York City found that applicants were 50% less likely to be called back to a job or offered one if they had previously been incarcerated. Again, there is a lot of wrongful bias here. And over 40% of people who go to prison in the U.S. go back within 3 years after they have left, and this discrimination against ex convicts is at least part of the reason why.
This, of course, demonstrates that we won"t have as many people going to prison if we just don"t ask or judge someone"s past.
And of course that benefits our issue with the prison system.

In conclusion, I have refuted all of the Opposition's points and strengthened my own, plus added two new points to the table, showing that it is 5:0 now judge, and the Proposition should clearly win this debate.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I. Safety of the work environment

Pro continues to quote sources such as Forbes or the Guardian without ever presenting the actual article itself as a source. There is no reason for either myself or the audience to accept such claims as anything more than baseless opinions unless Pro provides actual proof of these claims. I can easily say, "According to Forbes, dinosaurs are real." Without providing evidence though, there is no reason to accept this claim as valid. Pro needs to provide the actual articles from which he is getting such data, otherwise, it remains an invalid opinion and nothing more.

Furthermore, Pro presented the faulty claim that "people who have committed crimes that can put your life in imminent danger are in jail." What a foolish claim. There are countless examples of people who can put our lives in danger after being freed from jail. To prove my point, take a look at the case of five murderers who were released and then killed again while out in society: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

As anyone can see, Pro's claim is not only false, but also an extremely dangerous one to accept. My opponent then claims that, "If you are arrested for murder or assault, you will stay in prison for a long time - anywhere from 50 years to life!" Once more, just take a look at the article above and see how wrong my opponent is in making such claims. I expect my opponent to apologize for sharing such false information with the audience.

II. Reputation of the Business

Con fails to understand the point I am making here. It wouldn't take me telling everyone that I am hiring criminals to ruin my business reputation. What if I hired an ex-child molester as an employee at my day care business because I didn't ask him about his history, then, a week later he is busted grabbing the penis of a 4 year old boy. Does Pro really not see how such situations can ruin the reputation of a business? I highly doubt it. Con has also given no reason for us to assume that such a possibility wouldn't happen, there are countless cases of child molesters being released from jail only to commit the same crime again: http://www.norwalkreflector.com...

III. "everybody deserves a second chance"

Once more Pro presents data that remains unsupported by actual evidence. Furthermore, Pro still hasn't given us any kind of guarantee that these criminals won't commit another crime. Just because they "might not" commit the crime again is no reason nor guarantee that they won't. Pro claims we shouldn't be afraid of the of the "few who do". I strongly disagree. All it takes is one time, just one time, and someone you love or employed could be dead. Just one time is all it takes to steal a customers identity while holding their credit card in hand. My opponent fails to grasp the reality that it just takes one time. The fact that the risk still remains, regardless of how big or little the chance, means exactly that - the risk still remains.

Pro also completely dropped my point about criminals getting their records expunged or sealed as a viable option for helping themselves get jobs.

IV. "not getting a job can lead to reoffense"

Pro draws the focus on the terms "can" and "lead" as some means of proving the validity of this claim. The issue with this reasoning is that I can play the same game. "Not getting a job might not lead to reoffense" see, I just flipped it, and guess what? It's just as valid as my opponent's claim! Why? Because neither side is showing a cause, but rather just a correlation. Both sides are nothing more than possibilities, neither are absolute fact. There is no reason to accept such a claim as the only valid claim here, nor does Pro's claim prove to be any more valid than my own. Furthermore, if the ex-criminal commits another crime to provide for his family, then he has every right to not be hired at places as his own nature proved that he was not yet fully prepared to be a positive contributor to our society. There are countless means for an ex-convict to get a job, as I showed in the previous round, just because some of them fail to do so does not outweigh the fact that others are fully successful in their pursuit of obtaining a job after jail.

My opponent is basically arguing that being poor can lead to committing crimes, thus we must hire the poor. Trade "poor" in for "criminals" and this is what my opponent is saying. It's absurd.

V. "disregarding applications from criminals is discrimination"

Pro fails to understand that just because he claims a news outlet said something doesn't mean they actually did, nor does it mean that such a claim is automatically fact - news outlets can be mistaken. Both myself and the audience need proof of this claim.

I've shown the definition of "discrimination" and no-where does it include criminals or anything related to criminals. Pro is literally creating his own definition of "discrimination" and it simply doesn't uphold against the true definition accepted by Oxford which I shared in the previous round. Pro also fails to apologize or recognize that he committed a red herring fallacy with this point in the last round.

Additional Rebuttals

VI. "This will help America"s problem of massive unemployment."

Considering that there are regular Americans with no criminal record in need of jobs, what makes pro think that a business would choose them over someone with no criminal record? Pro continues to share statistics that remain unproven. I have no idea where he is getting the data from, but I can just as easily say 1 in 10 Americans have a criminal history. Without evidence for the claim there is no reason to accept it as valid.

Pro claims that this will help America's unemployment rate. What Pro fails to realize is that job demand is exactly that - demand. Without the demand, there is no reason to hire someone. Considering that there are countless Americans which remain without a job - record or not - I see no possible way for criminals to suddenly get hired at places that aren't even hiring non-criminals. Pro expects that this law will just suddenly increase the demands for employees but fails to realize that this isn't how the world works.

Pro further states, "a problem plaguing America, because then they aren"t going to be able to find a job, then they can"t provide for themselves, then they go back to their old ways."

If they fall back onto their old ways then they deserve to be jailed again. I don't see how this is even debatable. As I've shown previously, there are several opportunities for ex-convicts to find employment with organizations and programs specifically designated to that sole purpose. I gave these links last round, and stand by them since Pro has yet to provide any rebuttal to that point.

VII. "It"ll also bring down the prisoner rate while it brings up the employment rate."

This entire argument by Pro rests on the faulty premise that getting a job will "very likely lead to reoffense". Pro has utilized this same point in like 3 different arguments. I've already shown the fault with this assumption and until Pro rebuts that there is no reason for me to delve any further into this point as it's already been previously rebutted in my earlier rebuttals this round.

In closing,

I've rebutted every argument raised by Pro. I've additionally provided further argumentation to the first two points. Pro lacks any and all evidence to support literally every presentation of statistics. Pro also continues to fail at presenting evidence for his claims regarding news outlets. Pro has also dropped a few points which I expanded on earlier pertaining to job opportunities specifically tailored to ex-convicts, as well as the fact that they can have their records expunged/sealed. Pro additionally dropped all point regarding juveniles.

As it stands, Pro's case is defeated.

I now return the floor to Pro and thank the audience for their patience and time.
Debate Round No. 2
Bwacit

Pro

http://scholar.harvard.edu...
http://www.economist.com...
http://www.sfgate.com...
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.forbes.com...

Okay, I would first like to apologize. I was unaware that you were able to post direct links to your sources, and I agree with my opponent that without these links my points did seem invalid. However, I have posted links to most of my sites, therefor all of my points are now backed up.

Secondly, I will give a roadmap for my third and final speech. I will first refute the Opposition's points, then strengthen my own team's points, and in the end I will weigh this debate.

REFUTING

The Opposition has not layer any new points on the table, and seeing as I refuted his original three in my previous speech, all of the Opp/Con's points remain refuted, and not standing.

STRENGTHENING

1) Everybody deserves a second chance.
Judge, nobody is perfect, and we cannot expect anybody to live a successful life if we prohibit them from making mistakes. We cannot move forward until we move past what has happened before, but by making people's criminal records follow them everywhere, we are not allowing forgiveness or the chance to learn from your mistakes.

2) Not getting a job can lead to reoffense.
This debate has been going back and forth about how it could or could not lead back to reoffense, but what my opponent is failing to understand is that, rather correlation OR causation, it more commonly does vs doesn't cause reoffense, and should we not base this debate off of what is most likely to occur? Yes, showing that this point remains valid.

3) Disregarding applications from criminals is classified as discrimination.
This is according to the New York Times, (and yes I have sourced it). Discrimination is anything that unfairly biases a select group of individuals. This proves that it IS discrimination because we are unfairly disregarding applicants with criminal history, leaving this point valid.

4) This will help with unemployment.
Judge, a statistic from Minneapolis University showed that once the 'ban the box' act was passed, the number of criminals finding jobs increased from 6-60%, and unemployment rates steadily decreased. Not only did this help their economy, but the ex-convicts as well. This is causation rather than correlation, because nothing had changed except for this new law, and therefore it must have been the cause of such a significant change.

5) It will bring down the prisoner rate.
This relates to my second point, because if there is less reoffense there will be less prisoners, and therefore a better economy.

WEIGHING

Judge, I would like to put this is a simple format; what will happen in the rite of we go with the Proposition(pro) vs the Opposition(Con).

Pro: There will be a more fair and just society, where people can live natural, human lives, with mistakes and learning. There will be less discrimination and unemployment, less prisoners, so therefore a lower tax rate., and a better economy. A better economy lets America remain the economic innovative powerhouse it is looked upon as, and will impact everybody positively.

Con: If you go with the Con, however, there will be an unfair and inhuman society, where people are prohibited from making mistakes. It will be ridden with discrimination, there will be higher unemployment, and more taxes. The economy will be harmed, and the United States will have less power and strength than before. Our country will no longer be known for its accepting nature, but rather for its inhuman standards.

As you can see, only one of these visions is possible.

Judge, as you can see I have now refuted all three of the opposition's points, and all of mine remain standing, showing that the proposition should win this debate.
Also, I would like to point out that even if all the Opposition's points were still standing, and my refutes were invalid, the Pro side would STILL win this debate, because having an accepting nature and powerful economy will outweigh anything the Opposition says, because it impacts everybody.
Thank you all for your time, and I strongly urge a vote towards the Pro side of this debate.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I'm pleased to see that Pro posted some of his sources. Unfortunately, they are only some of his total sources. For instance, in Round 1 Pro presented data supposedly from Los Angeles Times as his support for the argument that "not getting a job can lead to reoffense." Pro has yet to provide that source. In another instance, Pro quotes the Economist for evidence of the amount of juvenile prisoners in California. However, Pro later drops my argument regarding juvenile records being wiped clean once they become an adult. So while he does provide some sources in this final round, Pro has still left other claims completely invalidated and additionally shares sources for arguments that have since been dropped by himself.

I. Safety of the work environment

Pro offered no rebuttals due to his misbelief that his previous rebuttals were still standing.

In Pro's previous response to this argument, he presented the faulty claim that "people who have committed crimes that can put your life in imminent danger are in jail." I showed the fault with that claim by sharing this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
The article showed five different people who were released from Prison and caused imminent danger. Pro needed to back up his original claim in light of this response from me and failed to do so. Thus, Pro dropped this argument.

Pro additionally claimed in the round before his last one that, "If you are arrested for murder or assault, you will stay in prison for a long time - anywhere from 50 years to life!" In the very same article I just shared above it shows people charged with murder who were released way before 50 years was served. This, again, proves Pro's claims as wrong. Pro needed to provide a rebuttal to this but never did in his last round. Thus, Pro dropped this argument as well.

Lastly, the only rebuttal Pro did give to this line of argumentation were stats from Forbes and The Guardian. Unfortunately for Pro, he still never shared the Guardian source, thus that argument fails to uphold its validity. Pro even said, " I agree with my opponent that without these links my points did seem invalid." Since he failed to link the guardian article, in his own words it is invalid.

As for the Forbes article, his own source states that: Unlike similar laws in other jurisdictions, however, New Jersey employers may make criminal background inquiries prior to making a formal offer.
[1] This shows that his own source STILL allows for the inquiry of a criminal past before formally hiring the potential employee. His own source fails to uphold the standards he is trying to argue for. His source literally defeats the point he is trying to utilize it for.

II. Reputation of the Business

Pro failed to provide any rebuttal to this line of argumentation in his final round. Pro's claim regarding both Argument I & II that, "The Opposition has not layer any new points on the table" is patently and empirically false. In the last round I not only expanded my argument by adding further clarification, but I additionally provided evidence for the possibility of the scenario of child molesters committing the same crime again which can be viewed, once more, here: http://www.norwalkreflector.com...

Not once did Pro refute this latest evidence I provided in the previous round. Due to Pro's lack of a rebuttal to these new points I raised, it's evident that Pro dropped this argument.

So far, Pro has dropped two key arguments.

III. "everybody deserves a second chance"

For the past two rounds he hasn't provided any form of rebuttal to my point regarding criminals having the ability to expunge or seal their criminal records. This is Pro's 3rd dropped argument.

His only rebuttal to my argument regarding potential risk is that "we can't move forward until we move past what has happened before." This does nothing to negate the reality that it only takes one time for someone to have their identity stolen by a criminal waiter, or their business to be ruined by a previously incarcerated arsonist. Pro needed to negate that risk factor, and instead presented an appeal to emotion [2] which is his 2nd logical fallacy in this debate.

IV. "not getting a job can lead to reoffense"

No, we shouldn't base this debate off of what is most likely to occur. Pro is arguing against the status quo, and therefore must provide grounds for a change in the system which leaves the sole BOP on Pro.

Pro failed at presenting those grounds by failing to utilize any form of evidence to support his claims. None of the sources he shared in his last round touch on this claim. In Round 1 he claimed his info came from L.A. Times, yet none of his sources that were shared are from the LA Times. Pro, according to his own rules, fails to uphold his burden.

V. "disregarding applications from criminals is discrimination"

Pro depends solely on NY Times articles to define what discrimination is regardless of the definition from Oxford. According to Pro, "Discrimination is anything that unfairly biases a select group of individuals." He then claims this proves it's discrimination because we are unfairly disregarding applicants with criminal history. Here's the kicker, Pro's own source actually agrees with me, not him.

According to Pro's own source: while federal law prohibits discrimination against job seekers based solely on criminal history, employers are permitted to deny jobs to ex-offenders if a crime is deemed to be directly related to the work — for example, if a person convicted of theft is applying to be a cashier. [3]

They actually support my position regarding scenarios like child molesters being hired by day cares, or people charged with identity theft working as restaurant servers. As you can see, discrimination does not include ex-offenders if a crime is deemed to be directly related to the work. Once again, Pro's own source defeats the point he was utilizing it for.

VI. "This will help America"s problem of massive unemployment."

Pro fails, once again, to provide any source for his claims regarding the Minneapolis University study. The source for that study was not given in Pro's last round, thus these statistics are nothing more than an unproven claim by Pro. There is no reason for either myself or the audience to accept it as valid when no supporting evidence is provided. Since Pro's own arguments are unfounded and unsupported by evidence, this claim is invalid.

VII. "It'll also bring down the prisoner rate while it brings up the employment rate."

Pro never provided proof for a correlation or cause between unemployment rate and prisoner rates. None of his sources cover such a claim. Once more, Pro presents unfounded claims as arguments. Furthermore, Pro never showed how this would be beneficial to the economy. In the round before his last, he claimed a study done in NYC showed such, but there was no study provided for us to use as verification for his claims in this debate.

"There will be less discrimination and unemployment, less prisoners, so therefore a lower tax rate., and a better economy." - Pro.

This is entirely unfounded and unproven by Pro. None of his sources validate such a claim.

"I would like to point out that even if all the Opposition's points were still standing, and my refutes were invalid, the Pro side would STILL win this debate." - Pro

False.

As Pro, you needed to overcome EVERY challenge I presented since the BOP is solely on you due to the change in status quo. If you failed to overcome even one of my challenges, you rightfully lose.

Sources

[1] http://www.forbes.com...
[2] http://www.nizkor.org...
[3] http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
"Crimes" , "criminals" , "illegalities" , "crime scenes" , "felonies" , "misdemeanors" , etc. , don't exist. Such concepts Violate BASIC Legal & Constitutional Principles, such as Presumption of Innocence, Legal Due Process, etc. (Since people are Presumed to be Innocent of "crimes" , there can't be any such things as "crimes" .
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
I agree with what blade just said below.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Great debate Pro. Although I personally feel that you lost this one due to the massive BOP you took on, I fully believe that you will become a strong debater here on DDO with a solid win record over time.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
BwacitBlade-of-TruthTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I found pros argument unconvincing. The only one of Cons rebuttals that I didn't feel overwhelmed Pros argument was on the unemployement rate. Con still defeated the argument just not in overwhelming way. Sources to con for citing all of them, and Pro did not.
Vote Placed by Oliark 2 years ago
Oliark
BwacitBlade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:02 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO fails to provide full list of sources. Both Pro and Con did an excellent debate. If pro had properly backed his claims, my vote would have been in his favour.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
BwacitBlade-of-TruthTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO has he BOP. As CON pointed out, PRO must respond to every challenge to PRO's premise. PRO made many unsubstantiated claims and didn't post her sources until the final round, and then does not connect them to each argument with either a footnote ([1]) or a link under the paragraph. And even then, continues to make unsubstantiated claims for the remainder of the round. CON pointed out all of these unsourced arguments, noting that this created unproven assertions. Which means, by definition, PRO failed to prove her arguments that being a criminal would increase recidivism, for example. Arguments CON. I must also note that CON did provide references when creating a claim. Therefore, sources also go to Blade.